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/uhim, is 13.6MiB in size and contains 24,850
interaction with 4 unique types of associations (e.g., interactsWith)
between 2,255 primary taxon (e.g., Lygaeidae) and 3,241 associated taxon
(e.g., rocks). 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 Hawaii Insect Museum
https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/uhim/archive/53fa790309e48f25685e41ded78ce6a51bafde76.zip
2024-11-16T12:27:18.615Z
d4bd19d501a1ae6cbbcafb34a9236b9239f3e5f6a9f226f6b240c922ea87f4ed
For additional metadata related to this dataset, please visit https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/uhim
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. 13.6MiB) under review
elton pull globalbioticinteractions/uhim
# generate review notes
elton review globalbioticinteractions/uhim\
> review.tsv
# export indexed interaction records
elton interactions globalbioticinteractions/uhim\
> interactions.tsv
# export names and align them with the Catalogue of Life using Nomer
elton names globalbioticinteractions/uhim\
| 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/uhim, is
13.6MiB in size and contains 24,850 interaction with 4 unique types of
associations (e.g., interactsWith) between 2,255 primary taxon (e.g.,
Lygaeidae) and 3,241 associated taxon (e.g., rocks).
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
13990
hasHost
6170
adjacentTo
4654
eats
38
Most Frequently Mentioned Primary Taxa (up to 20 most
frequent)
sourceTaxonName
count
Lygaeidae
778
Miridae and/or Anthocoridae
708
Nysius coenosulus
442
Braconidae
440
Canaceoides
435
Canacidae
408
Liriomyza sativae
332
Trupanea cratericola
331
Ephydridae
318
Liriomyza brassicae
297
Nysius nemorivagus
275
Pycnoderes quadrimaculatus
261
Miridae/Anthocoridae
244
Scatella cilipes
234
Scatella warreni
227
Corythucha marmorata
226
Trupanea arboreae
224
Dolichopodidae
209
Scaptomyza caliginosa
195
Most Frequently Mentioned Associate Taxa (up to 20 most
frequent)
targetTaxonName
count
rocks
797
rocks in stream
511
wet rocks
496
Raillardia
310
sweet potato
255
cabbage
254
silversword
248
Acacia koa
245
Irish potato
230
eggplant
224
Carica papaya
218
corn
209
ex. Metrosideros polymorpha
191
Morning glory flowers
174
ex stream
162
beans
160
ex Metrosideros
152
chinese cabbage
144
tomato
141
Most Frequent Interactions between Primary and Associate Taxa
(up to 20 most frequent)
sourceTaxonName
interactionTypeName
targetTaxonName
count
Canacidae
adjacentTo
rocks
316
Canaceoides
adjacentTo
wet rocks
210
Trupanea cratericola
interactsWith
silversword
209
Pycnoderes quadrimaculatus
interactsWith
pole bean
141
Nysius coenosulus
interactsWith
Raillardia
140
Canaceoides
adjacentTo
rocks in stream
139
Nysius nemorivagus
interactsWith
chinese cabbage
139
Geometridae
interactsWith
Acacia koa
137
Braconidae
interactsWith
Bactrocera spp (Tephritidae)
136
Ephydridae
adjacentTo
rocks in stream
131
Scaptomyza caliginosa
interactsWith
Morning glory flowers
124
Corythucha marmorata
hasHost
ex cockle bur
121
Euscepes postfasciatus
interactsWith
sweet potato
115
Scatella cilipes
adjacentTo
rocks
109
Murgantia histrionica
interactsWith
broccoli
107
Scatella warreni
adjacentTo
rocks in stream
99
Callosobruchus maculatus
hasHost
ex cowpea
98
Braconidae
interactsWith
Psidium guajava
97
Scatella cilipes
hasHost
ex Stream
97
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
Diomus
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Diomus
Anobiidae
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Anobiidae
Banza parvula
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Banza parvula
Anthribidae
HAS_ACCEPTED_NAME
col
Anthribidae
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
2569
col
class
1
col
family
85
col
genus
355
col
gigaclass
1
col
infraspecific name
2
col
kingdom
2
col
order
1
col
section
1
col
species
1337
col
subclass
1
col
subgenus
4
col
subspecies
15
col
tribe
3
col
variety
4
discoverlife
NA
4353
discoverlife
species
18
gbif
NA
2228
gbif
class
2
gbif
family
94
gbif
form
1
gbif
genus
382
gbif
kingdom
3
gbif
order
1
gbif
species
1637
gbif
subspecies
39
gbif
variety
3
itis
NA
2810
itis
class
1
itis
family
85
itis
genus
301
itis
kingdom
2
itis
order
1
itis
species
1131
itis
subclass
1
itis
subfamily
3
itis
subspecies
29
itis
superclass
1
itis
tribe
2
itis
variety
5
mdd
NA
4370
ncbi
NA
3105
ncbi
class
2
ncbi
family
85
ncbi
genus
324
ncbi
kingdom
1
ncbi
order
1
ncbi
section
1
ncbi
species
832
ncbi
species group
1
ncbi
subfamily
3
ncbi
subgenus
13
ncbi
suborder
1
ncbi
subspecies
6
ncbi
superclass
1
ncbi
tribe
1
ncbi
varietas
2
pbdb
NA
4087
pbdb
class
4
pbdb
family
85
pbdb
genus
174
pbdb
informal
1
pbdb
kingdom
2
pbdb
order
1
pbdb
species
14
pbdb
subfamily
1
pbdb
superclass
1
pbdb
tribe
2
pbdb
unranked clade
2
tpt
NA
4366
tpt
genus
4
wfo
NA
3957
wfo
family
6
wfo
genus
202
wfo
species
197
wfo
subspecies
6
wfo
variety
3
worms
NA
3874
worms
class
2
worms
family
75
worms
genus
199
worms
gigaclass
1
worms
kingdom
2
worms
order
1
worms
species
214
worms
subspecies
2
worms
variety
1
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
2024-11-18T07:59:24Z
note
found unsupported interaction type with name: [Sapindus Island]
2024-11-18T07:59:25Z
note
source taxon name missing: using
institutionCode/collectionCode/collectionId/catalogNumber/occurrenceId
as placeholder
2024-11-18T07:59:25Z
note
source taxon name missing: using
institutionCode/collectionCode/collectionId/catalogNumber/occurrenceId
as placeholder
2024-11-18T07:59:25Z
note
source taxon name missing: using
institutionCode/collectionCode/collectionId/catalogNumber/occurrenceId
as placeholder
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
513
found unsupported interaction type with name: [Marsh]
21
found unsupported interaction type with name: [Pomegranate ex]
9
found unsupported interaction type with name: [coll.]
8
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.