Resolving issues with plant and interaction terms #64
Description
Based on the dataset from Bergamo, P.J., Susin Streher, N., Traveset, A., Wolowski, M. and Sazima, M. (2020), Pollination outcomes reveal negative density-dependence coupled with interspecific facilitation among plants. Ecol Lett, 23: 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13415, I could identify some use cases that the actual version of the vocabulary cannot handle.
We don't have term for number of visits, and so, each visit have to be recorded separated (one visit - one interaction). To simplify it and allows any interaction to includes any number of visits I'm introducing a new term numberOfVisits (see #63).
It will simplifies data standardization process by avoid the duplication of records, but also (I'm not sure) we can use this term (numberOfVisits) as an indicator of single or multiple visits for others term in the vocabulary (like #23 and #36).
A simplified example of usage of the terms numberOfVisits, availableFlowerQuantity (#40), and dwc:organismQuantity:
Core: interactions.csv
Row Type: dwc:Event
| dwc:eventID | dwc:eventDate | dwc:month | dwc:samplingEffort |
|---|---|---|---|
| evt_1 | 2017-03-14 | march | 18 minutes |
| evt_2 | 2017-03-15 | march | 185 minutes |
| evt_3 | 2018-04-18 | april | 125 minutes |
Occurrences extension: occurrences.csv
Row Type: dwc:Occurrence
| dwc:eventID | dwc:occurrenceID | dwc:scientificName | dwc:organismQuantity | dwc:organismQuantityType |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| evt_1 | occ_1 | Pfaffia tuberosa | 1 | individuals |
| evt_1 | occ_2 | Ceratina asunciana | 1 | individuals |
| evt_2 | occ_3 | Lithrea brasiliensis | 1 | individuals |
| evt_2 | occ_4 | Apis mellifera | 2 | individuals |
| evt_3 | occ_5 | Lithrea brasiliensis | 3 | individuals |
| evt_3 | occ_5 | Trigona spinipes | 5 | individuals |
MeasurementOrFact extension: mof.csv
Row Type: dwc:MeasurementOrFact
| dwc:eventID | dwc:measurementID | dwc:measurementType | dwc:measurementValue |
|---|---|---|---|
| evt_1 | m_1 | numberOfVisits |
1 |
| evt_1 | m_2 | availableFlowerQuantity |
18 |
| evt_2 | m_3 | numberOfVisits |
5 |
| evt_2 | m_4 | availableFlowerQuantity |
22 |
| evt_3 | m_5 | numberOfVisits |
16 |
| evt_3 | m_6 | availableFlowerQuantity |
58 |
Thus, from the example above we know that the interaction evt_1 recorded in 2017-03-14 is an interaction between one individual of the species Pfaffia tuberosa and one individual of the species Ceratina asunciana. We also know that the C. asunciana individual visits one flower of the plant and that the plant had 18 flowers available to floral visistors.
Additionally, we know that the interaction evt_2 recorded in 2017-03-15 is an interaction between one individual of the species Lithrea brasiliensis and 2 individuals of the species Apis mellifera. We also know that these two individuals of A. mellifera visit 5 flowers of the plant and that the plant had 22 flowers available.
Similarly, we also know that the interaction evt_3 recorded in 2018-04-18 is an interaction between 3 individuals of the species Lithrea brasiliensis and 5 individuals from the species Trigona spinipes. We also know that the individuals of T. spinipes visit 16 flowers of the 3 plant individuals and the total number of flowers available considering all 3 plants were equals to 58.
With those terms we will be able to calculate things like visitation rate (numberOfVisits/availableFlowerQuantity/samplingEffort) but other metrics can also be derived.
Curious to know what others think about it.