The value and need for more open and FAIR data sharing to bolster biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4240745/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The value and need for more open and FAIR data sharing to bolster biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4240745/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

The tropical Southeast Asian region, with its unique geographical characteristics and features, is home to a multitude of distinct species found in 11 nations. However, the availability of biodiversity data for several taxonomic groups remains unclear. In this study, I examined 17,126,598 occurrence records from Southeast Asia in the GBIF database to compare species data turnover in the region and compare them based on taxonomic groups. The analysis revealed significant disparities in data availability and usage between countries and taxonomic groups within SEA using GBIF. Moreover, there were weak and no correlations among species occurrence records, country size, and GDP. Based on my research, I would argue for a more concerted effort to incorporate and implement FAIR data-sharing approaches in biodiversity research in Southeast Asia. This should become a standard in the scientific community and be integrated into existing biodiversity agendas and frameworks, especially for funded research projects. This will enable a better understanding of biodiversity patterns and will facilitate the development of effective conservation strategies in Southeast Asia. This adaptive management approach is critical for responding to emerging threats and ensuring the long-term sustainability of conservation efforts. In conclusion, these initiatives play a crucial role in enhancing biodiversity conservation in SEA by promoting access to information, fostering collaboration, enabling evidence-based decision-making, engaging local communities, and supporting adaptive management practices.

Accessibility

Biodiversity data

GBIF

Synthesis

Tropics

Human activities have significantly altered the natural world, reducing its negative impacts, and preserving and protecting the remaining biodiversity for the next decades is one of the key goals of the recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022; Hughes & Grumbine, 2023). Achieving the goals of the new framework requires access to accurate biodiversity information to help design effective conservation strategies and address the impacts of various threats (Gonzalez et al., 2023; Hughes et al., 2023; Webb et al., 2010). Biodiversity data are valuable outputs generated from field studies and assessments and can be utilised to address significant ecological and conservation questions and guide new areas of enquiry, testable hypotheses, and understand patterns (Funk & Richardson, 2002; Vargas et al., 2024). The collation and synthesis of data from various contexts is vital for broader ecological knowledge and informing conservation management, which is crucial for establishing the historical and future trajectories of ecosystems and species (Araújo et al., 2019). However, despite their significance and the need for consolidated and interoperable biodiversity data to enable comprehensive analysis, many biodiversity data are often misplaced, filed away, or rendered unusable due to poor data management practices (Faith et al., 2013; Webb et al., 2010). This is a particularly significant challenge in developing economies, where biodiversity is heavily concentrated, yet much biodiversity remains underutilised (Hughes, 2017b, 2017a; Webb et al., 2010).

Open data and FAIR data initiatives have emerged as transformative forces in biodiversity conservation efforts worldwide (Heberling et al., 2021; Salguero-Gómez et al., 2021). Through these initiatives, vast repositories of information pertaining to rich biodiversity have become accessible to a wide range of stakeholders (Costello et al., 2013). This includes data on the distribution of species, their traits, habitat status, presence of threatening processes, and availability of ongoing conservation efforts (Etard et al., 2020; Heberling et al., 2021; Orr et al., 2022). Furthermore, accessibility to biodiversity data breaks down barriers, ensuring that scientists, policymakers, conservationists, and the public have the necessary insights to contribute effectively to conservation efforts (Costello et al., 2013; Salguero-Gómez et al., 2021).

The Southeast Asia (SEA) region is one of the world’s centres for biodiversity, comprising four of the 34 biodiversity hotspots, boasting a vast array of unique species found nowhere else on Earth (de Bruyn et al., 2014). However, this natural wealth is threatened by rapid urbanisation, deforestation, pollution, and climate change (Posa et al., 2008; Sodhi et al., 2004). Given the projected threat of human activities and stochastic events brought about by climate change, there is an urgent need to prioritise biodiversity conservation and address threats in SEA. Most biodiversity information obtained from field studies in Southeast Asia (SEA) is challenging to access, which could be attributed to the absence of a centralised repository (Webb et al., 2010) linked to larger networks such as GBIF. These data are often unpublished, unorganised, or subject to gatekeeping by other institutions (for example, Tanalgo et al., 2023).

