51
IveGot1: Reporting and Tracking Invasive Species in Florida
Rebekah D. Wallace1, Charles T. Bargeron1,*, David J. Moorhead1, and
Joseph H. LaForest1
Abstract - Several agencies and programs within the state of Florida formed the Everglades
Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area (Everglades CISMA) to collaborate and
share information about the invasive species that threaten the region’s ecosystems. In 2010,
the Everglades CISMA contracted with the Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem
Health (Bugwood) to implement EDDMapS as the database to store and share data collected
by their programs and to develop and maintain a website and a smartphone application
designed for professionals and citizen scientists to report invasive species. The project,
IveGot1, has been a categorical success and has become a model for invasive species reporting
nationwide. As of May 2015, members had submitted 3481 website records, 1178
smartphone records, and 248,571 records from bulk data-uploads.
Introduction
As of 2015, there have been a total of 2600 nonnative snake reports in Florida.
The first record of a nonnative snake, a Python molurus ssp. bivittatus Kuhl
(Burmese Python, hereafter Python), was discovered in the Everglades in 1979.
Subsequently, the number of reported specimens was very low, and sightings were
recorded only within Everglades National Park (ENP) until the early 2000s (Harvey
et al. 2008). By that time, Meshaka et al. (2000) had published results on reported
Python sightings and determined that the species was established in the area. Visually
searching is the primary method for finding nonnative snakes, and the chance
of arbitrarily sighting a nonnative snake is 0.1% (Reed and Rodda 2009); thus, it
is possible that the low numbers being reported represented only a small portion of
the actual population. The first documented Python nest was found 17 May 2006 in
ENP, and that year 129 nonnative snakes were reported. Since then, several other
species of large exotic snakes have been observed in southern Florida including
Boa constrictor L. (Common Boa), Python sebae (Gmelin) (North African Python),
Eunectes notaeus Cope (Yellow Anaconda), and Eunectes murinus (L.) (Green
Anaconda). Although nonnative snakes of all sizes are being reported, the large
snakes are a particular concern because they threaten the region’s ecology (Reed
and Rodda 2009). The Everglades Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area
(Everglades CISMA), led by the South Florida Water Management District, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Army Corps of Engineers,
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Park Service (NPS),
convened in 2008 to address the growing invasive plant and animal issue in the
Everglades region (South Florida Water Management District 2008). As part of a
1The Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA
31793. *Corresponding author - cbargero@uga.edu.
Manuscript Editor: JoVonn Hill
Everglades Invasive Species
2016 Southeastern Naturalist 15(Special Issue 8):51–62
Southeastern Naturalist
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016
52
Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
collaborative effort, these programs contacted the Center for Invasive Species and
Ecosystem Health (Bugwood) to utilize EDDMapS (www.eddmaps.org) to house
and display data collected by all participating programs.
EDDMapS is a program initiated by Bugwood in 2005 with the purpose of mapping
invasive plants in the southeastern US. As of 2015, EDDMapS was being used
by programs in 47 states and in 4 Canadian provinces. Florida has several ports and
ways of entry, and a subtropical to temperate climate; thus, it has historically been an
area of concern for introduction and establishment of invasive species. To increase
public awareness of invasive species, specifically nonnative snakes, and the threats
they pose, the Everglades CISMA partnered with Bugwood to utilize EDDMapS as a
forum for citizens and experts alike to report nonnative snake sightings.
The first collaboration between Everglades CISMA and Bugwood was funded by
the NPS Florida/Caribbean Exotic-Plant Management Team and resulted in a website
(www.evergladescisma.org) for information and reporting on invasive species
in the Everglades. This project was expanded to support the entire state of Florida
through the Florida Invasive Species Partnership with funding from the USFWS. As
support for invasive species monitoring has increased, EDDMapS has developed
partnerships with the FWC and Florida Natural Areas Inventory to serve as a clearinghouse
for all the invasive species records in Florida. This centralization provides
a means for agencies to maintain their own databases and also to share them as part
of a common database along with information from other agencies and individual
reports, allowing anyone to view invasive species records for the entire state.
The Everglades CISMA website provided content, information, and a means
of reporting new records. IveGot1 (www.eddmaps.org/florida/), the next project
funded by the NPS–ENP, was focused on creating a smartphone application to
increase the public’s awareness of the invasive snake issue. The number of cooperating
partners has continued to grow, and now includes the Florida Invasive
Species Partnership, Florida Exotic Pest-Plant Council, NPS, USFWS, FWC, The
Nature Conservancy, University of Florida, and Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
The results of the IveGot1 project are a web and smartphone application information-
reporting system focused on invasive plants and animals throughout Florida,
and IveGot1 is now the portal to EDDMapS in Florida. By aggressively promoting
awareness of the nonnative snake issue, thousands of individuals now know how to
find information about nonnative snakes and the process for reporting sightings so
that they function as casual surveyors.
Reporting Technology
We considered many key factors before choosing smartphones as the primary
reporting technology used by IveGot1. First, the form and capability of the devices
provides a compact, tool for accessing field-guide information, geolocating reports,
and displaying extensive documentation, including images, of what is being
reported. Second, both professionals interested in data organization and members
of the general public are comfortable with these devices, which we assumed would
Southeastern Naturalist
53
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016 Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
facilitate adoption of the new application. Finally, all of the devices interact readily
with servers for information retrieval and input.
Smartphones have many components that are useful when surveying and reporting
invasive species. They can store applications, digital books/fields guides, and
can access the internet to search for information. Smartphones and some tablets have
a GPS locating-chip and camera (McGeeney et al. 2015). The capablities of smartphone
cameras have greatly improved over time, and can be used to capture many
identifying features of invasive species. The iPhone 6, a smartphone which sold
extrememly well (Apple 2014) and can be considered representative of the technology,
has an 8-megapixel camera, a 11.9-cm (4.7-in) retina screen to view the camera
display, auto-image stabilization, auto focus, photo geotagging, and other technology
to ensure that images are true to color and crisp (Apple 2015). Applications can use
existing smartphone features to gather data in the background or actively while the
applications are being used, have the ability to record information, and can be operated
when cellular service or wireless internet is unavailable. Recognizing the design
constraints of smartphones compared to a laptop or desktop computer is key to application
adoption (McGeeney et al. 2015). Smartphones inherently have a smaller
screen size and thus, the surevy form for data collection must be short and concise.
In 2011, 35% of American adults owned a smartphone (Pew Research Center
2015). Predictions of increased smartphone adoption proved true, and by 2015, 64%
of adults owned a smartphone (Pew Research Center 2015). Data-plan constraints
are also a source of concern for some individuals; 37% of smartphone users reach
their plan’s data cap at least occasionally, and 15% frequently reach their data
limit (Pew Research Center 2015). The IveGot1 application can store the survey
data when there is weak or no cellular service or wi-fi. Users can record multiple
observations in the IveGot1 application and upload the data at a more convenient
time, alleviating data-cap concerns. The application gives users the ability to access
the EDDMapS database to retrieve data and maps in the field to show the real-time
distribution of invasive species that have been reported in their area. Users can open
records from the map, and the details and images of each report are available. During
initial testing of the application, Bugwood programmers addressed the need to
balance the size of the application, the core data-fields desired by the Everglades
CISMA, and the maps, images, and other necessities to produce an identification
and reporting application. After Bugwood and the project partners were satisfied
with the functionality and design, the IveGot1 iPhone application was released in
July 2010, and updated in October 2011 to include reporting invasive plants; the
IveGot1 Android application was launched in March 2012.
According to the Pew Research Center (2015), only 35% of the adult population
had a smartphone when the first IveGot1 smartphone application was released.
Hence, project personnel created and maintained a website-reporting form so that
users who did not own a smartphone could submit reports. Laptops and desktops
have greater screen space and are not limited by the download-space issues present
on smartphones, which provided those who used the website-reporting form a more
comprehensive opportunity to input information and an extensive list of reportable
Southeastern Naturalist
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016
54
Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
and searchable species. The website also served as a platform for additional information
and materials which could not be included in the application; e.g., educational
materials, invasive species information, contact information, resources for partner
groups, announcements, map options. The website can be used on devices other than
a desktop or laptop computer, including a smartphone, but it is reliant upon cellular or
wireless internet and may be more unwieldy on a smaller screen.
The IveGot1 project agreement between Bugwood and the NPS included a plan
to expand EDDMapS to allow for reporting animal species, maintain the existing
Everglades CISMA website, integrate existing invasive-species data, information,
and images from Florida agencies into EDDMapS, and develop a smartphone
animal-identification and reporting application for invasive species in Florida.
The initial IveGot1 application was focused on tools that promoted public awareness
of invasive snakes in southern Florida and solicited reporting of occurrences.
Although direct searches for the snakes is the preferred and most-successful approach
to finding them, it is labor intensive, has a low reward rate, and there are
relatively few trained searchers (Reed and Rodda 2009, Stanford and Rodda 2007).
Trained volunteers are enthusiastic when searches result in finds, but the reality is
that there is a low probability of finding nonnative snakes, and this low reward-rate
diminishes the efficacy of even trained searchers (Henke 1998). As use of IveGot1
increased, it was decided that it would be best to diversify the reporting options
in the IveGot1 program to include not just nonnative snakes, but also some other
“instant-gratification” invasive species, such as invasive reptiles and a mixture of
common and uncommon invasive plants. By adding easier-to-find invasive species,
we assumed that potential reporters would likely find more occurrences to report,
stay more engaged, and hence more likely to continue to search for and report records
of the program’s primary goal: nonnative snakes. The IveGot1 web-reporting
form for animals was launched in 2008.
Data Reporting
One of the fundamental functions of EDDMapS is to serve as a tool to aggregate
data from different agencies, programs, partnerships, and individuals in a common
repository. Much of the data comes from non-partner sources, such as the US Forest
Service, herbaria, state departments of agriculture, USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service, NPS, and other expert-populated and specimen-vouchered
systems. However, the database also contains data collected by “citizen scientists”.
Individual citizen scientists are often part of a larger collective; a group associated
with a park, forest, or other geographic or municipal boundary (e.g., Friends
of the Everglades, Forest Park Conservancy, Alliance for the Great Lakes, etc.), a
long-time established club or organization focused on a particular category or area
(e.g., master naturalists, master gardeners, etc.), or a short-term project with specific,
achievable goals (e.g., Florida’s air potato roundup, local “clean-up” groups,
bioblitzes, etc.). There are also individual citizen scientists who attend workshops,
presentations, or training sessions and participate in data gathering or analysis on
their own and contribute to a larger program or database (e.g., contributors to eBird,
Southeastern Naturalist
55
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016 Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
Project BudBurst, EDDMapS, etc.). Although citizen scientists bring enthusiasm
and a willingness to contribute information to help campaigns that interest them,
invasive species identifications made by citizen scientists are not as accurate as
those made by professionals (Crall et al. 2011). To increase the frequency of correct
identifications, the EDDMapS reporting forms encourage inclusion of images
of identifying characteristics with each report. Additionally, all data from the websites
and smartphone applications are entered as unverified until an expert verifier
reviews the record. Rapid advancements in technology are improving the rate and
quality of data collection through location-based, real-time mapping services (Lwin
and Murayama 2011).
The first task in the IveGot1 project involved aggregating existing information
from the Everglades CISMA partners and any other agencies and programs
involved in nonnative species monitoring in Florida. These records included data
on snake captures, images, and any identification information that could be used to
provide volunteers and casual observers with the necessary tools to confidently report
sightings. The existing agencies’ databases were uploaded into the EDDMapS
database as “bulk data,” converted into data formats used in EDDMapS, and incorporated
as expert-verified data. Major goals of the project are to solicit data,
increase public awareness, and provide volunteers with the knowledge to report
sightings accurately—a vital key to the integrity of the database. The occurrence
data from the partners is housed in the EDDMapS database and can be queried and
downloaded to share the information back to the contributors.
