Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26140212›Full record

ReviewGigaScience2015

Building a multi-scaled geospatial temporal ecology database from disparate data sources: fostering open science and data reuse.

Patricia A Soranno, Edward G Bissell, Kendra S Cheruvelil, Samuel T Christel, Sarah M Collins, C Emi Fergus, Christopher T Filstrup, Jean-Francois Lapierre, Noah R Lottig, Samantha K Oliver and 14 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in GigaScience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessing Evidence of Phosphorus Concentration Trends in North American Fresh Waters.Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Lake Water Levels and Associated Hydrologic Characteristics in the Conterminous U.S.Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Current Challenges in Plant Eco-Metabolomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Patricia A SorannoDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Edward G BissellDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Kendra S CheruvelilDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Samuel T ChristelCenter for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706 USA.
Sarah M CollinsDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
C Emi FergusDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Christopher T FilstrupDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 USA.
Jean-Francois LapierreDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Noah R LottigCenter for Limnology Trout Lake Station, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Boulder Junction, WI 54512 USA.
Samantha K OliverCenter for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706 USA.
Caren E ScottDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Nicole J SmithDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Scott StopyakDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Shuai YuanSchool of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Mary Tate BremiganDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
John A DowningDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 USA.
Corinna GriesCenter for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706 USA.
Emily N HenryOregon State University, Tillamook County, Tillamook, OR 97141 USA.
Nick K SkaffDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Emily H StanleyCenter for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706 USA.
Craig A StowNOAA Great Lakes Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI 48108 USA.
Pang-Ning TanDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
Tyler WagnerUS Geological Survey, Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 USA.
Katherine E WebsterSchool of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although there are considerable site-based data for individual or groups of ecosystems, these datasets are widely scattered, have different data formats and conventions, and often have limited accessibility. At the broader scale, national datasets exist for a large number of geospatial features of land, water, and air that are needed to fully understand variation among these ecosystems. However, such datasets originate from different sources and have different spatial and temporal resolutions. By taking an open-science perspective and by combining site-based ecosystem datasets and national geospatial datasets, science gains the ability to ask important research questions related to grand environmental challenges that operate at broad scales. Documentation of such complicated database integration efforts, through peer-reviewed papers, is recommended to foster reproducibility and future use of the integrated database. Here, we describe the major steps, challenges, and considerations in building an integrated database of lake ecosystems, called LAGOS (LAke multi-scaled GeOSpatial and temporal database), that was developed at the sub-continental study extent of 17 US states (1,800,000 km(2)). LAGOS includes two modules: LAGOSGEO, with geospatial data on every lake with surface area larger than 4 ha in the study extent (~50,000 lakes), including climate, atmospheric deposition, land use/cover, hydrology, geology, and topography measured across a range of spatial and temporal extents; and LAGOSLIMNO, with lake water quality data compiled from ~100 individual datasets for a subset of lakes in the study extent (~10,000 lakes). Procedures for the integration of datasets included: creating a flexible database design; authoring and integrating metadata; documenting data provenance; quantifying spatial measures of geographic data; quality-controlling integrated and derived data; and extensively documenting the database. Our procedures make a large, complex, and integrated database reproducible and extensible, allowing users to ask new research questions with the existing database or through the addition of new data. The largest challenge of this task was the heterogeneity of the data, formats, and metadata. Many steps of data integration need manual input from experts in diverse fields, requiring close collaboration.

Indexed as

Database Management SystemsEcologyGeographic Information SystemsDatabase documentationData harmonizationData reuseData sharingEcoinformaticsIntegrated databaseLAGOSLandscape limnologyMacrosystems ecologyWater quality

Identifiers

PMID26140212
PMCPMC4488039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.