[Tdwg-obs] Survey and Monitoring

[tdwg at achapman.org]

I would agree with Hannu, but there will be many other like communities that will have different types of survey requirements as well.

What I believe would be worth while would be for a central standard for observations and basic/minimal survey information, with the ability to have small specific extensions for specialised surveys (forestry, marine, fresh water aquatic fish, etc.) that will each have specific requirements.  

As I would see it, the Observation Standard would be the common-denominator fields that could be appended by extra community-specific fields as appropriate.

regards

Arthur Chapman

>>>From Hannu Saarenmaa <hsaarenmaa at gbif.org> on 15 Nov 2005:

> Good support for plot observations is important, because that is how the
> 
> forestry community manages their data. If they can identify their own 
> concepts in this standard, that willl potentially open access to a very 
> large number of databases.  Forest plots are not really different from 
> vegetation plots, as described below by Bob.  The most notable addition 
> would be measurements of diameter, height, etc. These may not have 
> direct relevance for biodiversity studies but in order to find 
> acceptance from the forestry community, I think it would be advantageous
> 
> to design an easy mechanism for linking such data to the plot 
> observation data.  In forest surveys there also often are observations 
> on harmful agents (insects, etc.) that would be linked to some of the 
> tree cohorts in a plot.
> 
> Regards, Hannu Saarenmaa
> 
> Robert K. Peet wrote:
> 
> >Hello,
> >
> >Like Lynn, I would like the observations standard to support
> observations 
> >of communities as well as individual organisms
> >
> >Consider the VegBank approach
> >(http://vegbank.org/vegdocs/design/erd/vegbank_erd.pdf):
> >
> >A vegetation plot (location) can have multiple plotObservation events, 
> >each of which can have multiple taxonObservation events (collectively
> such 
> >as density, or of individuals), each of which can have multiple 
> >identification events, each of which can refer to multiple taxonomic 
> >concepts.  In addition, the plotObservation can have multiple 
> >identifications, and each of these can refer to multiple community 
> >concepts.
> >
> >With this approach permanent information about the location, such as 
> >geocoordinates, is associated with the plot.  Transient information
> about 
> >the plot is recorded with the plotObservation and here we also could
> refer 
> >to protocols applied. Monitoring can be handled by a recursive loop 
> >linking plotObservations or taxonObservations
> >
> >Bob Peet
> > 
> ======================================================================
> >      Robert K. Peet, Professor & Chair         Phone:  919-962-6942
> >      Curriculum in Ecology, CB#3275            Fax:    919-962-6930
> >      University of North Carolina              Cell:   919-368-4971
> >      Chapel Hill, NC  27599-3275  USA          Email:  peet at unc.edu
> >
> >                    http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/
> >                  http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/
> > 
> ======================================================================
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Message: 1
> >>Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:35:44 -0500
> >>From: Steve Kelling <stk2 at cornell.edu>
> >>Subject: [Tdwg-obs] Survey and Monitoring
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> >>            I apologize for the delay in posting to the listserve. As
> I am
> >>sure it is true for you, it has been quite hectic for me.
> >>
> >>            My feeling is that we have a good definition for the
> >>integrative element of observational data. That is, the element in
> which
> >>observational data can be (and is) incorporated in existing Natural
> History
> >>collections data. To reiterate;
> >>An observation is a collection event that describes a phenomenon, and
> is
> >>bound to the spatiotemporal location where it was made. Furthermore,
> an
> >>observation describes an occurrence and can be linked to descriptions
> of
> >>other occurrences.
> >>            Now we can begin to talk about the methods of aggregating
> >>observations. To do this means issues such as protocol (including
> >>precision, accuracy, and certainty in the methods), data quality,
> inferring
> >>negative data, and detectability must be addressed. It is at this
> point
> >>where observational data can begin to contribute and extend the value
> of
> >>the data held within biodiversity data networks.
> >>
> >>            What I would like to do is begin a discussion on
> >>survey/monitoring techniques and issues. Specifically I would like to
> >>develop the necessary requirements to define methodology metadata. For
> >>example, how does one distinguish between surveys and monitoring? For
> >>example, I consider monitoring as a protocol- driven collection of
> >>observational data gathered repeatedly over a time series at a
> specific
> >>location. Thus, I would distinguish monitoring from a survey in that a
> >>survey documents an occurrence of an organism(s) at a location at a
> >>particular time, and does not include repeated sampling.
> >>
> >>Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Steve Kelling
> >>Cornell Lab of Ornithology
> >>607-254-2478 (work)
> >>607-342-1029 (cell)
> >>    
> >>
> >

=== message truncated ===