02-05-2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INVENTORY OF BIODIVERSITY DATABASES IN PENNSYLVANIA

Prepared for

PENNSYLVANIA BIODIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP

By

Dessie Severson, Ph,D.

Allegheny Institute of Natural History, University of Pittsburgh-Bradford

Bradford, PA 16701, severson@pitt.edu (814)362-7562

Purpose of Inventory RFP:

Pennsylvania Biodiversity Partnership (PBP) is dedicated to building a statewide biodiversity movement and its mission is to conserve biodiversity statewide by promoting communication and cooperation among a broad spectrum of stakeholders. In order to accomplish its mission, PBP must know what plants and animals live in the state and must catalog the natural communities in which they are found. Information about the state’s biological resources is held by hundreds of organizations and individuals both inside and outside Pennsylvania. As a first step toward truly understanding the state’s biodiversity, general information about current taxonomic and ecological databases must be gathered. Therefore, the goal of this project was to conduct a comprehensive inventory of ecological and specimen based biodiversity databases within Pennsylvania containing information on Pennsylvania’s biota. More than 1100 individuals/groups were contacted with a request to either fill out a web-based survey form at http://www.upb.pitt.edu/ainh/metadata/index.htm describing their biodiversity databases or to indicate that they had no biodiversity information.

Groups Contacted and Replies Received:

Between September and the end of December, 2001, a request for biodiversity metadata was sent, via email, to individuals, organizations, and agencies, both public and private, who were identified as being potential holders of PA biodiversity datasets. Requests for biodiversity metadata; i.e., information that describes biodiversity datasets, were sent to: members of PBP; state governmental agencies; federal agencies, including the USDA US Forest Service Warren Forestry Sciences Laboratory and Allegheny National Forest offices in Warren; museums; arboreta; Pennsylvania college and university biologists, ecologists, and environmental biologists; nature organizations, including conservancies, Audubon groups, regional conservation and watershed groups; and private landholders. The Department of Environmental Protection’s 2001 State Conservation Directory was used as a contact source. Also, websites of PA colleges and universities were searched to identify potential organismal biologists, ecologists, and environmental biologists.

The request was sent three or more times to those identified as possibly having large databases, and at least twice to all on the mailing list. Two different messages were sent. The first was more formal and asked for biodiversity metadata. To overcome any misunderstanding of the word “metadata”, the second request was more conversational, listed examples of the type of information PBP was seeking, and requested that the addressee describe the work they were doing.

One hundred eighteen respondents described their biodiversity databases. Forty-one respondents had no biodiversity data to report. The total response rate was about 15%. Eleven percent had biodiversity metadata and 4% did not.

In addition, information from The Executive Report Linking Pennsylvania’s Ecological Databases of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Fish and Boat Commission, and Game Commission by Bacastow, Todd S., Maurie C. Kelly, and Ryan E. Baxter, August 1999, was incorporated into PBP’s inventory of biodiversity databases. The Bacastow, et al, study, commissioned by DCNR, PFBC, and PGC to study the feasibility of linking their Pennsylvania ecological databases, contains 109 metadata reports. Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) analyzed and compiled the metadata and it is available on their website, URL http://www.pasda.psu.edu

Table 1—Summary of Survey Responses Listed by Organizational Category.

TYPE OF GROUP	# Reports of Submitted Metadata	No Biodiversity Data To Report	# Web-Accessible
State Government Agencies	6 (+ 106 Bacastow et al)	6	0 (106 at PASDA**)
Federal Agencies	7(+2 Bacastow et al)	0	0 (2 at PASDA)
Museums & Arboreta	12	0	6
Colleges, Universities, and Field Stations	58***	18	0
Nature Organizations	11	12	3
Private Individuals & Industry	10	2	0
PNDI*	3 (1 Bacastow et al)	0	3* (+1 at PASDA)
Townships	3	2	0
PA Databases outside of PA	8	0	5

* Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) is a cooperative partnership of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Bureau of Forestry, The Nature Conservancy, and the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. It has a website, accessible by the public, of a list of plant communities, plant and animal species of special concern, and rarity ranking definitions. URL

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/pndi/pndiweb.htm

** PASDA web site: URL http://www.pasda.psu.edu

*** 40 of the 58 reports were submitted by one field station.

Description of Metadata by format:

Of the 118 PBP metadata reports, 58 describe their data as being entirely in electronic format and 44 as being partially converted into electronic files. Only six are not electronic. Eight reports did not indicate whether the records were in paper or electronic format. All eight of these reported 100% preserved specimens, and it was impossible to determine if any of the data was also in another format. More electronic or partially electronic databases are reported than expected. This may be due to the fact that those that are comfortable responding to an email query and submitting an electronic metadata report may be more likely to have begun the conversion of their field notes from paper to electronic format. Those who are uncomfortable with electronic submission, may not have filled out a metadata report, and might also be more likely to have paper databases.

