Has GBIF ever considered the possibility of inserting the ecological information of the species?
And in particular the relationships between species?
There are already institutions that connect with gbif that have this data. I give an example: the Natural History Museum in London, for all chalcidoidea.
perhaps my request is too complicated.
But in my specific case I solved it with importHTML in google spreadsheet quite well, thanks to the fact that in the Universal Chalcidoidea Database the hosts are in html tables.
Thanks and sorry
Hey bonushenricus -
The Report of the Task Group on GBIF Data Fitness for Use in Distribution Modelling published by the GBIF Secretariat on 22 March 2016 suggested that species interactions should be linked and integrated with major biodiversity portals to facilitate modeling of biotic interactions. So, I imagine the idea that GBIF start indexing/linking species interactions has been discussed in the past.
However, as you probably know, integrating species interactions from existing datasets can be a daunting task and needs specialized infrastructures. There’s many existing projects that aim take on the challenge to make relationships between species easier to access:
- NHM London Interactions Bank ( doi:10.5519/0060767) - this includes the Universal Chalcidoidea Database
- Web of Life ( http://www.web-of-life.es)
- Mangal (https://mangal.io)
- PHI-Base (doi:10.1093/nar/gkw1089)
- Bat Base (https://batbase.org)
- Encyclopedia of Life’s TraitBank (see recent poster and related example Common Buckeye (Junonia coenia)) .
- Terrestrial Parasite Tracker (https://parasitetracker.org)
- Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI, https://globalbioticinteractions.org) disclaimer: I help maintain GloBI
Note that GloBI indexes projects 1., 2., 3., 4., 5. as well as many other sources (see https://globalbioticinteractions.org/status for a list), including those from specimen collections, data publications. Many of the collections included in GBIF contain information about species interactions, and GloBI indexes many of those. For examples, see https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org/2019/07/10/associating-with-natural-history-collections/ .
I am open to working with GBIF (or other projects) on working towards their recommendation to work towards their vision to better link known relationships between species into their data portals. Other platforms, like https://inaturalist.org and https://arctosdb.org , already support such linkages to help folks discover and access the wealth of readily available data.
Hope this helps,
Global Biotic Interactions
Thank you. I didn’t know this project existed.
As regards chalcidoidea, the associated plant species are indicated in the Universal chalcidoidea Database, but are not parasitized. The GLOBI I did research on some species, and plant species are referred to as parasitized.
How can you help the project?
@bonushenricus - can you please provide some specific examples? These examples will hopefully help me better understand your question.
But first thanks for the Globi project: you are the developer, aren’t you?
I understand this is the GBIF forum, but we can interact on interactions, can’t we?
Here is an example:
Anastatus bifasciatus, which I know well.
From the Universal Chaldidoidea Database (UCD) url associated An.bifasciatus in UCD there are several associated plants.
In GLOBI they are always marked as guests of the parasite Anastatus. But is not so.
I assigned to two of my observations in INaturalist the “Interaction-> Parasitoid of: Halyomorpha halys” INaturalist project “Che bestiolina” Anastatus bifasciatus(Anastatus bifasciatus is practically the only European autochthonous parasitoid that is able to live at the expense of the eggs of Halyomorpha halys, Chinese allochthonous, and still in the “UCD” was not marked.
Will I automatically find it in GLOBI in the near future?
Yes, I help maintain GloBI, a small effort compared to the immense amount of work and expertise it takes to compile and curate a dataset like the UCD.
GBIF provides this wonderful forum, however, I suspect that our specific conversation might not be of interest to most folks here. So, I’d like to suggest to open an issue https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/globalbioticinteractions/issues/new and carry on our conversation. If you prefer alternate method, please let me know.
Thanks for your pointer to the specific list of associations for Anastatus bifasciatus at UCD. A quick search in GloBI for Anastatus bifasciatus shows that NHM Interaction Bank/UCD describes many parasitic interactions for the species, including plants and other insects (see attached screenshot below). However, I am note quite sure which specific association claims you are disagreeing with or you believe are missing. Can you be more specific?
Note that I’ve attached 134 associations of Anastatus bifasciatus retrieved via the NHM Interactions Bank. As far as I can tell, all interactions are describes as parasitic interactions. NHMInteractionBank_Anastatus_bifasciatus.csv (27.3 KB)
Great to see that we were able to use iNaturalist to annotate your observations to document interactions . A noticed that your https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/33688904 describes that Anastatus bifasciatus was a parasitoid of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Halyomorpha halys.
GloBI should automatically index your research grade iNaturalist observations in a day or so. If not, let me know.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.