ARPHA Preprints, doi: 10.3897/arphapreprints.e105600
Deliverable 4.2 Novel technologies for biodiversity monitoring - Final Report
expand article infoMaria Dornelas, Cher Chow, Robert Patchett, Tom Breeze§, Lluís Brotons|, Pedro Beja, Laurence Carvalho#, Ute Jandt¤«, Jessi Junker», W. Daniel Kissling˄, Ingolf Kühn˅¦ˀ, Maria Lumbierres˄, Anne Lyche Solheimˁ, Marit Mjelde#, Francisco Moreira, Martin Musche, Henrique Pereira», Leonard Sandin#, Roy Van Grunsven
‡ University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom§ University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom| Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya, Solsona, Spain¶ CIBIO-Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal# Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway¤ Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Halle, Germany« German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany» iDiv, Leipzig, Germany˄ University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands˅ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Halle, Germany¦ Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germanyˀ German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Leipzig, Germanyˁ Norsk institutt for vannforskning (NIVA), Oslo, Norway₵ CIBIO-BIOPOLIS, Porto, Portugalℓ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany₰ Dutch Butterfly Conservation, Wageningen, Netherlands
Open Access
Abstract
The goal of this task was to identify and characterise novel methods for biodiversity monitoring, and to assess their suitability for large scale deployment across Europe. To address this goal we combined extensive literature searches with expert consultation, namely using a survey and through an online workshop. The outcome of our searches is summarised in a metadatabase, which includes 282 methods or method components, which have been classified according to EBV classes addressed, target taxa, and broad method type the method relates to. We then consulted experts within the EuropaBON network and beyond, on the advantages and challenges associated with each of these novel methods, as well as their technology readiness level. In combination, our approaches revealed a wealth of novel methods and a highly active research field, with extensive emerging innovation on several fronts. However, it also revealed high variability in technology readiness, with lack of validation being a prevalent hurdle yet to be overcome for many applications of these methods (i.e. for some taxa and in some environments). Moreover, the opportunities for expansion in observations created by these novel approaches open new challenges associated to the standardisation, integration and storage of biodiversity monitoring data. Finally, the expansion of observations should take a designed approach, in order to deliver on its potential to improve representation and resolution of biodiversity monitoring, and should aim to complement rather than replace human observations. 
Keywords
biodiversity, novel technologies, Europe, innovative methods, monitoring, EBVs