After the existing data was added in the EDDMapS database, we designed and
created the smartphone application to solicit new observational data. In the field,
a long and complicated data-entry form is not user friendly to the casual reporter.
The agreed-upon data fields for the IveGot1 smartphone application were: species,
observation date, location as latitude and longitude, estimated number observed
(i.e., one or many), and notes. The user chooses the species from a list and the
phone automatically fills in the date, latitude, longitude, and coordinate accuracy.
We limited the number of reportable species to keep the size of the application as
small as possible and to keep the focus on the intended species of reporting concern
and the additional “instant-gratification” reportable species. The website reporting
form contains the same fields as the smartphone application (though none are
automatically filled-in), but users can also enter information about habitat, vouchers,
location information, land ownership, and up to 5 images with captions. All
smartphone and web reports can be edited on the user’s My EDDMapS webpage to
include more information and images.
EDDMapS and the programs that report to it are primary components of the
early detection and rapid response (EDRR) program in Florida. When a report is
submitted via one of the IveGot1 applications or through the website, representatives
at the appropriate agencies are alerted to the sighting and they can quickly
send out specialists to investigate the report. If the report is of an animal, they can
capture the specimen(s), when possible, and submit a revisit record to the original
report detailing the information regarding the capture and the specimen(s).
Southeastern Naturalist
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016
56
Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
Data can be entered into EDDMapS from a variety of different sources. If an
individual or group has a relatively small number of records to contribute at a time,
or they maintain a website or sophisticated occurrence database of their own, adding
data as single reports using web forms, smartphone apps, embedded web forms,
or application program interface (API) is a good option (Fig. 1). Bugwood offers
web forms that can be used on any site that they host and maintain, including any
partner projects and joint collaborations, such as the IveGot1 project. Smartphone
applications function on tablet computers using iOS or Android operating systems
which can be used to document species in the field and make 1 report at a time.
Embedded web forms are used by programs that maintain their own websites but
also upload data to the EDDMapS database. API is ideal for entities that maintain
their own websites and databases. In these cases, the function of the API is to take
data and information from the original database, translate it according to the necessary
EDDMapS format, and upload it directly into the EDDMapS database. For
groups that: 1) have large amounts of historic data, 2) who maintain databases that
are unconnected to a website or the internet, or 3) only wish to contribute data at
certain intervals, the data files can be uploaded through the My EDDMapS page as
bulk data (Fig. 1).
In some cases, bulk data is uploaded at the end of a project. There is a large
amount of data on invasive species distribution and abundance that has been collected
during various projects and programs, many of which are primarily run by
a small group or even a single individual. When the projects end, often due to lack
of funding or loss of the core group, the holders of that data often have neither the
time nor funding to enable them to reformat, convert, or re-enter the data to be included
in EDDMapS. Bugwood has developed a one-time data-dump process that
enables data from those projects to be uploaded, reformatted, and incorporated into
Figure 1. Data-entry sources
for EDDMapS. Data is
submitted to EDDMapS as
a single report from web
forms, smartphone applications,
embedded web
forms, and reporting APIs.
Bulk data is submitted as a
one-time data dump, contributed
regularly from
data-sharing partners, and
regularly from GISIN for
EDDMapS to serve as a
data mirror.
Southeastern Naturalist
57
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016 Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
EDDMapS. In other cases, group organizers schedule regular, periodic uploads.
For example, in accordance with the agreement for the IveGot1 project, the FWC
is a data-sharing partner; thus, FWC staff send a file once a month containing new
records that have been added to their database and any updates to their existing records
already incorporated in the EDDMapS database. Some partners share data on
a quarterly or yearly basis. EDDMapS also functions as a mirror of the Global Invasive
Species Information Network (GISIN) database. The entire GISIN database
has been uploaded into EDDMapS. As new data is entered, it is downloaded from
the GISIN website, formatted, and uploaded to the EDDMapS database. Whether
data is received as single reports or as part of a bulk upload, it is entered into the
database as a new report that triggers alerts to be sent to dat a verifiers.
