66. Relaties tussen Organismes aangeven door add ?test=interactions

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
How work interactions in iNaturalist
How work interactions in iNaturalist
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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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:
  1. Visiting a flower of
  2. Eating
  3. Parasitizing
  4. Carrying
  5. Attached to
  6. 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

https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/25514-clarifying-ancestor-disagreements

Prof. Mulder van TU Delft heeft een lezing gegeven over de Battolyser een innovatie op basis van een ruim 150 jaar oud principe van een ijzer-accu. Deze technologie heeft het in zich om aan zowel de korte als lange termijn energie-opslag en afgifte behoefte te voorzien.

https://www.tudelft.nl/en/technology-transfer/development-innovation/research-exhibition-projects/battolyser/
https://www.tudelft.nl/en/technology-transfer/development-innovation/research-exhibition-projects/battolyser/

https://www.battolyserbv.com/2019/05/02/first-battolyser-for-electricity-storage-and-hydrogen-production-thanks-to-waddenfonds-in-groningen/

22 januari Energie transitie! Jazeker, maar hoe?

Prof.dr.ir. N.G. Deen
Power & Flow, Werktuigbouwkunde,
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
https://www.ngm1780.nl/events/energie-transitie-jazeker-maar-hoe/
Energie transitie! Jazeker, maar hoe?

26 februari https://www.ngm1780.nl/events/electriciteitsdistributie/
“Klaar voor de toekomst”, de ontwikkeling van het hoogspanningsnet in Zeeland

Gert Aanhaanen, Peter Kwakman, Bart van Hulst
Afdeling netstrategie
TenneT TSO B.V.
https://www.ngm1780.nl/events/electriciteitsdistributie/
Klaar voor de toekomst, de ontwikkeling van het hoogspanningsnet in Zeeland

9 april Het energiesysteem van de toekomst in Zeeland

dr. Ir. A. Jongepier
energietransitie
Enduris, Goes
https://www.ngm1780.nl/events/electriciteit-in-zeeland/
Het energiesysteem van de toekomst in Zeeland

https://www.kng-groningen.nl/programma-lezingen/

iNaturalist-presentation-voice-chat-with-inat-staff

https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/15450-announcing-changes-to-projects-on-inaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/ahospers/45530-66-relaties-tussen-organismes-aangeven-door-add-test-interactions

test=interactions

66. Interactions, Relaties, Verbondheid

more details here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-interactions-to-species-pages/433/16 here are many ways. Have a look at
https://www.inaturalist.org/search?q=interactions&source%5B%5D=projects

Now a lot depends on your philosophy.

For instance you can just add an interaction (one of the many fields): and name the other side of the interaction.
But that assumes that you know the other organism, and that if you have it wrong you will fix it, and that if the name changes taxonomically, then you will fix it.

see https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/specific-animal-plant-interactions

My philosophy is that you put both as observations and then link them: that way the community takes care of the identifications, and the link will remain no matter what.
If you follow my philosophy look at:
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr

How can we get this higher up the “desired” list of features?
Both the New Zealanders and southern Africans have projects dealing with this.
Ours is visible at https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr 4

Basically, we record only the active interaction (i.e. “a eats b”, not “b is eaten by a” - the latter just being the reciprocal of the first), although user pressure has resulted in us adding a passive field for the reciprocal observation, given that observations fields link only one way, so that these observations do not display their hosts) as:

Visiting flowers: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction) 6
Eating: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Eating:%20(Interaction) 5
Parasitizing: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Parasitizing:%20(Interaction) 1
Attached to: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:attached%20to:%20(Interaction)
Carrying: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Carrying:%20(Interaction) 1
Associated with: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Associated%20with:%20(Interaction)
& the passive
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Passive%20Partner%20to:%20(Interaction)

Note that in each case the field value is the url of the interacting observation. Unfortunately we cannot use this is a query to summarize the interactions.
We can ask
“What flowers does the Cape Sugarbird Visit?” - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=13442&field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction)= 3
but we will only see the bird, and not the flowers, even though all the urls to the flowers are in the field - see: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/7459 2.

In over 5 years of using this “set” of interactions, we have never had a request to add additional interactions (e.g. Eating = preys on = killing to eat - i.e. “killing for fun” has not cropped up), although it would be nice to have a hierarchical dictionary of interactions (e.g. visiting a flower > pollinating a flower (> for nectar, pollen, oil, gum)/robbing a flower/, etc

I’m happy 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 spend one of my votes on it right now

plant Lantana camara apparently “visits flowers of” 46 species of insects, rather than the other way 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?

We 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?

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 16. 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 12, 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 effo

Posted by ahospers ahospers, January 15, 2021 19:30

Comments

Thumb

A list (concatenated and separated) of identifiers or names of taxa and their associations with the Occurrence.v Darwin Core quick reference guide
This document is intended to be an easy-to-read reference of the currently recommended terms maintained as part of the Darwin Core standard. This page itself is not part of the standard. It draws on the term names and definitions from the normative part of the standard and combines them with comments and examples that are not normative, but that are meant to help people to use the terms consistently. Categories such as Occurrence and Event correspond to Darwin Core classes, which are special category terms used to group sets of terms for convenience. Comprehensive metadata for current and obsolete terms in human readable form are found in a list of terms document. Files with lists of these terms and their full history can be found in the Darwin Core repository. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:associatedTaxa

Posted by ahospers 3 months ago (Flag)
Thumb

How can we get this higher up the “desired” list of features?
Both the New Zealanders and southern Africans have projects dealing with this.
Ours is visible at https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr 3

Basically, we record only the active interaction (i.e. “a eats b”, not “b is eaten by a” - the latter just being the reciprocal of the first), although user pressure has resulted in us adding a passive field for the reciprocal observation, given that observations fields link only one way, so that these observations do not display their hosts) as:

Visiting flowers: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction) 6
Eating: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Eating:%20(Interaction) 5
Parasitizing: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Parasitizing:%20(Interaction) 1
Attached to: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:attached%20to:%20(Interaction)
Carrying: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Carrying:%20(Interaction) 1
Associated with: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Associated%20with:%20(Interaction)
& the passive
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Passive%20Partner%20to:%20(Interaction)

Note that in each case the field value is the url of the interacting observation. Unfortunately we cannot use this is a query to summarize the interactions.
We can ask
“What flowers does the Cape Sugarbird Visit?” - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=13442&field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction)= 3
but we will only see the bird, and not the flowers, even though all the urls to the flowers are in the field - see: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/7459 2.

In over 5 years of using this “set” of interactions, we have never had a request to add additional interactions (e.g. Eating = preys on = killing to eat - i.e. “killing for fun” has not cropped up), although it would be nice to have a hierarchical dictionary of interactions (e.g. visiting a flower > pollinating a flower (> for nectar, pollen, oil, gum)/robbing a flower/, etc.

Just a request for https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/50333-Lantana-camara?test=interactions 4 - is that it is searchable/filterable and displayed in explore/observations - species view in descending order (and perhaps also taxonomic order?).

Oh: these may tickle you? https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=122213&field:eating:%20(Interaction)= 13
(Note that one chilli bush has over 500 interactions! - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/10949804 11)

Posted by ahospers 3 months ago (Flag)

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments