ArticleApplications in plant sciences2019
A data management workflow of biodiversity data from the field to data users.
Article in Applications in plant sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open-Source Marine Biodiversity Data Quality in the Norwegian Sea Spanning 149 Years: Knowledge Gaps in the Deep-Sea Mining Opening Area.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Retrieving biodiversity data from multiple sources: making secondary data standardised and accessible.Biodiversity data journal · 2024Article
- A collaborative and near-comprehensive North Pacific humpback whale photo-ID dataset.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Collections Education: The Extended Specimen and Data Acumen.Bioscience · 2022Article
- Open Data Practices among Users of Primary Biodiversity Data.Bioscience · 2021Article
- A data management workflow of biodiversity data from the field to data users.Applications in plant sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
premiseHeterogeneity of biodiversity data from the collections, research, and management communities presents challenges for data findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. Workflows designed with data collection, standards, dissemination, and reuse in mind will generate better information across geopolitical, administrative, and institutional boundaries. Here, we present our data workflow as a case study of how we collected, shared, and used data from multiple sources.
methodsIn 2012, we initiated the collection of biodiversity data relating to Michigan prairie fens, including data on plant communities and the federally endangered Poweshiek skipperling (
resultsOver 23,000 occurrence records were compiled in a database following Darwin Core standards. The records were linked with media and biological, chemical, and geometric measurements. We published the data as Global Biodiversity Information Facility data sets and in Symbiota SEINet portals. DISCUSSION: We highlight data collection techniques that optimized transcription time, including the use of predetermined and controlled vocabulary, Darwin Core terms, and data dictionaries. The validity and longevity of our data were supported by voucher specimens, metadata with measurement records, and published manuscripts detailing methods and data sets. Key to our data dissemination was cooperation among partners and the utilization of dynamic tools. To increase data interoperability, we need flexible and customizable data collection templates, coding, and enhanced communication among communities using biodiversity data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.