The first versions of the IveGot1 website and applications only allowed species
reports at the county or point (i.e., latitude and longitude) levels. In 2014, we
added the polygon function which enables users to report infestations as polygons.
This feature allows reporters to accurately draw the outline of the infestation,
which gives subsequent data users a clearer picture of the infestation than numbers
alone can provide. The polygon feature is mainly used for reports of infestations of
plants and stationary animals, like Dreissena ploymorpha (Pallas) (Zebra Mussel).
Another function that was added in later versions of the user forms is the ability
to report negative data. Capturing information on survey efforts and tracking the
areas that have been searched for invasive species, but where none were found, can
provide valuable information for modeling, and can also potentially pin-point the
date of new infestation in an area, rather than only documenting the date when a
species was first detected. Negative data is reported in the same manner as positive
data, including the ability to use polygons in documenting the area surveyed.
Users choose the species surveyed, the date of the report, and can draw the area on
a Google map using their smartphone touch screen or mouse on the web reporting
form. Negative data and positive data are both considered records and are uploaded
by the users as new reports.
Data Verification and Public Availability
A crucial component of EDDMapS is the report-verification system (Fig. 2).
Verifiers are experts chosen for their knowledge, education, or experience in identification
of invasive species. Verifiers typically specialize in a certain geographic
area and taxonomic group, e.g., aquatic plants, terrestrial plants, insects, or reptiles.
All reports entered into EDDMapS via website reporting and smartphone apps, including
IveGot1, are initially noted as “unverified”. This designation tells users that
some data available for viewing has not been reviewed by an expert. When IveGot1
was first launched, the data that was entered was immediately viewable on maps
and was publicly available, though it was marked as “unverified” until reviewed
by a verifier. As of 2014, all data entered into the EDDMapS database by websites
and smartphone applications is marked as “actionable”, which means that it is only
viewable by a list of state and local verifiers and will only be publicly available if
it is determined to be a valid report.
Southeastern Naturalist
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016
58
Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
The verification process depends upon the species that is reported and the location
of the occurrence. New reports that document a regulated species are not
entered into the EDDMapS database; rather, they are sent to the appropriate state
and/or federal agency contact. Most submitted records are for non-regulated species
and the verification is as follows: the (1) report is submitted; (2) report is
deemed non-regulated; (3) report is sent to a verifier based on species, location, or
particular project; (4) verifier reviews the information contained within the report,
including any images, and may contact Bugwood or the reporter for additional information
or may visit the collection site if feasible; (5) verifier marks the record as
possible, credible, verified, incorrect, or “delete” based on their level of confidence
in the report, and may add comments on the record; and (6) record is released to
public availability if not marked by the verifier as incorrect or delete (Fig. 2). If
there is no verifier for the location or species, the EDDMapS administrator reviews
the record. Once the records are publicly available, data is displayed on maps and
is available for query and download.
After records are verified and released, alerts are sent out, maps are created or
updated, and data is sent out to partners and the really simple syndication (RSS)
feed (Fig. 3). Alerts are sent to the users that have signed up to receive an e-mail
Figure 2. Data verification process. New reports to EDDMapS are first evaluated for regulatory
status. If the species is of regulatory concern, the report is sent to state and federal
contacts. If it is a non-regulated species, the report is sent to the appropriate verifer, chosen
based on the species, location of report, and/or project. If there is no designated verifier for
the submitted data, the EDDMapS administrators evaluate the report.
Southeastern Naturalist
59
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016 Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
when certain conditions are met based on species, location, project, and first-report
status. Users can click on the links contained in the e-mail to open the EDDMapS
record in their browser. EDDMapS has 4 map types: state, county, point, and
ArcGIS. Data is sent out to populate and update the maps on EDDMapS websites,
project websites, and dynamic embedded maps. Although over half of the records
in EDDMapS have GPS coordinates, they are not required; at a minimum, data
must contain a state and county. Records with GPS coordinates populate all 4 map
types. Records that contain only a state and county as location information do not
appear on the point or ArcGIS maps. Some projects have requested custom maps
that are specific to their needs, such as spread-over-time maps, multispecies maps,
and positive/negative-records maps. All submitted records that meet the criteria for
any specific request populate those custom maps. Information is also sent out as a
data feed to GISIN, populates recent reports RSS, and is available for queries via
API (Fig. 3). Records that are entered into the EDDMapS database are shared back
with GISIN. Most of the project pages that Bugwood maintains contain a box with
summaries and links to the 5 most recently submitted reports. Data can also be accessed
from the EDDMapS database via API; thus, records can be retrieved from
the database, formatted, and uploaded into partners’ databases.
