peter.hovenkamp at naturalis.nl
Mon Sep 30 10:02:56 CEST 2013
Just a thought from a comparative outsider:
The various terms to describe abundance, frequency, occurrence etc etc.
appear to be so different for different taxonomic groups and different
purposes: Flocks of geese, bulks of timber, kilo's of fish,
ramets/genets/cover for creeping plants, abundance as numbers of stems > 10
cm dbh for others, etc etc.
Are not attempts to capture this in a single vocabulary as doomed as
attempts to do develop a single ontology to capture all
characters/character states across all taxa?
T 071-5274732, M
Darwinweg 2, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden
E peter.hovenkamp at naturalis.nl, blumea at naturalis.nl,
*Naturalis Biodiversity Center is performing large scale digitization as
well as rehousing of the collections of the former National Herbarium of
the Netherlands (L, U, WAG, AMD). As a result, until 2015, parts of the
herbarium collections may not be immediately accessible to visitors or
available for loans. Therefore, we kindly ask you to plan your visits and
loan requests well in advance and to always contact our staff through
botaniecollectie at naturalis.nl. We apologize for this inconvenience. For
access to digital collection data, see: http://vstbol.leidenuniv.nl/*.
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Robert Stevenson
<Robert.Stevenson at umb.edu>wrote:
> Some thoughts about usage of some of the terms under discussion and the
> ultimate goals
> I often use the term "abundance" as a refinement of the term "occurrence".
> I say "Species X occurs or does not occur at Location L. This kind of
> statement is refined with a statement such as "Females are rare in March"
> or "Juveniles are common or very abundant in July". The details of the
> life stage, timing and numbers of individuals or groups are more specific
> but still categorical.
> I think of such statements as being derived from "expert opinion" or being
> summary statements based on enumerations from a series of samples taken
> during several field trips. I think these kinds of generalities are useful
> for policy making.
> In terms of data, the simplest category is "presence only" data. Some
> times this is referred to as occurrence data - some number of individuals
> are seen at a particular time and location. Many museum records fall into
> this category as there is no other information associated with the
> specimen. Such records are equivalent to an incidental sighting by a field
> Today many biodiversity data are collect following a particular protocol.
> Here sampling effort is known. A specific number of individuals seen in a
> "given area" and during a known time interval. From this information one
> can compute population densities.
> As several others have commented, the results are dependent on the
> particular protocols and it can be difficult to reconcile data from two
> different protocols. How are data from pitfall traps equivalent to data
> from baits.....? This is an important challenge because we know that
> usually one and often two protocols are insufficient to characterize the
> presence of all members of a taxon
> If I am not mistaken, the goal is to establish terms that will let humans
> efficiently prepare data and write programs so that machines can reason
> with the data. If so, the key challenges seem to be
> 1) Distinguishing presence-only data from data collected using known
> 2) Finding ways to reconcile data from different protocols
> Rob Stevenson
> Rob Stevenson
> Biology Department
> UMass Boston
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-content