Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

sexualSystem #57

Closed
zedomel opened this issue Dec 7, 2020 · 19 comments
Closed

sexualSystem #57

zedomel opened this issue Dec 7, 2020 · 19 comments
Labels
current

Comments

@zedomel
Copy link
Contributor

zedomel commented Dec 7, 2020

Field Value
GUID
Rebipp Class rebipp:PlantTrait
Label sexualSystem
Definition The gender expression and its occurrence at population or species levels. It is based in the presence and distribution of fertile whorls within the flower.
Comments Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary.
Examples monoceius, dioceius
Controlled vocabulary monoecious; ginomonoecious; andromonoecious; trimonoecious; dioecious; temporal dioecious (monoecious + dichogamy); ginodioecious; androdioecious; tridioecious; poligamodioecious
Darwin Core Class Occurrence
Cardinality One to one
Reference Protocol
@rebipp rebipp deleted a comment from kaynaagostini Jan 8, 2021
@rebipp rebipp deleted a comment from Favosgyrl Jan 8, 2021
@fonturbel
Copy link

Nothing to add, it seems fine

@zedomel
Copy link
Contributor Author

zedomel commented Jan 12, 2021

@pzermoglio can we use this term with dwc:Occurrence? The definition is based on plant species or population, and not related to the organism in the dwc:Occurrence. The concept is fine, since the sexual system is a property of a plant population or species.

Usually, we will have repeated values of this term to all Occurrences of same species in a dataset. Examples:

occurrenceID scientifcName sexualSystem decimalLatitude decimalLongitude
occ 1 Ilex aquifolium dioecious -45.2548 23.5846
occ 2 Ilex aquifolium dioecious -44.2568 22.3565
occ 3 Alnus serrulata monoecious -41.26485 23.4846

Maybe this term should be used with dwc:Taxon class as core, and dwc:Occurrence as extension. What do you think?

Core:

taxonID scientifcName sexualSystem
tax 1 Ilex aquifolium dioecious
tax 2 Alnus serrulata monoecious

Occurrence extension:

coreID occurrenceID decimalLatitude decimalLongitude
tax 1 occ 1 -45.2548 23.5846
tax 1 occ 2 -44.2568 22.3565
tax 2 occ 3 -41.26485 23.4846

This was referenced Jan 12, 2021
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
@viniciusduartina
Copy link

Please add "Cosexuality" as a value in the controled vocabulary following Cardoso et al. 2018. This reference should be available for further reference. https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-33062018000300329&lng=en&tlng=en

I think it is fine to use this term with dwc:Occurrence and dwc:Taxon. However, different populations of the same plant species can have different sexual systems. Is it a problem?

@zedomel
Copy link
Contributor Author

zedomel commented Jan 13, 2021 •
edited
Loading

@viniciusduartina thank for your contribution to the controlled vocab.

Regards your question: how are populations defined? Spatially? Genetically? The issue that I see here is that we don't have means to know from which population the plant individual in the dwc:Occurrence belongs (we don't have a term for that). So, in the end, following the definition of this term someone who get the data will interpret it as the individual in this dwc:Occurrence belongs to some unknown (not specified) population which shows the given sexualSystem (e.g. cosexuality, ,monoecius) OR that all individuals of the species shows the given sexualSystem.

My suggestion, in order to remove such ambiguity, is to change the definition so the term refers only to the population: The gender expression in the population which the individual(s) in this Occurrence belongs to. It is based in the presence and distribution of fertile whorls within the flower. We can improve it! But the idea is to change the definition to be clear that this term is an attribute of the population instead of the individual itself. Makes sense?

@joiceiamara
Copy link

As @viniciusduartina pointed out, different population of plant species can have different sexual systems. So sexual system is indeed a species property? So, I believe that definition proposed by @zedomel seems more appropriated.

@arech2003
Copy link

Hi, for individual you will always have something to insert in the bataset, for population it is not the case. If one find one individual the entire population could be impossible to reach, in that case to fill the dataset he/she will need to extrapolate the result for the entire population that could be different from the individual recorded. Could that be a problem? Most studies are a collection of single individuals from different species. For the individual the sex is reasonably fix, but for the population it may vary from individual to individual, how to fill a line in the dataset considering interindividual variation?

@carmensspires
Copy link

I'm getting confused .... Is the definition for the population or for the individual? By the second part of the definition (It is based in the presence and distribution of fertile whorls within the flower) we are referring to the individual. According to @arech2003 comments, it is very difficult to extrapolate to the population from the observations of some individuals. So the definition would not be "The gender expression and its occurrence at individual level. It is based on the presence and distribution of fertile whorls within the flower."?

