Biodiversity Information Science and Standards :
Conference Abstract
|
Corresponding author: José Augusto Salim (joseasalim@usp.br)
Received: 17 Aug 2022 | Published: 23 Aug 2022
© 2022 José Augusto Salim, Katja Seltmann, Jorrit Poelen, Antonio Saraiva
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Salim JA, Seltmann KC, Poelen JH, Saraiva AM (2022) Indexing Biotic Interactions in GBIF data. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 6: e93565. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.6.93565
|
|
The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (
We used Preston (
Taxonomic name validation was performed using Nomer, which maps input names to names found in a variety of taxonomic catalogs. We only considered an interaction record valid where the interaction type could be mapped to a term in RO and where Nomer found a valid name for source and target taxa.
Based on the workflow described in Fig.
Preston, Elton, Nomer workflows to retrieve and process biotic interactions from GBIF data.
In conclusion, there are many biotic interactions embedded in existing datasets registered in large biodiversity data indexers and aggregators like iDigBio, GBIF, and BioCASE. We exposed these biotic interaction claims using the combined functionality of biodiversity data tools Elton (for interaction data extraction), Preston (for reliable dataset tracking) and Nomer (for taxonomic name alignment). Nonetheless, the development of new vocabularies, standards and best practice guides would facilitate aggregation of interaction data, including the diversification of the GBIF data model (
global biotic interactions, Preston, Elton, Nomer, Darwin Core
José Augusto Salim
TDWG 2022
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/globalbioticinteractions/prestonocene/main/mapping_unsupported_interactions.tsv