Sixty-nine (58 %) of the PBP metadata reports are not GIS/GPS referenced; 29 (25%) are partially GIS/GPS referenced or are GIS/GPS referenced by interpretation, and 20 (17%) are completely GIS/GPS referenced.

Accessibility:

Most of the biodiversity databases in the Commonwealth are not web-accessible by the public. When searching for comprehensive biodiversity information, an interested individual would have to contact a myriad number of groups to access the information that is available. They may or may not have to pay a fee for their search, and the fee may vary, depending on who they are, what they plan to do with the information, and who they contact for the information.

PNDI does have a public-access list and rarity ranking of special concern plant communities, plants, and animals. Access to their site specific information system describing significant natural resources of Pennsylvania, including descriptions of plant and animal species of special concern, exemplary natural communities and unique geological features is restricted. It is currently accessible only for environmental review by state and federal agencies. PNDI also has a very large “negative database” of communities and species that are not of special concern, and this is not available to the public. Granting authorization and assigning fees is done on a case-by-case basis.

Description of Metadata by taxon:

Only 21 of the PBP metadata reports are strictly specimen-based and not ecological. All of the rest, including most of the large database holders, claim an ecological component even though many are also specimen-based. Of the 97 listed as ecological, 33 are aquatic, 39 terrestrial, and 25 both aquatic and terrestrial. Also, several of the ecological databases listed in the Bacastow et al report appear to be primarily species lists and are categorized in Table 3.

Table 2—Taxa Included in the PBP Metadata Survey Reports and the Number of Species, Records, and Reports.

Taxon	Keyword	Specific Group	Minimum # species*	**# of records	*** # of reports
Bacteria	All		?	53	1
Fungi	Fungi	general	?	500+	2
	Fungi	lichens	20	30	1
Invertebrates	All		?	?	1
	Special concern		226	1746	2
	Crustaceans	amphipods	1	?	1
		crayfish	8	900	2
	Flatworms	planaria	1	?	1
		trematodes	?	<200	2
		cestodes	?	<200	1
	Insects	general	100	1050+	6
		coleoptera	70	3995	2
		hymenoptera	3100	130,000	1
		lepidoptera	800-1000	5100	1
		plecoptera	134	5600	2
		tricoptera	320	6000	1
		macroinvertebrates	141	555+	5
	Mollusks		128	320	1
		unionids	67	2500	1
	Nematodes		?	<200	1
	Plankton	general	?	?	1
		Leptodora kindtii	1	48	1
	Spiders		104	104	1
Phytoplankton		Chlorophyceae	?	168	2
		diatoms	?	144	1
Plants: Non-Vascular	Bryophytes		41	570	3
Plants: Vascular	All		4000	670,276+	16
	Special concern		706	13,420	2
	Ferns & fern allies		?	22+	2
	Hydrophytes	all	?	173	3
		bog plants	?	193	1
		Myriophyllum excellabens	1	8	1
		Lemna	1	4	1
	Flowering Plants	Asteraceae	2	72	1
		Cactaceae Opuntia	1	20	1
		herbaceous plants	?	424	2
		Juglandaceae	?	?	1
		trees	50	72	2
Vertebrates	All		100	2800	1
	Terrestrial vertebrates		?	732	1
	Special concern		160	986	1
	Birds	all	315	564,427+	14
		barred-owl	1	500	1
		eastern Red-winged blackbird	1	187	1
		great blue heron	1	100	1
		ovenbird nesting	1	?	1
		raptors	7	100	1
		ruffed grouse	1	80	1
		tern	1	26	1
		woodcock	1	70	1
	Fishes	all	150	7487+	5
		carp	1	3	1
		darters	4	44	1
		mottled sculpin	1	141	1
		rosy-faced shiner	1	57	1
	Herps	all amphibians & reptiles	90	32,490+	5
		snapping turtle	1	67	1
		timber rattler	1	70+	2
	Mammals	all	100+	28,301	5
		white-footed mouse	1	5843	2

* the number listed is the minimum number of possible species reported in the metadata reports of the

taxonomic group listed. (For example, 3 reports on vascular plants listed 706, 3180, and 4000 species recorded in their dataset; thus 4000 species of vascular plants is the minimum number of species that were reported in this survey.) A “?” denotes that a reporter did not include this information. A “+” is used if a reporter indicated that there were more species than the number indicated.

