Life on Earth is sustained by complex interactions between organisms
and their environment. These biotic interactions can be captured in
datasets and published digitally. We present a review process of such an
openly accessible digital interactions dataset of known origin, and
discuss its outcome. The dataset under review, named
globalbioticinteractions/ku-semc, is 86.1MiB in size and contains
120,434 interaction with 2 unique types of associations (e.g.,
interactsWith) between 5,379 primary taxon (e.g., Eucerini) and 3,236
associated taxon (e.g., Salix). The report includes detailed summaries
of interactions data as well as a taxonomic review from multiple
catalogs.
Introduction
Data Review
Data review can be a time consuming process, especially when done
manually. This review report aims to help facilitate data review of
species interaction claims made in datasets registered with Global
Biotic Interactions (Poelen, Simons, and Mungall 2014). The
review includes summary statistics of, and observations about, the
dataset under review:
University of Kansas Natural History Museum
https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/ku-semc/archive/a9c7cb81050eef68b4428667206a219da458f517.zip
2024-12-21T15:39:29.221Z
2af46dc3e7ffef08e376a516f9c35ff4246428ced3686119f2eaba6645aa8506
For additional metadata related to this dataset, please visit https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/ku-semc
and inspect associated metadata files including, but not limited to,
README.md, eml.xml, and/or globi.json.
Methods
The review is performed through programmatic scripts that leverage
tools like Preston, Elton, Nomer combined with third-party tools like
grep, mlr, tail and head.
The review process can be described in the form of the script below
1.
# get versioned copy of the dataset (size approx. 86.1MiB) under review
elton pull globalbioticinteractions/ku-semc
# generate review notes
elton review globalbioticinteractions/ku-semc\
> review.tsv
# export indexed interaction records
elton interactions globalbioticinteractions/ku-semc\
> interactions.tsv
# export names and align them with the Catalogue of Life using Nomer
elton names globalbioticinteractions/ku-semc\
| nomer append col\
> name-alignment.tsv
or visually, in a process diagram.
You can find a recent copy of the full review script at check-data.sh.
Results
In the following sections, the results of the review are summarized
2. Then, links to the detailed review
reports are provided.
Biotic Interactions
In this review, biotic interactions (or biotic associations) are
modeled as a primary (aka subject, source) organism interacting with an
associate (aka object, target) organism. The dataset under review
classified the primary/associate organisms with specific taxa. The
primary and associate organisms The kind of interaction is documented as
an interaction type.
The dataset under review, named globalbioticinteractions/ku-semc, is
86.1MiB in size and contains 120,434 interaction with 2 unique types of
associations (e.g., interactsWith) between 5,379 primary taxon (e.g.,
Eucerini) and 3,236 associated taxon (e.g., Salix).
An exhaustive list of indexed interaction claims can be found in csv and tsv archives. To facilitate
discovery, the first 500 claims available on the html page at indexed-interactions.html are shown
below.
The exhaustive list was used to create the following data summaries
below.
Sample of Indexed Interaction Claims
sourceTaxonName
interactionTypeName
targetTaxonName
referenceCitation
Anthophora (Heliophila) phenax
interactsWith
Lycium berlandieri
1721fbd3-1ed6-11e3-bfac-90b11c41863e
Megachile (Xanthosarus) mucida
interactsWith
Tephrosia virginiana
172203a5-1ed6-11e3-bfac-90b11c41863e
Andrena (Larandrena) miserabilis
interactsWith
Prunus
172204ef-1ed6-11e3-bfac-90b11c41863e
Protandrena (Pterosarus) albitarsus innuptus
interactsWith
Gaillardia
17220e48-1ed6-11e3-bfac-90b11c41863e
Most Frequently Mentioned Interaction Types (up to 20 most
frequent)
interactionTypeName
count
interactsWith
120389
adjacentTo
45
Most Frequently Mentioned Primary Taxa (up to 20 most
frequent)
sourceTaxonName
count
Eucerini
3877
Colletes
1871
Perdita
1569
Bombus
1483
Ceratina
1373
Lasioglossum (Dialictus)
1148
Melissodes (Eumelissodes) tristis
1143
Andrena (Micrandrena) illinoiensis
1068
Ashmeadiella
956
Megachile
954
Nomada
869
Halictus (Odontalictus) ligatus
858
Andrena (Andrena)
817
Augochlorella persimilis
777
Melissodes (Eumelissodes) agilis
769
Augochlora
743
Osmia
656
Perdita (Perdita) salicis imperialis
653
Melissodes (Eumelissodes) coreopsis
652
Most Frequently Mentioned Associate Taxa (up to 20 most
frequent)
targetTaxonName
count
Salix
3389
Cucurbita foetidissima
2747
Helianthus annuus
2338
Helianthus petiolaris
2268
Gaillardia
2027
