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/msu-msuc, is 21.0MiB in size and contains 8,056
interaction with 6 unique types of associations (e.g., interactsWith)
between 1,402 primary taxon (e.g., Orchopeas howardi) and 1,676
associated taxon (e.g., S. niger rufiventer). 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:
The Albert J. Cook Arthropod Research Collection
https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/msu-msuc/archive/38960906380443bd8108c9e44aeff4590d8d0b50.zip
2024-11-16T10:47:52.603Z
f1c1de76413bece7cc53a4838049b46eb17177960faebba685833f43f8a3adcf
For additional metadata related to this dataset, please visit https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/msu-msuc
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. 21.0MiB) under review
elton pull globalbioticinteractions/msu-msuc
# generate review notes
elton review globalbioticinteractions/msu-msuc\
> review.tsv
# export indexed interaction records
elton interactions globalbioticinteractions/msu-msuc\
> interactions.tsv
# export names and align them with the Catalogue of Life using Nomer
elton names globalbioticinteractions/msu-msuc\
| 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/msu-msuc, is
21.0MiB in size and contains 8,056 interaction with 6 unique types of
associations (e.g., interactsWith) between 1,402 primary taxon (e.g.,
Orchopeas howardi) and 1,676 associated taxon (e.g., S. niger
rufiventer).
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.
Most Frequently Mentioned Interaction Types (up to 20 most
frequent)
interactionTypeName
count
interactsWith
7236
adjacentTo
721
hasHost
95
eats
14
visits
1
killedBy
1
Most Frequently Mentioned Primary Taxa (up to 20 most
frequent)
sourceTaxonName
count
Orchopeas howardi
485
Macrochelidae
174
Megachile inermis
166
Pyralidae
122
Noctuidae
108
Tortricidae
103
Phthiraptera
89
Hoplopleura hesperomydis
88
Coptotriche citrinipennella
75
Euphyes vestris metacomet
74
Malacosoma californicum
73
Dermanyssidae
69
Hemileuca maia
66
Phyllonorycter
59
Lophocampa maculata
53
Geometridae
53
Megachile latimanus
52
Megachile gemula
51
Bucculatrix ainsliella
49
Most Frequently Mentioned Associate Taxa (up to 20 most
frequent)
targetTaxonName
count
S. niger rufiventer
293
Quercus
289
Necrophorus pustulatus
175
S. carolinensis
134
Quercus rubra
121
Quercus alba
97
Salix
94
Juglans nigra
81
on
80
Populus tremuloides
76
Prunus
70
mildweed
67
Quercus bicolor
64
Silpha surinamensis
61
Ostrya virginiana
60
Prunus serotina
59
Centaurea
53
chicken
52
Quercus ellipsoidalis
50
Most Frequent Interactions between Primary and Associate Taxa
(up to 20 most frequent)
sourceTaxonName
interactionTypeName
targetTaxonName
count
Orchopeas howardi
interactsWith
S. niger rufiventer
258
Macrochelidae
interactsWith
Necrophorus pustulatus
141
Orchopeas howardi
interactsWith
S. carolinensis
134
Euphyes vestris metacomet
adjacentTo
mildweed
67
Pyralidae
interactsWith
Juglans nigra
54
Gracillaria syringella
interactsWith
Syringa vulgaris
48
Phyllonorycter
interactsWith
Populus tremuloides
40
Anisota consularis
interactsWith
Q. alba
39
Dorsipes balli
interactsWith
Carabus taedatus
38
Bucculatrix ainsliella
interactsWith
Quercus rubra
36
Megachile inermis
interactsWith
Epilobium angustifolium
36
Hoplopleura hesperomydis
interactsWith
Peromyscus leucopus (Rafinesque) Female
35
Megachile inermis
interactsWith
Cirsium vulgare
35
Orchopeas howardi
hasHost
S. niger rufiventer
34
Phyllonorycter restrictella
interactsWith
Fagus grandifolia
33
Cameraria bethunella
interactsWith
Quercus rubra
32
Macrochelidae
interactsWith
Silpha surinamensis
29
Orchopeas howardi
interactsWith
s. niger rufiventer
28
Endothenia hebesana
interactsWith
Gentiana andrewsii
28
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
Acronicta
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Acronicta
Acyrthosiphon pisum
SYNONYM_OF
col
Acyrthosiphon primulae
Acyrthosiphon pisum
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Acyrthosiphon pisum
Acyrthosiphon pisum
SYNONYM_OF
col
Acyrthosiphon pisum pisum
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
1077
col
family
84
col
genus
255
col
kingdom
1
col
nanorder
1
col
order
4
col
parvorder
1
col
section
1
col
species
1245
col
subclass
1
col
subfamily
13
col
subgenus
10
col
suborder
1
col
subspecies
52
col
superfamily
1
col
superorder
2
col
tribe
1
col
variety
9
discoverlife
NA
2699
discoverlife
species
21
gbif
NA
949
gbif
class
1
gbif
family
95
gbif
genus
278
gbif
kingdom
1
gbif
order
4
gbif
species
1347
gbif
subspecies
70
gbif
variety
14
itis
NA
1454
itis
family
81
itis
genus
211
itis
kingdom
1
itis
order
5
itis
species
890
itis
subclass
1
itis
subfamily
17
itis
suborder
2
itis
subspecies
46
itis
superfamily
1
itis
superorder
2
itis
variety
10
mdd
NA
2719
ncbi
NA
1184
ncbi
class
1
ncbi
family
85
ncbi
genus
242
ncbi
order
5
ncbi
species
1164
ncbi
subfamily
14
ncbi
subgenus
5
ncbi
suborder
2
ncbi
subspecies
19
ncbi
superfamily
1
ncbi
superorder
2
ncbi
varietas
1
pbdb
NA
2423
pbdb
class
1
pbdb
family
57
pbdb
genus
131
pbdb
kingdom
1
pbdb
order
6
pbdb
species
89
pbdb
subfamily
9
pbdb
suborder
2
pbdb
superfamily
1
pbdb
superorder
2
pbdb
unranked clade
1
tpt
NA
2552
tpt
family
5
tpt
genus
24
tpt
species
138
wfo
NA
2255
wfo
family
3
wfo
genus
143
wfo
phylum
1
wfo
species
311
wfo
subspecies
8
wfo
variety
4
worms
NA
2371
worms
class
1
worms
family
53
worms
genus
125
worms
infraorder
1
worms
kingdom
1
worms
order
5
worms
species
159
worms
suborder
2
worms
subspecies
1
worms
superorder
2
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
2024-11-18T04:02:50Z
note
date [0000-01-01T00:00:00Z] occurred in the first century AD
2024-11-18T04:02:50Z
note
date [0000-01-01T00:00:00Z] occurred in the first century AD
2024-11-18T04:02:50Z
note
source taxon name missing: using
institutionCode/collectionCode/collectionId/catalogNumber/occurrenceId
as placeholder
2024-11-18T04:02:51Z
note
found unsupported interaction type with name: [reared ex Caenothus
herbaceous recv]
In addtion, you can find the most frequently occurring notes in the
table below.
Most frequently occurring review notes, if any.
reviewComment
count
source taxon name missing: using
institutionCode/collectionCode/collectionId/catalogNumber/occurrenceId
as placeholder
138
found unsupported interaction type with name: [reared ex Cercis
Canadensis LOT]
5
date [0000-01-01T00:00:00Z] occurred in the first century AD
4
found unsupported interaction type with name: [Andropogon]
4
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
(2024-11-18) 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.