Font Size:
A decadal view of biodiversity informatics: challenges and priorities
Building: Grand Hotel Mediterraneo
Room: Africa (formerly America del Sud)
Date: 2013-10-30 05:15 PM – 05:30 PM
Last modified: 2013-10-08
Abstract
Biodiversity informatics plays a central enabling role in the research community's efforts to address scientific conservation and sustainability issues (Hardisty et al., 2013; doi:10.1186/1472-6785-13-16). Great strides have been made in the past decade establishing a framework for sharing data, where taxonomy and systematics has been perceived as the most prominent discipline involved. To some extent this is inevitable, given the use of species names as the pivot around which information is organised. To address the urgent questions around conservation, land-use, environmental change, sustainability, food security and ecosystem services that are facing Governments worldwide, we need to understand how the ecosystem works. So, we need a systems approach to understanding biodiversity that moves significantly beyond taxonomy and species observations. Such an approach needs to look at the whole system, to address species interactions, both with their environment and with other species. It is clear that some barriers to progress are sociological, basically persuading people to use the technological solutions that are already available. This is best addressed by developing more effective systems that deliver immediate benefit to the user, hiding the majority of the technology behind simple user interfaces. An infrastructure should be a space in which activities take place and, as such, should be effectively invisible.
A similar review of the field was undertaken by the Global Biodiversity Informatics Conference (GBIC) (Hobern et al., 2013; http://www.biodiversityinformatics.org), which came to broadly the same conclusions.
The recent Biodiversity Informatics Horizon (BIH 2013; http://h2020.myspecies.info) came to the conclusion that the field needed an overarching goal, which was agreed to be predictive modelling of biodiversity (Purves et al, 2013; doi:10.1038/493295a). This is a huge challenge that will require decades to complete and is more complicated than climate models. To achieve these goals we need (i) clarity of vision, greater focus on end-goals;(ii) good, simple tools with syntactic operability; (iii) community identity; and (iv) links! This last means both networking links between people, links between machines holding data resources and links with other communities, especially ecology, molecular biology, microbiology, agriculture, taxonomy, remote sensing and, of course, computing. Finally, for funding credibility, we need to form better links to policy, especially the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
A similar review of the field was undertaken by the Global Biodiversity Informatics Conference (GBIC) (Hobern et al., 2013; http://www.biodiversityinformatics.org), which came to broadly the same conclusions.
The recent Biodiversity Informatics Horizon (BIH 2013; http://h2020.myspecies.info) came to the conclusion that the field needed an overarching goal, which was agreed to be predictive modelling of biodiversity (Purves et al, 2013; doi:10.1038/493295a). This is a huge challenge that will require decades to complete and is more complicated than climate models. To achieve these goals we need (i) clarity of vision, greater focus on end-goals;(ii) good, simple tools with syntactic operability; (iii) community identity; and (iv) links! This last means both networking links between people, links between machines holding data resources and links with other communities, especially ecology, molecular biology, microbiology, agriculture, taxonomy, remote sensing and, of course, computing. Finally, for funding credibility, we need to form better links to policy, especially the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).