In this study, I aim to gain insights into the status of biodiversity data availability and sharing across Southeast Asia and pinpoint important gaps in data-sharing initiatives in the region. Using the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) database, I conducted a straightforward comparison of biodiversity record turnover among Southeast Asian countries and examined their relationships with country land area and GDP. By understanding the extent to which biodiversity data are available and the countries where sharing efforts fall short, this study further aims to provide valuable information that can catalyse improvements in data accessibility and collaboration among conservation biologists and practitioners in the SEA region to accelerate conservation efforts in the region.

Country-level activity reports from Southeast Asia were collated from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) database on 1 April 2024. This report contains a detailed national overview of mobilisation efforts, availability of data across major taxonomic groups, and utilisation of open-access data within the GBIF network. Information on the (i) frequency of occurrence records from major taxonomic groups, (ii) number of articles published using GBIF data since 2008, and (iii) data monthly download from 2023 were extracted and compared for each country using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Furthermore, I determined whether there is congruence in biodiversity data turnover among taxonomic groups and between country GDP ( World Bank, 2022) using Kendall’s tau-b correlation.

A total of 17,126,598 records have been reported in Southeast Asia. Significant differences were observed in the frequency of occurrence records among taxonomic groups (Kruskal-Wallis test: H = 69.08, df = 13, p < 0.001) and countries (Kruskal-Wallis test: H = 68.62, df = 10, p < 0.001). Among SEA countries, Thailand (28%), Indonesia (19%), Malaysia (18%), and the Philippines (13%) ranked the highest in terms of percentage contribution occurrence records in GBIF. Moreover, there was a noticeable significant difference in terms of monthly data download across countries (Kruskal-Wallis test: H = 105.875, df = 10, p < 0.001). In terms of GBIF data use, Indonesia (n = 81), Singapore (n = 59), and Thailand (n = 56) produced the highest number of articles based on GBIF data, whereas Laos, Cambodia, and Timor Leste produced the lowest. This is congruent with country-level monthly data access activity. There was an apparent bias among taxonomic groups; I found that birds (62%), flowering plants (13%), and insects (9%) were the most common groups contributing to the overall SEA records. Among vertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles, like other plant and fungal groups, remain poorly reported in GBIF.

Generally, a strong correlation was evident between the taxonomic groups (Fig. 2A). However, a weak correlation exists between the overall country records and land area (log₁₀) (Kendall’s tau-b = 0.311, p < 0.001). Upon analysing taxonomic-level comparisons, only substantial correlations were found among angiosperms, bony fishes, gymnosperms, insects, and mosses (Fig. 2B). However, only a marginal correlation was observed between the species occurrence records and country GDP (Kendall’s tau-b = 0.105, p = 0.063).

The concentration of biodiversity is high in Southeast Asia (Hughes, 2017a); however, the current analysis showed that it was not reflected based on the availability of biodiversity data in GBIF, and a significant lack of comprehensive data across countries and taxonomic groups was observed. Analysis of data from Southeast Asia revealed a significant disparity in the availability and utilisation of data among the countries in the region. Surprisingly, country size did not seem to correlate strongly with the level of biodiversity data recorded, suggesting that factors beyond the land area relationship did not influence the extent of the biodiversity records. Contrary to expectations, country GDP showed no correlation, suggesting that other factors, such as interest in data sharing, might be a driving factor instead of socioeconomic factors (Moura & Jetz, 2021). In addition, the available GBIF data are biased towards bird records (more than 50%), which may be due to their higher detectability and public interest (e.g. bird watchers deposit records in eBird) (Callaghan & Gawlik, 2015) compared to other taxonomic groups such as herptiles (Guedes et al., 2023). This points to the broader issue of unequal public attention, access to resources, and unequal contributions to biodiversity research within the region.

Comprehensive data management strategies are crucial to effectively conserve and manage natural wealth in SEA, and FAIR principles may offer a robust framework to achieve this goal and reduce bias. Moreover, the collaborative nature of open data and FAIR data platforms fosters synergy among the various actors involved in conservation. Government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions, and local communities within SEA can share expertise, resources, and best practices, leading to the co-creation of innovative conservation strategies (Reyserhove et al., 2020). These strategies can be specifically tailored to address the unique, but shared ecological challenges faced by SEA countries. More importantly, open data facilitates evidence-based decision-making processes within a region. When a biodiversity data platform is available and harmonised, policymakers can draw upon a wealth of data to prioritise conservation actions, allocate funding appropriately, easily monitor progress over time, and share strategies among nations (Sterner & Elliott, 2023).

