Globi is ontworpen door een Nederland die in Groningen gestudeerd heeft (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jhpoelen/) en iNaturalist werkt met hun samen.
Veel organismen leven samen met elkaar en passen door hun interactie in een eocysteem. Deze interacties worden opgeslagen in GLoBi, een Global Biotic Interactions, een database en een webservice.
dat gevoed wordt uit talloze bronnen waaronder ook iNaturalist zelf. Je kunt zelf aan deze database bijdrage ndoor de volgende velden toe te voegen "Eating", "Eaten by", en "Host" observation fields to observations that demonstrate those interactions.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/56133-Quercus-robur?test=interactions
Maar nu heeft DarwinCore ook een standaard set..je vraagt je dan weer af waarom ze die niet gebruikt hebben...https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:associatedTaxa
A list (concatenated and separated) of identifiers or names of taxa and their associations with the Occurrence.
Looking for help doing a search of iNat for insects that have been observed associating with a plant species.
Most of my observations involve an insect associating with a plant species. Most often, I know the plant species (or at least the genus) and am working on identifying the insect species -- a pollinator, for example.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/55505644We investigated this when we redesigned the /taxon page in 2016 (yikes, that was a while ago). I just made it so you can see what we did by appending test=interactions to any taxon page URL, and I’ll use examples to explain why we didn’t develop this any further.
The big problem looming over this whole feature is that observation fields are a bad way to model interactions. Since they represent a totally uncontrolled vocabulary, they’re rife with synonymous fields, so it’s hard interpret situations where, for example, there are both eats and preys on interactions, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/117520-Enhydra-lutris-nereis?test=interactions 28. What’s the difference? Why are both supported?
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/56133-Quercus-robur?test=interactions 4
Another problem is that using observation fields to model interactions means that one of the two taxa in the interaction is not subject to crowdsourced identification, so anyone can say that oaks eat humans and there’s nothing the community can do to correct that. As an example, here’s a butterfly that supposedly eats itself: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/51097-Papilio-zelicaon?test=interactions 15. It doesn’t, this is just due to an erroneously added observation field. Site curators could just delete this field, but that’s generally not how we like to perform quality control at iNat.
On top of that, we really wanted to incorporate data from GLoBI 11, since we like them and we think it’s cool that they incorporate iNat interaction data, but mapping taxonomies and field semantics proved a hassle, and again it presents the problem of data that the iNat community can’t correct if they find errors.
What we’d like to do is to make a new feature for interactions where an interaction is a relationship between two observations with clear and controlled semantics (to the extent that that’s possible). So instead adding an obs field that says an obs of an oak represents that oak eating a human, you would create an interaction and have to choose two observations, one of an oak and another of a human, and choose “eating” from a menu of interaction types where “eating” means “taxon A is putting all or part of taxon B inside its body for the purpose of personal metabolism” or something. Other users could then vote on whether that was the correct interaction type, and the two observations could be independently identified. We could try and pre-populate this new kind of data with observation fields, or at least make a tool that helps people review their own interaction obs fields to make new-style interactions out of them. That’s a lot more work, though, and it hasn’t really been a priority, so we haven’t gotten around to it.
Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that I agree this would be cool, but doing it right will take considerable effort.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/117520-Enhydra-lutris-nereis?test=interactions 28.
name of Associated Plant
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=any&taxon_id=47208&field:Name%20of%20Associated%20Plant=82536
https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=interact&commit=Search
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-interactions-to-species-pages/433
https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist/attach/59a5c0530c54b/Screen%20Shot%202018-11-16%20at%2012.34.41%20PM.png?part=0.1&view=1
= ===================
Next year 2019 we intend requesting an
interactions module
.
Effectively this will
link two observations via an interaction
.
Basically the big flaw with all the advice and fields so far is that it assumes:
1 . that people know the ID of the other organism (or indeed, either) - this is not necessarily true.
that if the ID of the other is changed (assuming that it was posted as an observation), people will change the name in the field: this does not happen.
So this interactions module effectively takes two observations and links them via an interface.
So one can do a filter on say: Cape Sugarbird and then look at all interactions, or say all interactions of "visiting a flower of"
the module will then collect all the community IDs for the associated interactions and summarize them (or show the observations).
In preparation of this we have a project https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr
and an example : flowers visited by the Cape Sugarbird
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=13442&field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction)=
But this does not show the interaction because the current iNat filters dont display these: that is the purpose of the module - to display the interacting observation that these are all linked to.
There really does need to be a more general way to search these. For example with aphids and plants there are at least a dozen different fields the host plant could have been entered in. This makes searching for aphids on a particular plant tricky.
= = = = = = = = ==========
Next year 2019 we intend requesting an interactions module.
Effectively this will link two observations via an interaction.
Basically the big flaw with all the advice and fields so far is that it assumes:
1 . that people know the ID of the other organism (or indeed, either) - this is not necessarily true.
that if the ID of the other is changed (assuming that it was posted as an observation), people will change the name in the field: this does not happen.
So this interactions module effectively takes two observations and links them via an interface.
So one can do a filter on say: Cape Sugarbird and then look at all interactions, or say all interactions of "visiting a flower of"
the module will then collect all the community IDs for the associated interactions and summarize them (or show the observations).
In preparation of this we have a project https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr
and an example : flowers visited by the Cape Sugarbird
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=13442&field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction)=
But this does not show the interaction because the current iNat filters dont display these: that is the purpose of the module - to display the interacting observation that these are all linked to.
What we will do is post the ACTIVE observation as the Observation and the PASSIVE observation as the link. Symmetrical interactions choose any one - but why dont we choose the bigger one first?
So if your observation does not match the choices for interaction, then you should rather link from the other observation.
Your choices are:
- Visiting a flower of
- Eating
- Parasitizing
- Carrying
- Attached to
- Associated with
The field "Nectar plant" is used frequently, and is a key field for both of these projects:
https://inaturalist.ca/projects/butterfly-moth-nectar-plants
https://inaturalist.ca/projects/plantas-de-alimentacion-de-los-lepidoptera-de-mexico
You can see plants associated with larvae here, using the field "Insect Host plant":
https://inaturalist.ca/projects/butterfly-moth-host-plants
And you may have discovered this project uses the field recommended by Scott earlier:
https://inaturalist.ca/projects/pollinator-associations
to leave the test=interactions thing available, I’m just not going to make it visible by default or integrate it into the UI. I don’t think we need to ice this topic, as I think the title sums up what we want pretty well. Personally, I think the Feature Requests category is a way to gauge what kinds of things people are interested in, and not necessarily specific implementation plans, so it’s valuable to me to know how many people chose to upvote this. In fact, I will spe
Most organisms interact with other organisms in some way or another, and how they do so usually defines how they fit into an ecosystem. These intereactions come to us fromGlobal Biotic Interactions (GLoBI), a database and webservice that combines interaction data from numerous sources, including iNaturalist. You can actually contribute to this database by adding the "Eating", "Eaten by", and "Host" observation fields to observations that demonstrate those interactions.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/56133-Quercus-robur?test=interactions
Bronnen, Relaties
https://inaturalist.nz/observation_fields/1050
https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/1711
The type of interaction with each associated species can be defined in the ecological interaction field.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/55607-Senecio-inaequidens?test=interactions
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/51097-Papilio-zelicaon?test=interactions
https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org/about
https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org/
around https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/50333-Lantana-camara?test=interactions 13). Is it a functionality you can leave available, or are there reasons not to do so?
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-an-observation-field-type-that-resolves-to-the-community-id-of-a-related-observation/3586/5
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-interactions-to-species-pages/433
https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/108