Figure 3. Data publication. When a record has been reviewed and released by a verifier, it
may trigger an alert to EDDMapS users based on the species, location, or project status.
The record populates maps at the state and county level, and if the record contains latitude
and longitude, it also populates point maps and ArcGIS maps. Depending on the parameters
of the report, it may also populate existing custom maps developed for projects
and websites. The record is also sent to GISIN, populates RSS feeds, and is available for
download via API.
Southeastern Naturalist
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016
60
Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
Users can also query the database, which has become more sophisticated as the
project has evolved. Previously, data was only available for download by species
or by requesting a specific data query from Bugwood personnel as a CSV file.
Currently, data can be requested through the advanced query tools and filtered
by reporter, date range, species, habitat, state/county/township, ownership, and/
or project. The site automatically produces a downloadable custom map showing
queried data, and the records can be downloaded as XLS, KML, GPX, or
SHP files. Data is freely available for download and has been used by a variety of
programs and researchers to create watch lists for invasive species and for use in
modeling programs and projects.
IveGot1 Project Results
A hotline for reporting nonnative snake sightings existed long before the IveGot1
project began, and it was incorporated into the IveGot1 branding and marketing
program. Statistics for the project show that as of May 2015, there had been 3481
website reports, 653 hotline reports, 683 iPhone reports, and 495 Android reports.
As smartphones have become more ubiquitous, more of the reports are coming in
via the smartphone application. In 2014 alone, there were 416 web reports, 360
hotline reports, 300 iPhone reports, and 212 Android reports. These numbers reflect
only verified EDDMapS reports and confirmed hotline reports. A breakdown of the
reporters submitting records via smartphone shows that of the 235 unique reporters,
105 reporters submitted 1 record each and 47 reporters submitted 2 records,
with fewer and fewer reporters submitting increasing numbers of records. The top
2 reporters, with 75 and 71 records, respectively, are invasive species professionals.
IveGot1 smartphone reports have documented at least 14 verified new state records
and 30 verified new county reports for plants, reptiles, birds, and fish. Overall,
81% of the total reports via web and smartphone are for plants, and the remaining
19% are for animals. Among smartphone reports, the percentage of animal reports
is 24% and plants account for 76% of the reports. The fact that there were more
smartphone reports than hotline reports suggests that having a convenient, in-field
option for documenting invasive animals encourages reporting.
The IveGot1 application has been one of the most successful programs for data
entry into EDDMapS based on application downloads and number of reports. By
aggregating data from the project partners and other mapping programs, and encouraging
data submission by citizen scientists and casual observers, at the time
of writing of this paper, EDDMapS contained 250,968 reports for 1315 species in
Florida, accounting for 10% of all reports in the EDDMapS database. The success
of the program, and the increasing number of reports, can be attributed to the support
and reporting by local CISMAs, statewide cooperation, and marketing through
billboards, bumper stickers, and extension publications. With the success of the
IveGot1 applications, more partnerships, cooperatives, and individual programs
and agencies have requested reporting applications. Bugwood has developed 52
applications, though at this time only 35 of them are used to collect data and report
to the EDDMapS database.
Southeastern Naturalist
61
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016 Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
Looking ahead, we anticipate that the upcoming features on IveGot1 will focus
on “site revisits”; searching within and around geographic and political boundaries,
and color-coding records on maps. Many of the programs that contribute large
quantities of invasive species data are also responsible for control and treatment of
the occurrences. By linking records across time, invasive-species managers will be
able to assess the effect of control programs on individual populations and to generate
internal reports or progress reports for funding agencies. The ability to search
within a boundary or within a buffer zone around the boundary can be very useful
to EDRR programs. Interested parties will be able to upload or draw their boundary
and query the database for the species which are within a certain distance of their
area of concern. The results will tell them which species have been reported nearby
and they can plan additional surveying programs accordingly.
