Thanks to new sensor technologies and growing citizen science efforts, biodiversity data are rapidly growing; but, this new data will only deliver new insights and outcomes for conservation if the right information about that data is captured and shared alongside.

‍

Over a decade ago, a standardized system for reporting and sharing biodiversity information was developed called Darwin Core. Darwin Core supports the downstream use of biodiversity occurrence data through a dedicated list of terms that data collectors submit alongside their data. These terms include such information as the taxonomic identity of the species and the means by which the data point was gathered, for example, by a human observer or a camera trap. 

‍

These terms work well for incidental occurrences, such as one-off species observations, but they do not address the rich information captured in more comprehensive biodiversity inventories and surveys. Structured surveys include critical information about the survey area, time span of data collection, or the set of species groups included, which can help infer the likelihood that species within those groups that weren’t detected are truly absent from the site. To date, standards and fields addressing these important survey metadata had not been formally characterized and adopted.

‍

This critical gap is now addressed through the multi-year effort initiated by the Yale Center of Biodiversity and Global Change that has led to the ratification of the Humboldt Extension to the Darwin Core. An accompanying publication led by Center member Dr. Yanina Sica describes the standard which was developed and refined over multiple years by a dedicated international team. 

The Humboldt Extension was initiated through a workshop of the Yale Biodiversity and Global Change Center held in 2013 that included key representatives from the global biodiversity science, informatics, and standards community and was formally proposed in Guralnick et al. (2018). After its pilot implementation in Map of Life, which relies on the Darwin Core and Humboldt Extension to ingest and mobilize diverse sources of biodiversity inventory data, the Humboldt Extension Working Group was formed to review and formalize the standards. Dr. Yanina Sica, then Lead Biodiversity Data Manager at the Map of Life and current Biodiversity Data Consultant at the BGC Center and Scientific Coordinator at IPBES, led the effort with a team of biodiversity data creators, managers, and users. The Extension is named after Alexander von Humboldt, a 19th century naturalist renowned for his detailed surveys of plant communities in the tropics.

‍

After reviewing and updating the biodiversity inventory concepts set forth in Guralnick et al. (2018), the working group formalized the definitions using the Darwin Core Model. They also coordinated a public review to solicit feedback from the biodiversity data community, which resulted in several useful additions and updates to the original proposal. The result was a final list of 55 new vocabulary terms, their definitions, usage comments, and examples along with a formal controlled vocabulary for the new term eco:taxonCompletenessReported. The full list of new vocabularies can be found here: eco.tdwg.org/list/.

‍

These terms help data collectors robustly report methodologies for biodiversity inventories and surveys, including important aspects such as the survey effort, sampling design, taxonomic groups targeted in the survey, spatial and temporal scope of the survey, and non-detected taxa. Data collected from these methodical surveys can support a broader range of ecological studies, and now, with the Humboldt Extension’s new terms, data users can more efficiently filter for these datasets. 

‍

While metadata standards aren’t necessarily a flashy subject, they are crucial to ensuring the interoperability, comparison, and mobilization of biodiversity information. An agreed-upon set of reporting standards allows for survey and inventory data, among other biodiversity occurrence data types, to be reused, compared amongst each other, and integrated with other data sources and workflows, ensuring that each dataset and the precious information it carries can be fully utilized by a range of users. 

‍

The need for such interoperability has only been heightened by the Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for the “the best available data, information and knowledge” to be made “accessible to decision makers, practitioners and the public” to guide biodiversity management in Target 21. The newly-ratified Humboldt Extension has laid a robust metadata reporting foundation for biodiversity inventories, a key source of biodiversity monitoring data, which will help lower the reporting burden of countries around the world while maintaining clear communication amongst biodiversity data users. 

‍

We are grateful for the participants of the initial workshops on the Humboldt Extension: G. Amatulli, J. Belmaker, S. Blum, J. Deck, P. Goldstein, H. Kreft, J. Malczyk, S. Meiri, L. Ries, T. Robertson, N. Robinson, M. Schildhauer, K. Triantis, D. Vieglais, P. Weigelt, A. Wilson, and J. Wieczorek. The new paper was coauthored by Y. V. Sica, W. M. Hochachka, R. D. Stevenson, K. Ingenloff, P. F. Zermoglio, J. Wieczorek, Y. M. Gan, D. Schigel, Z. R. Kachian, S. Baskauf, P. Brenton, A. J. N. Kazem, W. Jetz, and R. Guralnick.

‍

For more information about the Humboldt Extension, visit the TDWG website. 

‍