Rachael E. Blake

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) announces the new living collection “Impactful Datasets in Earth, Space, and Environmental Sciences” which recognizes the creation and curation of datasets enabling research, analysis, and decision making beyond what is captured by traditional academic impact metrics. The collection highlights datasets through the dimensions of People, Planet, and Prosperity, and includes a curated set of nominated datasets and accompanying special collection of data papers. Developed with the Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) community, the nomination and review process initially invites contributors from across research, operations, and public service, to nominate datasets important to their work, and then submit a data paper that expands upon the nomination text for inclusion in the special collection. This commentary highlights the rationale for the living collection, and the process of nomination. The collection serves as a living reference that strengthens data culture, supports reproducible geoscience, and provides enduring access to critical information for science and society.

Disaster scenarios are not usually considered by scientists when publishing or archiving data. The goal is often to satisfy more immediate needs and requirements of funders, journal publishers, or collaborators. Yet, recent events around the globe, combined with the increased need for high-quality data to solve large-scale problems, have highlighted the vulnerability of data stored in repositories to crises. To address these concerns, we held a one-month sprint in March 2025 to develop the Repository Crisis Scorecards (RCS) with the goal of helping data repository personnel better assess and understand how their systems and infrastructure might be suited to withstand four crisis scenarios. We adapted the scorecard style proven successful by the EarthCube Research Coordination Network (RCN) on ‘What About Model Data?” because it was approachable, could be adapted to each repository, and could be shared widely without technical tools. We anticipate that the RCS could be used by established repositories, informal data collectors, and anyone holding data to plan for more sustainable and robust long-term data publication and preservation. Here, we outline the process for developing the RCS, share lessons learned, and next steps for its ongoing development.

Aim: The Hemiptera is the fifth‐largest insect order but among non‐native insect species is approximately tied with the Coleoptera as the most species‐rich insect order (Hemiptera comprise 20% more species than in world fauna). This over‐representation may result from high propagule pressure or from high species invasiveness. Here, we assess the reasons for over‐representation in this group by analysing geographical, temporal and taxonomic variation in numbers of historical invasions.Location: Global.Method: We assembled lists of historical Hemiptera invasions in 12 world regions, countries or islands (Australia, Chile, Europe, New Zealand, North America, South Africa, South Korea, Japan and the Galapagos, Hawaiian, Okinawa and Ogasawara Islands) and border interception data from nine countries (Australia, Canada, European Union, United Kingdom, Hawaii, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, USA mainland and South Africa). Using these data, we identified hemipteran superfamilies that are historically over‐represented among established non‐native species, and superfamilies that are over‐represented among arrivals (proxied by interceptions). We also compared temporal patterns of establishments among hemipteran suborders and among regions.Results: Across all regions, patterns of over‐ and under‐representation were similar. The Aphidoidea, Coccoidea, Aleyrodoidea, Cimicoidea and Phylloxeroida were over‐represented among non‐native species. These same superfamilies were not consistently over‐represented among intercepted species indicating that propagule pressure does not completely explain the tendency of some Hemiptera to be over‐represented among invasions. Asexual reproduction is common in most over‐represented superfamilies and this trait may be key to explaining high invasion success in these superfamilies.Conclusions: We conclude that both propagule pressure and species invasiveness are drivers of high invasion success in the Sternorrhyncha suborder (aphids, scales, whiteflies) and this group plays a major role in the exceptional invasion success of Hemiptera in general. The high historical rates of invasion by Sternorrhyncha species provide justification for biosecurity measure focusing on exclusion of this group.

Aim: Invasions of non‐native insects can have substantial impacts on agriculture, forestry, human health and biodiversity with considerable economic and environmental consequences. To understand the causes of these invasions, it is important to quantify the relative influence of principal drivers such as international imports and climatic effects.Location: North America, Chile, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.Time Period: 1881–2020.Methods: To evaluate the relative contributions of various factors in explaining global variation in numbers of non‐native insect establishments in different world regions, we conducted two multivariate regression analyses to quantify temporal changes in family‐level composition and native ranges of established non‐native species in several world regions.Results: There were temporal changes in the family‐level composition of non‐native species assemblages. Prior to 1900, invasions were dominated by scale insects, subsequently shifting to a more diverse set of species, except in North America, which had relatively small compositional change over time compared to other regions. Spatial and temporal variation in the composition of established species was associated with differences in the origin of imports and climatic factors, each explaining 26.3% and 27.4% of the total variation, respectively. The analysis of native ranges of non‐native species indicated that there was no consistent temporal variation across all regions. Established species in New Zealand were predominantly native to Australasia and species in North America and Chile were mainly from Europe. Non‐native species in Europe mainly originated from the Nearctic region while those in Japan and Australia generally originated from multiple regions. Climatic factors in the destination regions had a primary effect (66.3%) on variation in the native range of established species, although imports also had substantial effects (45.4%).Main Conclusions: Geographical variation in climate and imports act together as drivers of establishment success for non‐native insects in all six regions.

