Enriched biodiversity data as a resource and service

Abstract

Background: Recent years have seen a surge in projects that produce large volumes of structured, machine-readable biodiversity data. To make these data amenable to processing by generic, open source “data enrichment” workflows, they are increasingly being represented in a variety of standards-compliant interchange formats. Here, we report on an initiative in which software developers and taxonomists came together to address the challenges and highlight the opportunities in the enrichment of such biodiversity data by engaging in intensive, collaborative software development: The Biodiversity Data Enrichment Hackathon.Results: The hackathon brought together 37 participants (including developers and taxonomists, i.e. scientific professionals that gather, identify, name and classify species) from 10 countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the US. The participants brought expertise in processing structured data, text mining, development of ontologies, digital identification keys, geographic information systems, niche modeling, natural language processing, provenance annotation, semantic integration, taxonomic name resolution, web service interfaces, workflow tools and visualisation. Most use cases and exemplar data were provided by taxonomists.One goal of the meeting was to facilitate re-use and enhancement of biodiversity knowledge by a broad range of stakeholders, such as taxonomists, systematists, ecologists, niche modelers, informaticians and ontologists. The suggested use cases resulted in nine breakout groups addressing three main themes: i) mobilising heritage biodiversity knowledge; ii) formalising and linking concepts; and iii) addressing interoperability between service platforms. Another goal was to further foster a community of experts in biodiversity informatics and to build human links between research projects and institutions, in response to recent calls to further such integration in this research domain.Conclusions: Beyond deriving prototype solutions for each use case, areas of inadequacy were discussed and are being pursued further. It was striking how many possible applications for biodiversity data there were and how quickly solutions could be put together when the normal constraints to collaboration were broken down for a week. Conversely, mobilising biodiversity knowledge from their silos in heritage literature and natural history collections will continue to require formalisation of the concepts (and the links between them) that define the research domain, as well as increased interoperability between the software platforms that operate on these concepts.

How well documented is Australia's flora? Understanding spatial bias in vouchered plant specimens

“…NHCs are prone to inherent spatial biases in sampling effort, which have the potential to distort study outcomes (Newbold 2010). Given budget and logistic support limitations for surveys, this makes it all the more important to optimize future sampling strategies to increase the coverage and representativeness of NHCs (Gioia 2010;Hardisty & Roberts 2013;Vos et al 2014). As such, we explored the probability that the next sample taken from a bioregion would represent a species previously unreported for that bioregion.…”

The importance of digitized biocollections as a source of trait data and a new VertNet resource

“…However, the best way to proceed with trait publication steps cannot be answered by VertNet data managers alone; instead, it is a larger community conversation that can now begin with data publishers to address their interests and needs. Furthermore, since the Traiter tool we developed works independently of the source of the input text strings, it could be more broadly utilized to extract information that is contained in other sources than in Darwin Core fields, such as extensive information on species traits located in species treatments (50), morphological descriptions (51), or from measures taken from specimen images. In this sense, the potential of these tools and its further application is to be determined by the community needs.…”

Standard methods for the assessment of structural and functional diversity of soil organisms: A review

“…In addition, we will not go into detail regarding the last step, data storage (including issues of data identification, data quality, and data sharing), because a detailed description would require a separate article. Relevant information on different aspects can be found in Chapman (), Bach et al (), Triebel et al (), Mathew et al (), Vos et al (), ISO 27040 (ISO/IEC ), Rueda et al (), and Smirnova et al (). Consequently, we will focus only on the first 4 of the 6 steps listed in Figure .…”