FAIR data sharing in SEA

The gap in biodiversity knowledge not only hinders our understanding of the complex ecosystems present but also poses challenges to effective conservation efforts and the sustainable management of natural resources (Diniz-Filho et al., 2013; Hortal et al., 2015). Without sufficient data, it is difficult to accurately assess the status and implement targeted conservation strategies for various species and habitats (Hughes et al., 2021). Based on my findings, I propose that greater efforts should be made to incorporate and implement FAIR data-sharing approaches in biodiversity research in Southeast Asia, as this should become a scientific norm and be integrated into existing biodiversity agendas and frameworks, particularly for funded projects.

Findability is the first pillar of FAIR data-sharing (Reyserhove et al., 2020). Biodiversity scientists from institutions in SEA countries should ensure that biodiversity data are easily discoverable through standardised and harmonised metadata and indexing protocols that can quickly locate relevant information, such as the GBIF. Making biodiversity data accessible further facilitates more robust evidence-based decision-making and maximises the utilisation of existing data for conservation planning and management initiatives (e.g. developing species distribution models) (Cayuela et al., 2009; Gonzalez et al., 2023; Orr et al., 2022). Accessibility is equally important, as diverse stakeholders spread across various sectors and geographical regions (Costello et al., 2013). Accessible biodiversity data would promote transparency, foster public engagement, and empower local communities to participate actively in harmonised conservation efforts throughout the country. Moreover, ensuring that data are available in user-friendly formats and that language translations enhance inclusivity and enable broader participation in biodiversity conservation activities.

Most importantly, interoperable data would enable centralised biodiversity data exchange and promote seamless integration across different platforms, databases, and institutions (Hardisty et al., 2019). Given the interdisciplinary nature of biodiversity conservation, interoperable data facilitates interdisciplinary research collaborations and approaches to address complex conservation challenges (Hardisty et al., 2019; Sterner & Elliott, 2023). This can be achieved by standardising data formats and ontologies and implementing interoperable frameworks and pipelines that enhance data integration, analysis, and synthesis, which consequently enables a comprehensive assessment of biodiversity status and trends across the country (Costello & Wieczorek, 2014). Finally, reproducibility ensures the reliability and credibility of biodiversity data by making methodologies, workflows, and analytical tools transparent and well-documented in data collection and archiving (Jenkins et al., 2023). Implementing reproducibility in data gathering and sharing enables independent curation, validation, and replication of research findings, which enhances the scientific rigor and trustworthiness of the available biodiversity data from the country. Overall, by integrating the concept of open and FAIR data sharing, biodiversity data from SEA could be integrated into global biodiversity analysis.

This data-driven approach ensures that the interventions are targeted, efficient, and responsive to changing circumstances, and more importantly, promotes community engagement and empowerment. For example, such initiatives could foster a sense of ownership and stewardship of natural resources by involving local communities, including indigenous people who possess valuable traditional knowledge (Cámara-Leret et al., 2019). Additionally, open data and FAIR data platforms serve as educational tools, raising awareness about the importance of biodiversity conservation and inspiring collective action at the grassroots level.

In summary, making wise decisions about biodiversity conservation hinges on obtaining accurate information and making it available for greater use (Orr et al., 2022; Sterner & Elliott, 2023). Adopting open and FAIR data principles can improve biodiversity conservation efforts in developing economies by making data more easily discoverable, accessible, and usable across neighbouring nations. Access to open and FAIR data can help policymakers in tropical Southeast Asian countries to develop and implement science-based conservation policies and management plans. More importantly, the implementation of this strategy relies on prioritising policies that support it and improving research on taxonomic groups that lack information on biodiversity data-sharing platforms (Lacher et al., 2012). Finally, I hope to raise awareness about the importance of democratising data for larger applications in ecology and conservation. This involves academics, funding organisations, and field researchers working together to make their data publicly available through publications, and by depositing them on FAIR data platforms. Additionally, concerted efforts to address these disparities and promote equitable access to resources and technologies for biodiversity documentation and conservation, building capacity, and creating more inclusive biodiversity networks within countries and across Southeast Asia are crucial for achieving this goal.