@zedomel
Copy link
Contributor Author

zedomel commented Jan 19, 2021

@carmensspires I agree with you. But is it possible to know the sexual system without observing the population? How could someone know the sexual system looking just to one plant individual?

For the individual level the term flowerSexuality (#20) should cover that use case?

Definitions:

  • Sexual System (Cardoso et al., 2018): Sexual systems include gender expression and its occurrence at different levels, such as intrafloral, individual, population, or species levels.

But they also states that 

Further classifications are based on the distribution of these floral types within and among the individuals of a given population.
. so a inter-individual variation

Further classifications includes (but not limited to):

  • Monoecy: sexual system in which a population `present only unisexual (diclinous) flowers and both staminate and pistillate flowers occur in the same individual``

Perhaps, we need to clarify the concept here before define the term. What we mean by sexual system? How can we measure it?

@cepnunes
Copy link

Just a little thing about this descriptor: the spelling of the examples is not correct and is not matching the spelling of the controlled vocabulary. They should be "monoecious" and "dioecious" instead of "monoecius" and "dioecius".

@viniciusduartina
Copy link

Hi guys!

I ackonwledge that sexual expression in plants is really messy because it can be defined at the flower level (staminate, pistilate or bisexual), at the indiviual level (male, female ou hemarphrodite) or population level (cosexual, dioceous, monoecious, etc). Therefore, we need a common ground and I would strongly suggest the use of Cardoso et al. 2018 for reference in this matter. Accordingly to them (and refs within) sexual system is a property of populations rather than individuals. Of course we use the individuals to access traits at population level and it is virtually impossible to acess all the individuas of a population, but I think it is not a problem at all. We do it all the time. I would not recommend to think sexuality as a species trait despite some people do.

I agree with @zedomel that we should leave it as only a population term.

@Filipi-Soares
Copy link

Hey @zedomel
I see there are many terms suggested as Controlled vocabulary that can be used to fulfill the sexualSystem metadata field and other metadata elements as well. Some ontologies cover these terms, including the preferred name for the term, stable URLs, and so on. I don't know if it could be useful but maybe you could create a special section in this GitHub repository so we can suggest the definitions for these terms suggested as controlled vocabulary, incorporating ontology definitions when possible. What do you think? For example, in the ECOCORE ontology, they set the term "hermaphroditic" as preferred instead of "monoecious", which is shown as a synonym. In this first moment, I don't think it's necessary to create a very complex structure like an ontology just for these controlled vocabularies you suggest because it could make the standard more difficult to use, but a list of terms with definitions could be helpful.

@paf1306
Copy link

paf1306 commented Mar 2, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Hello everyone, I agree with @viniciusduartina, we must use it at a population level in reference to the species.

@Favosgyrl
Copy link

Favosgyrl commented Mar 9, 2021 via email

@zedomel
Copy link
Contributor Author

zedomel commented Mar 11, 2021

From Cardoso et al. 2018:

(1.1) Sexual systems
Sexual systems include gender expression and its occurrence at different levels, such as intrafloral, individual, population, or species levels. It is based in the presence and distribution of fertile whorls within the flower. Flowers may be bisexual, with both stamens (male organs) and pistils (carpels) (female organs), or unisexual, with only male (staminate flower) or female (pistillate or carpellate flower) functional organs (Fig. 2). Further classifications are based on the distribution of these floral types within and among the individuals of a given population.

A new definition is proposed following Cardoso et al. 2018:
New definition: The distribution of floral types within and among the individuals of same population
Comments: The gender expression is based in the presence and distribution of fertile whorls within the flower (bisexual, staminate flower, pistillate or carpellate flower)

@fonturbel
Copy link

I also agree with @viniciusduartina we should keep this descriptor at the population / species level. Therefore, the controlled vocabulary initially proposed should do the trick.

@Favosgyrl
Copy link

Favosgyrl commented Mar 11, 2021 via email

@pietrokiyoshi
Copy link

I agree with the new definition following Cardoso et al. 2018, as propsed by @zedomel and to keep it at population level as suggested by @viniciusduartina

@pjbergamo
Copy link

I also agree with following Cardoso et al. 2018 and keeping it at population level. As @fonturbel said, we were already at population level in the controlled vocab.

@zedomel
Copy link
Contributor Author

zedomel commented Mar 18, 2021

Thank very much. Closing this issue now!

@zedomel zedomel closed this as completed Mar 18, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
current
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests