Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions
Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144441
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-15
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Courchamp, Franck
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Angulo, Elena;Diagne, Christophe;Courchamp, Franck
我们认为，在科学研究中只关注英语可能会阻碍科学家与母语为非英语的从业者或政策制定者之间的有效沟通。科学知识和数据转让方面的这一障碍可能导致重大的知识差距，并可能在提供许多科学领域的全球模式时产生偏见。为了证明这一点，我们汇编了以15种非英语语言报道的外来入侵物种的全球经济成本数据。我们将其与英文文档中的等效数据进行了比较（即，InvaCost数据库，全球最新的入侵费用数据库）。两个数据库的比较（类似于7500个条目）显示，非英语来源：（i）捕获的数据量大于英语来源（分别为2500和2396个成本条目）;（ii）在英文文献中增加249种入侵物种和15个国家，（iii）将全球入侵成本估计增加16.6%（即，2140亿美元增加到1.288万亿美元（根据英文数据库估计）。此外，2712个成本条目-与英文数据库没有直接可比性-直接从从业者那里获得，揭示了科学家和从业者之间沟通的价值。此外，我们还展示了由于忽视非英语数据而造成的差距如何导致成本在空间、分类组、成本类型和受影响部门之间的分布出现重大偏差。具体而言，在英文数据库中，来自欧洲的当地费用，特别是与管理有关的费用，在很大程度上没有得到充分的体现。因此，结合英语和非英语来源的科学数据证明是至关重要的，并提高了数据的完整性。考虑非英语来源有助于减少在全球范围内理解入侵成本的偏见。最后，它还具有改善管理业绩、专家（科学家和从业人员）之间的协调以及各国间合作行动的巨大潜力。注：附录S5中提供了12种语言的摘要和图的非英文版本。(c)2021年，任作家。由Elsevier B. V.发布这是CC BY许可证下的开放获取文章（http：creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/）。
We contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific researchmight hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policymakerswhose 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 (similar to 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 fromthe English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries - not directly comparable to the English database - were directly obtained frompractitioners, 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. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/).