Araújo, M. B., Anderson, R. P., Márcia Barbosa, A., Beale, C. M., Dormann, C. F., Early, R., Garcia, R. A., Guisan, A., Maiorano, L., Naimi, B., O’Hara, R. B., Zimmermann, N. E., & Rahbek, C. (2019). Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments. Science Advances, 5(1), eaat4858. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat4858
Callaghan, C. T., & Gawlik, D. E. (2015). Efficacy of eBird data as an aid in conservation planning and monitoring. Journal of Field Ornithology, 86(4), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12121
Cámara-Leret, R., Fortuna, M. A., & Bascompte, J. (2019). Indigenous knowledge networks in the face of global change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(20), 9913–9918. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821843116
Cayuela, L., Golicher, D. J., Newton, A. C., Kolb, M., de Alburquerque, F. S., Arets, E. J. M. M., Alkemade, J. R. M., & Pérez, A. M. (2009). Species Distribution Modeling in the Tropics: Problems, Potentialities, and the Role of Biological Data for Effective Species Conservation. Tropical Conservation Science, 2(3), 319–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008290900200304
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). 15/4. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Costello, M. J., Michener, W. K., Gahegan, M., Zhang, Z.-Q., & Bourne, P. E. (2013). Biodiversity data should be published, cited, and peer reviewed. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(8), 454–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002
Costello, M. J., & Wieczorek, J. (2014). Best practice for biodiversity data management and publication. Biological Conservation, 173, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.018
de Bruyn, M., Stelbrink, B., Morley, R. J., Hall, R., Carvalho, G. R., Cannon, C. H., van den Bergh, G., Meijaard, E., Metcalfe, I., Boitani, L., Maiorano, L., Shoup, R., & von Rintelen, T. (2014). Borneo and Indochina are Major Evolutionary Hotspots for Southeast Asian Biodiversity. Systematic Biology, 63(6), 879–901. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu047
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Loyola, R. D., Raia, P., Mooers, A. O., & Bini, L. M. (2013). Darwinian shortfalls in biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(12), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.003
Etard, A., Morrill, S., & Newbold, T. (2020). Global gaps in trait data for terrestrial vertebrates. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 29(12), 2143–2158. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13184
Faith, D., Collen, B., Ariño, A., Koleff, P. K. P., Guinotte, J., Kerr, J., & Chavan, V. (2013). Bridging the biodiversity data gaps: Recommendations to meet users’ data needs. Biodiversity Informatics, 8(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17161/bi.v8i2.4126
Funk, V. A., & Richardson, K. S. (2002). Systematic Data in Biodiversity Studies: Use It or Lose It. Systematic Biology, 51(2), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150252899789
Gonzalez, A., Vihervaara, P., Balvanera, P., Bates, A. E., Bayraktarov, E., Bellingham, P. J., Bruder, A., Campbell, J., Catchen, M. D., Cavender-Bares, J., Chase, J., Coops, N., Costello, M. J., Czúcz, B., Delavaud, A., Dornelas, M., Dubois, G., Duffy, E. J., Eggermont, H., … Torrelio, C. Z. (2023). A global biodiversity observing system to unite monitoring and guide action. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(12), 1947–1952. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02171-0
Guedes, J. J. M., Moura, M. R., & Alexandre F. Diniz-Filho, J. (2023). Species out of sight: Elucidating the determinants of research effort in global reptiles. Ecography, 2023(3), e06491. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.06491
Hardisty, A. R., Michener, W. K., Agosti, D., Alonso García, E., Bastin, L., Belbin, L., Bowser, A., Buttigieg, P. L., Canhos, D. A. L., Egloff, W., De Giovanni, R., Figueira, R., Groom, Q., Guralnick, R. P., Hobern, D., Hugo, W., Koureas, D., Ji, L., Los, W., … Kissling, W. D. (2019). The Bari Manifesto: An interoperability framework for essential biodiversity variables. Ecological Informatics, 49, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.11.003
Heberling, J. M., Miller, J. T., Noesgaard, D., Weingart, S. B., & Schigel, D. (2021). Data integration enables global biodiversity synthesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018093118
Hortal, J., de Bello, F., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Lewinsohn, T. M., Lobo, J. M., & Ladle, R. J. (2015). Seven Shortfalls that Beset Large-Scale Knowledge of Biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 46(1), 523–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054400
