Report prepared for the Experts Meeting Towards the Implementation of a Global Invasive Species
Information Network (GISIN), 6-8 April, 2004. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Page 11
8/30/2004
We have identified over 150 potential
information systems for connecting, some of
which are already connected to each other
to some degree. The connectivity of these
loci is most affected by the format of the
database – the way that the data is
delivered or served online, and stored in the
database itself. Standards recommended by
the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) are evolving and growing with
information management technology and
information uses within the popular field of
biodiversity information management. In
addition to the standards recommended by
the CBD, and those being developed for
application with biodiversity data (such as
DiGIR), there are other standards that must
be considered such as those for Internet
content delivery.
Research Bias
With respect to the question of applicability,
the loci identified during this research
definitely exhibited a United States of
America (USA) bias. Approximately 50% of
the databases identified were originated in
the USA and/or focused on species in the
USA That bias may be an effect of
heightened productivity in the USA or an
effect of the research methodology. Almost
ever State in the USA supports its own
state-focused invasive species list,
database, Web page, information system,
native plant working group, invasive species
working group etc.
The potential effects of the research
methodology include those of performing
the research in English, from a United
States base, and time constraints that
prevented the complete examination of the
extensive lists of results generated by the
Internet search engines (thus potentially
limiting the examination to those results
appearing first in a Google list). The first
fifteen to twenty pages of each Internet
search were investigated in most instances.
Any investigation beyond this point usually
resulted in items that did not match the
search criteria (keywords).
Most of the databases are available in
English, if not entirely, then partially. Some
database have built in translation options
while you can employ translation tools such
as that offered by Google to generate an
alternate translation of databases served in
languages other than your own native
language. There were ten additional
languages supported by the databases, and
included in the top five spoken languages in
the world as well as the top five languages
used for delivering Web content. Language
support is an important consideration with
respect to reaching the broadest possible
audience with the information served
by/through the GISIN. FISHbase
demonstrates an exceptional level of
language support, currently serving
information in fourteen different languages,
with a fifteenth translation under
development. The project employs
SYSTRAN, the translation engine that is
behind Google, AltaVista and America
Online (AOL) and is leading the way in
information translation.
Loci – Description
Approximately 55 of the databases
contained information on floral invasive
species and 35 had an aquatic invasive
species focus. There is a lot of overlap
between these databases, because, for
example, invasive species can be both floral
and aquatic. It is quite difficult to separate
these databases into unique groups
according to the information they contain,
but an attempt was made to provide a rough
estimate of the numbers and types of loci
that were identified.
Although terrestrial fauna are not well
represented by existing IAS databases, they
are documented quite extensively in
biodiversity databases, but their status as
an invasive species is not necessarily
indicated. Thus we have identified IAS
databases as well as databases that contain
IAS information or designate or indicate IAS
species among their records.
 |
 |
 |