Larrea tridentata
1715
Prosopis
1415
Sphaeralcea
1375
Opuntia
1364
Helianthus
1283
Eucalyptus
1117
Phacelia
1104
Melilotus officinalis
1062
Heterotheca subaxillaris
1025
Melilotus alba
962
Cleome serrulata
938
Aster
896
Cassia
841
Vaccinium
841
Most Frequent Interactions between Primary and Associate Taxa
(up to 20 most frequent)
sourceTaxonName
interactionTypeName
targetTaxonName
count
Eucerini
interactsWith
Cucurbita foetidissima
2598
Bombus
interactsWith
Vaccinium
689
Perdita (Perdita) salicis imperialis
interactsWith
Salix
653
Andrena (Micrandrena) illinoiensis
interactsWith
Salix
619
Eucerini
interactsWith
Cucurbita
554
Abroteles beaumonti
interactsWith
Nasutitermes peruanus
533
Perdita (Perdita) sexmaculata
interactsWith
Quincula lobata
446
Perdita (Pygoperdita) nevadensis nevadensis
interactsWith
Holodiscus discolor
393
Perdita (Cockerellia) albipennis albipennis
interactsWith
Helianthus petiolaris
388
Eucerini
interactsWith
Cucurbita digitata
367
Melissodes (Eumelissodes) agilis
interactsWith
Helianthus annuus
352
Augochlorella persimilis
interactsWith
Aster
335
Perdita (Perdita) zebrata flavens
interactsWith
Cleome serrulata
332
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) fuscescens
interactsWith
Eucalyptus tereticornis
309
Perdita (Perdita) gerhardi dallasiana
interactsWith
Monarda citriodora
305
Chelonus
interactsWith
Cassia
301
Perdita (Cockerellia) coreopsidis obscurior
interactsWith
Gaillardia
290
Perdita (Perdita) zebrata zebrata
interactsWith
Cleome serrulata
287
Perdita (Perdita) wilmattae miricornis
interactsWith
Stanleya pinnata
267
Interaction Networks
The figures below provide a graph view on the dataset under review.
The first shows a summary network on the kingdom level, and the second
shows how interactions on the family level. It is important to note that
both network graphs were first aligned taxonomically using the Catalogue
of Life. Please refer to the original (or verbatim) taxonomic names for
a more original view on the interaction data.
Another way to discover the dataset under review is by searching for
it on the GloBI
website.
Taxonomic Alignment
As part of the review, all names are aligned against various name
catalogs (e.g., col, ncbi, discoverlife, gbif, itis, wfo, mdd, tpt,
pbdb, and worms). These alignments can help review name usage or aid in
selecting of a suitable taxonomic name resource.
Sample of Name Alignments
providedName
relationName
resolvedCatalogName
resolvedName
Abedus dilatatus
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Abedus dilatatus
Abies
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Abies
Abronia
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Abronia
Abronia latifolia
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Abronia latifolia
Distribution of Taxonomic Ranks of Aligned Names by Catalog.
Names that were not aligned with a catalog are counted as NAs. So, the
total number of unaligned names for a catalog will be listed in their NA
row.
resolvedCatalogName
resolvedRank
count
col
NA
541
col
class
1
col
family
130
col
form
1
col
genus
1045
col
order
9
col
section
1
col
species
3192
col
subfamily
29
col
subgenus
17
col
subspecies
162
col
subterclass
1
col
subtribe
4
col
superfamily
7
col
tribe
23
col
variety
70
discoverlife
NA
4452
discoverlife
species
672
gbif
NA
299
gbif
class
1
gbif
family
139
gbif
form
1
gbif
genus
1089
gbif
order
9
gbif
species
3415
gbif
subspecies
225
gbif
variety
106
itis
NA
1105
itis
class
1
itis
family
133
itis
genus
933
itis
infraorder
1
itis
order
10
itis
species
2715
itis
subfamily
40
itis
subgenus
1
itis
suborder
2
itis
subspecies
72
itis
superfamily
7
itis
superorder
2
itis
tribe
19
itis
variety
90
mdd
NA
5123
ncbi
NA
1460
ncbi
clade
1
ncbi
class
1
ncbi
cohort
1
ncbi
family
128
ncbi
genus
1015
ncbi
infraorder
1
ncbi
order
10
ncbi
section
2
ncbi
species
2388
ncbi
species group
1
ncbi
subfamily
54
ncbi
subgenus
31
ncbi
suborder
2
ncbi
subspecies
15
ncbi
subtribe
1
ncbi
superfamily
7
ncbi
superorder
1
ncbi
tribe
20
ncbi
varietas
12
pbdb
NA
4467
pbdb
class
2
pbdb
family
136
pbdb
genus
381
pbdb
infraclass
1
pbdb
infraorder
1
pbdb
order
12
pbdb
species
42
pbdb
subfamily
56
pbdb
suborder
5
pbdb
subtribe
3
pbdb
superfamily
7
pbdb
tribe
23
pbdb
unranked clade
3
tpt
NA
5115
tpt
genus
6
tpt
order
1
tpt
species
1
wfo
NA
2092
wfo
family
47
wfo
genus
649
wfo
section
1
wfo
species
2243
wfo
subfamily
1
wfo
subspecies
74
wfo
variety
64
worms
NA
3941
worms
family
97
worms
genus
427
worms
order
9
worms
species
601
worms
subclass
1
worms
subfamily
5
worms
suborder
2
worms
subspecies
20
worms
subterclass
1
worms
subtribe
2
worms
superfamily
1
worms
tribe
6
worms
variety
24
Name relationship types per catalog. Name relationship type
“NONE” means that a name was not recognized by the associated catalog.