Hughes, A. C. (2017a). Mapping priorities for conservation in Southeast Asia. Biological Conservation, 209, 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.007
Hughes, A. C. (2017b). Understanding the drivers of Southeast Asian biodiversity loss. Ecosphere, 8(1), e01624. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1624
Hughes, A. C., & Grumbine, R. E. (2023). The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: What it does and does not do, and how to improve it. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1281536
Hughes, A. C., Orr, M. C., Ma, K., Costello, M. J., Waller, J., Provoost, P., Yang, Q., Zhu, C., & Qiao, H. (2021). Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world. Ecography, 44(9), 1259–1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05926
Hughes, A., Dorey, J., Bossert, S., Qiao, H., & Orr, M. (2023). Big data-big problems? How to circumvent problems in biodiversity mapping and ensure meaningful results. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.169511799.92565845/v1
Jenkins, G. B., Beckerman, A. P., Bellard, C., Benítez-López, A., Ellison, A. M., Foote, C. G., Hufton, A. L., Lashley, M. A., Lortie, C. J., Ma, Z., Moore, A. J., Narum, S. R., Nilsson, J., O’Boyle, B., Provete, D. B., Razgour, O., Rieseberg, L., Riginos, C., Santini, L., … Peres-Neto, P. R. (2023). Reproducibility in ecology and evolution: Minimum standards for data and code. Ecology and Evolution, 13(5), e9961. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9961
Lacher, T. E., Boitani, L., & da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2012). The IUCN global assessments: Partnerships, collaboration and data sharing for biodiversity science and policy. Conservation Letters, 5(5), 327–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00249.x
Moura, M. R., & Jetz, W. (2021). Shortfalls and opportunities in terrestrial vertebrate species discovery. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01411-5
Orr, M. C., Hughes, A. C., Costello, M. J., & Qiao, H. (2022). Biodiversity data synthesis is critical for realizing a functional post-2020 framework. Biological Conservation, 274, 109735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109735
Posa, M. R. C., Diesmos, A. C., Sodhi, N. S., & Brooks, T. M. (2008). Hope for Threatened Tropical Biodiversity: Lessons from the Philippines. BioScience, 58(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580309
Reyserhove, L., Desmet, P., Oldoni, D., Adriaens, T., Strubbe, D., Davis, A. J. S., Vanderhoeven, S., Verloove, F., & Groom, Q. (2020). A checklist recipe: Making species data open and FAIR. Database, 2020, baaa084. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baaa084
Salguero-Gómez, R., Jackson, J., & Gascoigne, S. J. L. (2021). Four key challenges in the open-data revolution. Journal of Animal Ecology, 90(9), 2000–2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13567
Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W., & Ng, P. K. L. (2004). Southeast Asian biodiversity: An impending disaster. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(12), 654–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.006
Sterner, B., & Elliott, S. (2023). How data governance principles influence participation in biodiversity science. Science as Culture, 0(0), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2214155
Tanalgo, K., Cruz, K. D., Agduma, A., Respicio, J. M., Abdullah, S., Alvaro-Ele, R. J., Hilario-Husain, B. A., Manampan-Rubio, M., Murray, S., Casim, L., Pantog, A. M., Balase, S. M., Abdulkasan, R. M., Aguirre, C. A., Banto, N., Broncate, S. M., Dimacaling, A., Fabrero, G. V., Lidasan, A., … Unte, N. (2023). The MOBIOS+: A FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) database for Mindanao’s terrestrial biodiversity. Biodiversity Data Journal, 11, e110016. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.11.e110016
The World Bank. (2022). GDP per capita (current US$) | Data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
Vargas, C. A., Bottin, M., Sarkinen, T., Richardson, J. E., Celis, M., Villanueva, B., & Sanchez, A. (2024). How to fill the biodiversity data gap: Is it better to invest in fieldwork or curation? Plant Diversity, 46(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2023.06.003
Webb, C. O., Slik, J. W. F., & Triono, T. (2010). Biodiversity inventory and informatics in Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(4), 955–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9817-x

The authors declare no competing interests.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

The value and need for more open and FAIR data sharing to bolster biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods and approach

Results

Discussion

FAIR data sharing in SEA

Conclusion and synthesis

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1