Literature DB >> 33715862

Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions.

Elena Angulo1, Christophe Diagne2, Liliana Ballesteros-Mejia2, Tasnime Adamjy3, Danish A Ahmed4, Evgeny Akulov5, Achyut K Banerjee6, César Capinha7, Cheikh A K M Dia8, Gauthier Dobigny3, Virginia G Duboscq-Carra9, Marina Golivets10, Phillip J Haubrock11, Gustavo Heringer12, Natalia Kirichenko13, Melina Kourantidou14, Chunlong Liu15, Martin A Nuñez9, David Renault16, David Roiz17, Ahmed Taheri18, Laura N H Verbrugge19, Yuya Watari20, Wen Xiong21, Franck Courchamp2.   

Abstract

We contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific research might hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policy makers whose mother tongue is non-English. This barrier in scientific knowledge and data transfer likely leads to significant knowledge gaps and may create biases when providing global patterns in many fields of science. To demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-English languages. We compared it with equivalent data from English documents (i.e., the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). The comparison of both databases (~7500 entries in total) revealed that non-English sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than English sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by English literature, and (iii) increase the global cost estimate of invasions by 16.6% (i.e., US$ 214 billion added to 1.288 trillion estimated from the English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries - not directly comparable to the English database - were directly obtained from practitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. Moreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-English data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. Specifically, costs from Europe, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the English database. Thus, combining scientific data from English and non-English sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. Considering non-English sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. Finally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scientists and practitioners), and collaborative actions across countries. Note: non-English versions of the abstract and figures are provided in Appendix S5 in 12 languages.
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Ecological bias; InvaCost; Knowledge gaps; Management; Native languages; Stakeholders

Year:  2021        PMID: 33715862     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144441

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  8 in total

Review 1.  Introduction, spread, and impacts of invasive alien mammal species in Europe.

Authors:  Lisa Tedeschi; Dino Biancolini; César Capinha; Carlo Rondinini; Franz Essl
Journal:  Mamm Rev       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 5.373

Review 2.  Past and future uses of text mining in ecology and evolution.

Authors:  Maxwell J Farrell; Liam Brierley; Anna Willoughby; Andrew Yates; Nicole Mideo
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 5.530

3.  Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity.

Authors:  Nussaïbah B Raja; Emma M Dunne; Aviwe Matiwane; Tasnuva Ming Khan; Paulina S Nätscher; Aline M Ghilardi; Devapriya Chattopadhyay
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-12-30       Impact factor: 19.100

4.  Site-specific risk assessment enables trade-off analysis of non-native tree species in European forests.

Authors:  Anja Bindewald; Giuseppe Brundu; Silvio Schueler; Uwe Starfinger; Jürgen Bauhus; Katharina Lapin
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  Global economic costs of herpetofauna invasions.

Authors:  Ismael Soto; Ross N Cuthbert; Antonín Kouba; César Capinha; Anna Turbelin; Emma J Hudgins; Christophe Diagne; Franck Courchamp; Phillip J Haubrock
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Building a synthesis of economic costs of biological invasions in New Zealand.

Authors:  Thomas W Bodey; Zachary T Carter; Phillip J Haubrock; Ross N Cuthbert; Melissa J Welsh; Christophe Diagne; Franck Courchamp
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 3.061

7.  The global contribution of invasive vertebrate eradication as a key island restoration tool.

Authors:  Dena R Spatz; Nick D Holmes; David J Will; Stella Hein; Zachary T Carter; Rachel M Fewster; Bradford Keitt; Piero Genovesi; Araceli Samaniego; Donald A Croll; Bernie R Tershy; James C Russell
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Overcoming Language Barriers in Academia: Machine Translation Tools and a Vision for a Multilingual Future.

Authors:  Emma Steigerwald; Valeria Ramírez-Castañeda; Débora Y C Brandt; András Báldi; Julie Teresa Shapiro; Lynne Bowker; Rebecca D Tarvin
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 11.566

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.