Currently, the maps only show reports in 1 color. Records can be coded to a
number of different colors based on the origin of the report (e.g., literature or
herbarium records vs. recent reports), positive/negative status, if treatment is underway,
or if a population has been deemed eradicated. Color-coding the maps will
provide users with more-specific information and reduce the need for further, more
refined queries. Programmers will try to add functions as data collectors and data
users request more features.
Smartphone applications continue to provide a convenient process for citizen
scientists and professionals to report invasive species occurrences. As devices
become less expensive and more ubiquitous, and awareness of invasive species
spreads, there will likely be more people who can identify and report an observation
of an invasive species, thus increasing the probability of successful early detection
and a rapid response to these ecosyste threats.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, University of Florida–Center for Aquatic and
Invasive Plants, The Nature Conservancy, Florida Invasive Species Partnership, Florida Exotic
Pest Plant Council, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, South Florida Water Management
District, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US Forest Service for their support of various
aspects of this project.
Literature Cited
Apple. 2014. First weekend iPhone sales top 10 million, set new record. Available online
at https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/09/22First-Weekend-iPhone-Sales-Top-
10-Million-Set-New-Record.html. Accessed 15 March 2016.
Apple. 2015. iPhone 6 tech specs. Available online at https://www.apple.com/iphone-6/
specs/. Accessed 27 April 27 2015.
Crall, A.W., G.J. Newman, T.J. Stohlgren, K.A. Holfelder, J. Graham, and D.M. Waller.
2011. Assessing citizen-science data quality: An invasive-species case study. Conservation
Letters. 4:433–442.
Southeastern Naturalist
R.D. Wallace, C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and J.H. LaForest
2016
62
Vol. 15, Special Issue 8
Harvey, R.G., M.L. Brien, M.S. Cherkiss, M. Dorcas, M. Rochford, R.W. Snow, and F.J.
Mazzotti. 2008. Burmese pythons in south Florida: Scientific support for invasive species
management. IFAS Publication Number WEC242. Available online at http://edis.
ifas.ufl.edu/uw286. Accessed 15 March 2016.
Henke, S.E. 1998. The effect of multiple search-items and item abundance on the efficacy
of human searchers. Journal of Herpetology. 32:112–115.
Lwin, K.K., and Y. Murayama. 2011. Web-based GIS system for real-time field-data collection
using a mobile phone. Journal of Geographic Information Systems. 3:382–389.
McGeeney, K., S. Keeter, R. Igielnik, A. Smith, and L. Rainie. 2015. Apps vs. web for
surveys of smartphone users. Pew Research Center. Available online at http://www.
pewresearch.org/2015/04/01/app-vs-web-for-surveys-of-smartphone-users/. Accessed
21 April 2015.
Meshaka, W.E., W.F. Loftus, and T. Steiner. 2000. The herptofauna of Everglades National
Park. Florida Scientist. 63:84–102.
Pew Research Center. 2015. The smartphone difference. Available online at http://www.
pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ Accessed 21 April 2015.
Reed, R.N., and G.H. Rodda. 2009. Giant constrictors: Biological and management profiles
and an establishment risk-assessment for 9 large species of pythons, anacondas, and the
Boa Constrictor. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1202. 302 pp.
South Florida Water Management District. 2008. Memorandum of understanding No.
4600001287. Available online at http://www.evergladescisma.org/ECISMA_MOU.pdf.
Accessed 28April 2015.
Stanford, J.W., and G.H. Rodda. 2007. The Brown Tree Snake rapid response team. Pp.
175–217, In G.W. Witmer, W.C. Pitt, and K.A. Fagerstone (Eds.). Managing Vertebrate
Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium. USDA-APHIS Wildlife
Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO.