ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025
Current stewardship practices in invasion biology limit the value and secondary use of genomic data.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current stewardship practices in invasion biology limit the value and secondary use of genomic data.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Genomic Tools in Biological Invasions: Current State and Future Frontiers.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Invasive species threaten native biota, putting fragile ecosystems at risk and having a large-scale impact on primary industries. Growing trade networks and the popularity of personal travel make incursions a more frequent risk, one only compounded by global climate change. With increasing publication of whole-genome sequences lies an opportunity for cross-species assessment of invasive potential. However, the degree to which published sequences are accompanied by satisfactory spatiotemporal data is unclear. We assessed the metadata associated with 199 whole-genome assemblies of 89 invasive terrestrial invertebrate species and found that only 38% of these were derived from field-collected samples. Seventy-six assemblies (38%) reported an 'undescribed' sample origin and, while further examination of associated literature closed this gap to 23.6%, an absence of spatial data remained for 47 of the total assemblies. Of the 76 assemblies that were ultimately determined to be field-collected, associated metadata relevant for invasion studies was predominantly lacking: only 35% (27 assemblies) provided granular location data, and 33% (n = 25) lacked sufficient collection date information. Our results support recent calls for standardized metadata in genome sequencing data submissions, highlighting the impact of missing metadata on current research in invasion biology (and likely other fields). Notably, large-scale consortia tended to provide the most complete metadata submissions in our analysis-such cross-institutional collaborations can foster a culture of increased adherence to improved metadata submission standards and a standard of metadata stewardship that enables reuse of genomes in invasion science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.