Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Iberian Odonata distribution: BOS Arthropod Collection digitisation

2,440 views

Published on

Here we describe (1) the digitisation workflow used in the BOS Arthropod Collection (Department of Biología de Organismos y Sistemas, University of Oviedo, Spain); (and 2) the dataset of Odonata biodiversity deposited here. The 16,604 specimens were mainly collected from the Iberian Peninsula (98.63% of the data records), especially the northern region, and comprising several holo and paratypes of Iberian subspecies. This workflow have been published in ZooKeys 306, please cite the print source if you use it:
Torralba-Burrial A, Ocharan FJ (2013) Iberian Odonata distribution: data of the BOS Arthropod Collection (University of Oviedo, Spain). ZooKeys 306: 37–58. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.306.5289 Resource ID: GBIF key: http://gbrds.gbif.org/browse/agent?uuid=7e31baf8-f762-11e1-a439-00145eb45e9a

Published in: Technology, Education
  • @joseluisyela Yes, Jose Luis, put good data involves a effort in data cleaning to enhance data quality, and personnel is needed. A temporary scheme with different milestones under precise deadlines is also necessary. Our experience with Spanish dragonfly bibliography was a disaster for this reason (but I hope solve it starting next years).
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I agree with Stephen. To put 'ggod' data on a faunistic data set takes a huge amount of time, because you have to 'clean' them up from several viewpoints (taxonomic, geographic, ecological, etc.). In my lab, we began with the huge task of digitalising the faunistic information of the Iberian noctuids s.l. (Lepidoptera) six years ago, but we are still so to say at the begining (1/7 of the available data were put on the data matrix to date).
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Hi, Stephen, this workflow shown a way to obtain good data digitisation from natural history collections with good specimens data (this is, with correct identifications or reviews of identifications by specialist when available)... entire museum collection should use other methods... or maybe not considerer the entire museum collection as an unique item to digitisation, since wide heterogenity is expected in the full collection.
    In BOS Arthropod Collection each arthropod order is a subcollection with its own serial codes (Odonata is BOS-Odo+specimen number, Opiliones BOS-Opi+specimen number, Coleoptera BOS-Col...)... subcollections with recent specialist review are digitisated according with the exposed workflow (besides Odonata, the harvestmen subcollection is now in GBIF network with its datapaper)... datasets metadata enriched are needed to tagged 'good data', and it's necessary to identify the determinator of each specimen (or last review of this determination) and comment the quality data control steps what have been realised to shown 'good data'... in this sense, I think that metadata exposed in a datapaper, and linked to data, could be a valid tag of 'good data'...
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • This sort of thing works well for specific examples like this one, but does not work well in general. This example works because the dataset is relatively small and well-defined, and part of an active research project. On the other hand, entire museum collection holdings are another matter altogether. Most of such collections will not be part of active research projects, and the amount of data will be huge. If GBIF blends relatively good data, like the above, with poor data from bigger and less well-defined datasets, then the overall result will be poor, particularly if the bits of good data are not clearly tagged as such (i.e. the good data will be 'drowned in a sea of bad data'). Also, retrospective georeferencing is often highly problematic, and requires very close scrutiny. Not every point is worth plotting!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Iberian Odonata distribution: BOS Arthropod Collection digitisation

  1. 1. Digitisation of biological collections A. Torralba-Burrial & F.J. Ocharan
  2. 2. Introduction and objectives » Iberian Peninsula has 79 species Odonata » There is a significant gap in accessible knowledge » Dataset of Odonata deposited at BOS Arthropod Collection (University of Oviedo): » 16,604 specimens » 1950- present » Including ˃ holo & paratypes ˃ Threatened spp. data Torralba-Burrial & Ocharan 2013
  3. 3. Odonata records in some European datasets Other datasets info: Conce et al. 2010, De Knijf & Anselin 2010, Parr 2010, Termaat et al. 2010, GBIF
  4. 4. Geographic distribution BOS-Odo dataset Torralba-Burrial & Ocharan 2013
  5. 5. Specimens by provinces  Data of: 40 Spanish provinces 2 old Portuguese provinces  Northern part of the Peninsula is better covered.  Asturias (~ 4100 specimens)  Huesca (~3400) Torralba-Burrial & Ocharan 2013
  6. 6. BOS-Odo taxonomic distribution Torralba-Burrial & Ocharan 2013
  7. 7. BOS-Odo sources Torralba-Burrial & Ocharan 2013
  8. 8. BOS Arthropod Collection digitisation workflow  This is our workflow:  Specimens preparation  Data digitisation  Retrospective georefencing Exporting datasets  Data quality control  Generalise sensitive data  Generate metadata Dataset release Torralba-Burrial & Ocharan 2013
  9. 9. Specimens preparation and data digitisation Torralba-Burrial & Ocharan 2013
  10. 10. Retrospective georeferencing Chapman & Wieczorek 2006 Iberpix, Google Earth
  11. 11. Data quality control Torralba-Burrial & Ocharan 2013
  12. 12. Generalising sensitive species data Threatened species protected by inclusion in Habitats Directive and Spanish legislation, which populations are generalising in exported dataset. A) Coenagrion mercuriale; B) Macromia splendens; C) Oxygastra curtisii; D) Gomphus graslinii. Chapman & Grafton 2008
  13. 13. Generate metadata & dataset release
  14. 14. Generate metadata & dataset release
  15. 15. Generate metadata & dataset release
  16. 16. Generate metadata & dataset release
  17. 17. Citation Datapaper: Torralba-Burrial A, Ocharan FJ (2013) Iberian Odonata distribution: data of the BOS Arthropod Collection (University of Oviedo, Spain). ZooKeys 306: 37–58. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.306.5289 Resource ID: GBIF key: http:// gbrds.gbif.org/browse/agent?uuid=7e31baf8-f762-11e1-a43900145eb45e9a Resource citation: Torralba-Burrial A, Ocharan FJ (2013 -). BOS Arthropod Collection Dataset: Iberian Odonata distribution. 16604 data records. Contributed by Torralba-Burrial A, Ocharan FJ, Outomuro D, Ocharan R, Salona MI, Benitez-Donoso A, Martinez JA, Martinez SR, and Brotons-Padilla M. Online at http://www.gbif.es:8080/ipt/archive.do?r=Bos-Odo and http://www.unioviedo.es/BOS/Zoologia/artropodos/odonata, version 1.0 (last updated on 2013-04-08), GBIF key: http://gbrds.gbif.org/browse/agent?uuid=7e31baf8-f762-11e1-a43900145eb45e9a. Data Paper ID: doi: 10.3897/zookeys.306.5289

×