** the number listed is the total number of records from all the pertinent metadata reports for the specific

group listed. A “+” is used when one or more reports did not indicate the number of records.

*** the reports total more than 118 because some of the reports included information on more than one

taxon. The reporters did not break down their information as to # of species and records of “x” or of “y”, which also resulted in less accurate counts for the # of species and # of records in the columns above.

Table 3—Description of Bacastow, et al, Data Relative to Reporting Agencies, Subject Matter of Report, and Number of Reports Included.

	Number of Metadata Reports Submitted by Agency*
SUBJECT MATTER OF REPORT	DCNR	DCNR-Bureau of Parks	DCNR-Bureau of Forestry	PGC	PFBC	Misc. **
Other***	6	2	4	6	18	4
Ecological	3	2	4	2	10	3
Plants			3			1
Trees/Timber/Tree rings			5	1
Insects & Disease			1
Birds				4		2
Eagle				1
Grouse/woodcock				2
Mourning dove				1
Waterfowl				5
Special Concern				1
Mammals				2
Bat				3
Bear				1
Deer		1		4
Woodrat				1
Winter Mortality				1
Road Kill				1
Fish & Wildlife				1
Fish					6
Macroinvertebrates					4
Mussels					1

* the total number of reports is greater than the 109 included in Bacastow, et al, because some agencies share the same dataset. For example, the scientific collectors database is shared by DCNR, PFBC, and PGC. This information is entered three times, once each for each agency, under the subject category of “Other.”

** several Bacastow, et al, reports indicated no author/owner or an author/owner other than DCNR, PFBC, or PGC (for example, reports by PENNDOT and the US Forest Service were submitted.) These are listed under “Misc” in the number of reports submitted by agency.

*** many of the reports included under the subject category “Other” are datasets on boundaries, violators, recreational users, permits, etc.

Description of Metadata by Historical and other Significance:

Two collections date back to the 1700’s. The National Academy of Science has a lichen type collection of 20 species collected from 1780-1815. The Liverpool Museum in England has 27,000 records of plants collected in Pennsylvania by Henry Muhlenberg and John Bartram between 1740 and 1820. The Morris Arboretum Pennsylvania Flora Database has plant records pre-1800 through the present and has 3180 species and 450,000 specimens.

Several collections date back to the 1800’s and include 200 records of ferns and fern allies at the Academy of Natural Sciences. There are vascular plant collections of 4000 species and 148,000 records at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History; 22,000 records at Wayne E. Manning Herbarium at Bucknell University; and 706 species and 9783 records of species of special concern at Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. The Academy of Natural Sciences has 8000 study skins of birds and the Carnegie Museum has 315 species and 18,861 bird records. The Carnegie has 90 species and 27,411 records of amphibians and reptiles and 76 species and 25,234 records of mammals. The Academy of Natural Sciences has 150 species and 7463 records of fish. PNDI has 160 species and 1986 records of special concern vertebrates and the Museum of Vertebrae Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA has 732 species of PA vertebrates dating back to 1860.

Invertebrate collections also date to the 1800’s. PNDI has 226 species and 1746 records of special concern invertebrates. The Delaware Museum of Natural History has a collection of 128 species and 320 records of PA mollusks and the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, has 20 species and 897 records of PA Staphylinidae, Order Coleoptera.

Other PBP biodiversity metadata of special interest might include a 1950 study of heterotrophic bacteria in Sanctuary Lake of Pymatuning Reservoir; a 1934 raptor and non-raptor migration study; a 1927 study of aquatic coleoptera and 1938 study of the spider fauna of Presque Isle; a 1924 seed collection from northwest PA with descriptions and taxonomic keys; and a 1997 crayfish reference collection at Lock Haven University.