The geographical exchange of non-native species can be highly asymmetrical, with some world regions donating or receiving more species than others. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain such asymmetries, including differences in propagule pressure, source species (invader) pools, environmental features in recipient regions, or biological traits of invaders. We quantified spatiotemporal patterns in the exchange of non-native insects between Europe, North America, and Australasia, and then tested possible explanations for these patterns based on regional trade (import values) and model estimates of invader pool sizes. Europe was the dominant donor of non-native insect species between the three regions, with most of this asymmetry arising prior to 1950. This could not be explained by differences in import values (1827–2014), nor were there substantial differences in the sizes of modelled invader pools. Based on additional evidence from literature, we propose that patterns of historical plant introductions may explain these asymmetries, but this possibility requires further study.

Thousands of insect species have been introduced outside of their native ranges, and some of them strongly impact ecosystems and human societies. Because a large fraction of insects feed on or are associated with plants, nonnative plants provide habitat and resources for invading insects, thereby facilitating their establishment. Furthermore, plant imports represent one of the main pathways for accidental nonnative insect introductions. Here, we tested the hypothesis that plant invasions precede and promote insect invasions. We found that geographical variation in current nonnative insect flows was best explained by nonnative plant flows dating back to 1900 rather than by more recent plant flows. Interestingly, nonnative plant flows were a better predictor of insect invasions than potentially confounding socioeconomic variables. Based on the observed time lag between plant and insect invasions, we estimated that the global insect invasion debt consists of 3,442 region-level introductions, representing a potential increase of 35% of insect invasions. This debt was most important in the Afrotropics, the Neotropics, and Indomalaya, where we expect a 10 to 20-fold increase in discoveries of new nonnative insect species. Overall, our results highlight the strong link between plant and insect invasions and show that limiting the spread of nonnative plants might be key to preventing future invasions of both plants and insects.

The geographical exchange of non-native insects can be highly asymmetrical, with some world regions ‘exporting’ or ‘importing’ more species than others. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain such asymmetries, including differences in propagule pressure, environmental features in recipient regions, or biological traits of invaders. We tested aspects of these hypotheses in the context of the exchange of non-native insects between North America, Europe, and Australasia. Europe was the dominant exporter of non-native insect species between the three regions, with most of this asymmetry arising prior to 1950. The European dominance could not be explained by differences in import value, source species pool sizes, or native plant richness in the recipient regions. We identified that the introduction of non-native plants, driven in part by European colonization, best explains the asymmetrical exchange of non-native insects between our focal regions.

Synthesis research in ecology and environmental science improves understanding, advances theory, identifies research priorities, and supports management strategies by linking data, ideas, and tools. Accelerating environmental challenges increases the need to focus synthesis science on the most pressing questions. To leverage input from the broader research community, we convened a virtual workshop with participants from many countries and disciplines to examine how and where synthesis can address key questions and themes in ecology and environmental science in the coming decade. Seven priority research topics emerged: (1) diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ), (2) human and natural systems, (3) actionable and use‐inspired science, (4) scale, (5) generality, (6) complexity and resilience, and (7) predictability. Additionally, two issues regarding the general practice of synthesis emerged: the need for increased participant diversity and inclusive research practices; and increased and improved data flow, access, and skill‐building. These topics and practices provide a strategic vision for future synthesis in ecology and environmental science.

Aim: Lepidoptera is a highly diverse, predominantly herbivorous insect order, with species transported to outside their native range largely facilitated by the global trade of plants and plant‐based goods. Analogous to island disharmony, we examine invasion disharmony, where species filtering during invasions increases systematic compositional differences between native and non‐native species assemblages, and test whether some families are more successful at establishing in non‐native regions than others.Location: Hawaii, North America, Galapagos, Europe, South Africa, South Korea, Japan, Nansei Islands, Ogasawara Islands, Australia, New Zealand.Taxon: Lepidoptera.Methods: We compared numbers of non‐native, unintentionally introduced Lepidoptera species with the land area of 11 regions worldwide. Differences among native and non‐native assemblages in the distribution of species among families were investigated using ordination analysis. We tested whether invasion disharmony is explained by propagule pressure (proxied by species richness in border interceptions) and if families were associated with specific trade commodities.Results: In total, 741 non‐native Lepidoptera species, accounting for 0.47% of the global diversity of lepidopterans, are established in at least one of the 11 regions. Crambidae, Pyralidae, Tineidae and Gracillariidae were particularly successful invaders, whereas the two most species‐rich families, Erebidae and Geometridae, were under‐represented among non‐native Lepidoptera. Much of the variation in species numbers in the native, and less so in the non‐native assemblages could be attributed to land area. Although native assemblages were similar among nearby regions, non‐native assemblages were not, suggesting geography had little effect on invasion disharmony. Comparison of established with intercepted species revealed that macromoth families were generally under‐represented in establishments, whereas several micromoth families were under‐represented in interceptions. This discrepancy may relate to greater detectability of larger species or high propagule pressure via associations with specific invasion pathways.Main conclusions: Invasion disharmony in Lepidoptera appears to be driven by processes unrelated to the success of native assemblages. While native assemblages developed through long‐term evolutionary radiation, the composition of non‐native assemblages is driven by differential invasion pathways and traits affecting the establishment of founder populations that vary among families.