Enabling FAIR data in Earth and environmental science with community-centric (meta)data reporting formats.

Research can be more transparent and collaborative by using Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles to publish Earth and environmental science data. Reporting formats-instructions, templates, and tools for consistently formatting data within a discipline-can help make data more accessible and reusable. However, the immense diversity of data types across Earth science disciplines makes development and adoption challenging. Here, we describe 11 community reporting formats for a diverse set of Earth science (meta)data including cross-domain metadata (dataset metadata, location metadata, sample metadata), file-formatting guidelines (file-level metadata, CSV files, terrestrial model data archiving), and domain-specific reporting formats for some biological, geochemical, and hydrological data (amplicon abundance tables, leaf-level gas exchange, soil respiration, water and sediment chemistry, sensor-based hydrologic measurements). More broadly, we provide guidelines that communities can use to create new (meta)data formats that integrate with their scientific workflows. Such reporting formats have the potential to accelerate scientific discovery and predictions by making it easier for data contributors to provide (meta)data that are more interoperable and reusable.

Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices.

The biological sciences community is increasingly recognizing the value of open, reproducible and transparent research practices for science and society at large. Despite this recognition, many researchers fail to share their data and code publicly. This pattern may arise from knowledge barriers about how to archive data and code, concerns about its reuse, and misaligned career incentives. Here, we define, categorize and discuss barriers to data and code sharing that are relevant to many research fields. We explore how real and perceived barriers might be overcome or reframed in the light of the benefits relative to costs. By elucidating these barriers and the contexts in which they arise, we can take steps to mitigate them and align our actions with the goals of open science, both as individual scientists and as a scientific community.

Geographic and taxonomic trends of rising biological invasion costs.

Invasive alien species (IAS) are a growing global ecological problem. Reports on the socio-economic impacts of biological invasions are accumulating, but our understanding of temporal trends across regions and taxa remains scarce. Accordingly, we investigated temporal trends in the economic cost of IAS and cost-reporting literature using the InvaCost database and meta-regression modelling approaches. Overall, we found that both the cost reporting literature and monetary costs increased significantly over time at the global scale, but costs increased faster than reports. Differences in global trends suggest that cost literature has accumulated most rapidly in North America and Oceania, while monetary costs have exhibited the steepest increase in Oceania, followed by Europe, Africa and North America. Moreover, the costs for certain taxonomic groups were more prominent than others and the distribution also differed spatially, reflecting a potential lack of generality in cost-causing taxa and disparate patterns of cost reporting. With regard to global trends within the Animalia and Plantae kingdoms, costs for flatworms, mammals, flowering and vascular plants significantly increased. Our results highlight significantly increasing research interest and monetary impacts of biological invasions globally, but uncover key regional differences driven by variability in reporting of costs across countries and taxa. Our findings also suggest that regions which previously had lower research effort (e.g., Africa) exhibit rapidly increasing costs, comparable to regions historically at the forefront of invasion research. While these increases may be driven by specific countries within regions, we illustrate that even after accounting for research effort (cost reporting), costs of biological invasions are rising.

Economic costs of biological invasions in the United States.

The United States has thousands of invasive species, representing a sizable, but unknown burden to the national economy. Given the potential economic repercussions of invasive species, quantifying these costs is of paramount importance both for national economies and invasion management. Here, we used a novel global database of invasion costs (InvaCost) to quantify the overall costs of invasive species in the United States across spatiotemporal, taxonomic, and socioeconomic scales. From 1960 to 2020, reported invasion costs totaled $4.52 trillion (USD 2017). Considering only observed, highly reliable costs, this total cost reached $1.22 trillion with an average annual cost of $19.94 billion/year. These costs increased from $2.00 billion annually between 1960 and 1969 to $21.08 billion annually between 2010 and 2020. Most costs (73%) were related to resource damages and losses ($896.22 billion), as opposed to management expenditures ($46.54 billion). Moreover, the majority of costs were reported from invaders from terrestrial habitats ($643.51 billion, 53%) and agriculture was the most impacted sector ($509.55 billion). From a taxonomic perspective, mammals ($234.71 billion) and insects ($126.42 billion) were the taxonomic groups responsible for the greatest costs. Considering the apparent rising costs of invasions, coupled with increasing numbers of invasive species and the current lack of cost information for most known invaders, our findings provide critical information for policymakers and managers.

Cumulative meta-analysis identifies declining but negative impacts of invasive species on richness after 20 yr.

A principal impact of invasive species is that they reduce local species richness. However, it is unknown whether the magnitude of the richness decrease has been consistent over the past two decades of published research. We used cumulative meta-analysis to synthesize evidence from 240 articles evaluating whether this cumulative evidence base generally supports, or refutes, the association between invasive species presence and richness declines. First, we determined whether evidence accumulation lowered the mean effect size of invasive species on local native richness through time; termed the "decline effect." Then, as mean effect sizes changed over time, we identified when accumulated evidence reached sufficiency, indicating that the mean effect direction (positive or negative) was unlikely to be reversed by unpublished research. We also assessed whether the mean effect size reached a threshold of stability over publication years. To date, no research has tested mechanisms of the decline effect, and here we determine whether publication bias, sample size, time since invasion, or invader trophic position are driving a decline effect in the published evidence base. We found a clear decline in the cumulative mean effect of invasive species on local native species richness as published evidence accumulated between 1999 and 2016. Despite this decline, an average negative association was stable and sufficiently robust to unpublished studies by 2007, showing a 21% mean richness decrease by 2016. Contrary to our expectation, the decline effect manifested consistently regardless of invasive species trophic position, time since invasion, or journal rank. Within taxonomic subgroups, trees, insects, and herbaceous plants exhibit a decline effect, yet still show sufficient and stable negative impacts on richness. However, many other taxonomic subgroups (e.g., crustaceans, fish, mammals) lack evidence for average negative impacts on richness, or have not met sufficiency or stability thresholds.