“SAME_AS” indicates either a “HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME” or “SYNONYM_OF” name
relationship type. We recognize that “SYNONYM_OF” encompasses many types
of nomenclatural synonymies (ICZN 1999) (e.g., junior synonym, senior
synonyms).
Elton, Nomer, and other tools may have difficulties interpreting
existing species interaction datasets. Or, they may misbehave, or
otherwise show unexpected behavior. As part of the review process,
detailed review notes are kept that document possibly misbehaving, or
confused, review bots. An sample of review notes associated with this
review can be found below.
First few lines in the review notes.
reviewDate
reviewCommentType
reviewComment
2024-12-26T18:53:19Z
note
found invalid location: [range of latitude [3717] not valid]
2024-12-26T18:53:19Z
note
found invalid location: [range of latitude [3717] not valid]
2024-12-26T18:53:19Z
note
found invalid location: [range of latitude [3717] not valid]
2024-12-26T18:53:19Z
note
found invalid location: [range of latitude [3717] not valid]
In addtion, you can find the most frequently occurring notes in the
table below.
Most frequently occurring review notes, if any.
reviewComment
count
found invalid location: [range of latitude [3717] not valid]
5
found invalid location: [range of latitude [3630] not valid]
1
found invalid location: [range of longitude [3452.516] not
valid]
1
found unsupported interaction type with name: [attacked by]
1
For addition information on review notes, please have a look at the
first 500 Review Notes or the download full csv or tsv archives.
GloBI Review Badge
As part of the review, a review badge is generated. This review badge
can be included in webpages to indicate the review status of the dataset
under review.
Note that if the badge is green, no review notes were generated. If
the badge is yellow, the review bots may need some help with
interpreting the species interaction data.
GloBI Index Badge
If the dataset under review has been registered with
GloBI, and has been succesfully indexed by GloBI, the GloBI Index
Status Badge will turn green. This means that the dataset under review
was indexed by GloBI and is available through GloBI services and derived
data products.
If you’d like to keep track of reviews or index status of the dataset
under review, please visit [GloBI’s dataset index ^[At time of writing
(2024-12-26) the version of the GloBI dataset index was available at https://globalbioticinteractions.org/datasets
for badge examples.
Discussion
This review aims to provide a perspective on the dataset to aid in
understanding of species interaction claims discovered. However, it is
important to note that this review does not assess the quality
of the dataset. Instead, it serves as an indication of the open-ness5 and FAIRness (Wilkinson et
al. 2016; Trekels et al. 2023) of the dataset: to perform this
review, the data was likely openly available, Findable,
Accessible, Interoperable and
Reusable. The current Open-FAIR assessment is
qualitative, and a more quantitative approach can be implemented with
specified measurement units.
This report also showcases the reuse of machine-actionable
(meta)data, something highly recommended by the FAIR Data Principles
(Wilkinson et al.
2016). Making (meta)data machine-actionable enables more precise
procesing by computers, enabling even naive review bots like Nomer and
Elton to interpret the data effectively. This capability is crucial for
not just automating the generation of reports, but also for facilitating
seamless data exchanges, promoting interoperability.
Acknowledgements
We thank the many humans that created us and those who created and
maintained the data, software and other intellectual resources that were
used for producing this review. In addition, we are grateful for the
natural resources providing the basis for these human and bot
activities.
Author contributions
Nomer was responsible for name alignments. Elton carried out dataset
extraction, and generated the review notes.
Poelen, Jorrit H., James D. Simons, and Chris J. Mungall. 2014.
“Global Biotic Interactions: An Open Infrastructure to Share and
Analyze Species-Interaction Datasets.”Ecological
Informatics 24 (November): 148–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.08.005.
Trekels, Maarten, Debora Pignatari Drucker, José Augusto Salim, Jeff
Ollerton, Jorrit Poelen, Filipi Miranda Soares, Max Rünzel, Muo Kasina,
Quentin Groom, and Mariano Devoto. 2023. “WorldFAIR Project (D10.1) Agriculture-related pollinator
data standards use cases report.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8176978.
Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg,
Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, et al.
2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific
Data Management and Stewardship.”Scientific Data 3 (1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.