-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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.
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
Species to be visualized and could be selected for early warning system #6
Comments
@niconoe: one species which should be added to the list and it is not present in the RIPARIAS key species and EU concern lists is Reynoutria japonica (Japanese knotweed). |
@damianooldoni @niconoe I think we should certainly also add the alert list species identified through action A1 as early warning of first records for those is important, I list them here
|
btw, Gunnera tinctoria and Procambarus virginalis are also on the Union List. |
@timadriaens: right, I forgot indeed the list of species your team is preparing for action A.1.4! Thanks for reminding us. So, the RIPARIAS key species and the alert list species should be for sure included. @timadriaens: would you include the speies of the Union lists and Reynoutria japonica as well? I would say yes, but I would like to hear your opinion about this. |
Yes, why not, although the management of Reynoutria is currently mostly zero-management. However, if we include Reynoutria, we have to include all 3 species: japonica (2889173), x bohemica (4038485) and sachalinensis (2889088). Many people do not make the disctinction. |
@damianooldoni: I'm revisiting this, I think many different things were said by different people at a different times on this topic :-) I was therefore wondering if you could make a quick tour of the stakeholders again (if you think it's needed), and provide me a table / CSV file with all the species that should be included in the first version of the Early Alert system ? This table should have:
the current system classify species on two axis:
Could you also see if we should keep this classification (in that case, I'd need two more columns in the table) or if it should be adjusted. This is not visible in the user interface yet, but classifying them is useful to allow grouped selection in the interface (for example: "show me occurrences of all emergent crayfish species in Senne river basin" rather than manually selecting the species). What I'd like to know:
I think we that info, we could load more relevant species in the dev website and therefore make it more realistic before the end of the year. Thanks a lot! |
Here is the current state of the table, so you can start from that and edit as needed:
Legend: PL=Plant |
Based on what has been discussed earlier in this issue, I propose the following. SpeciesAll species from:
GroupingGrouping/categories:
First three are project based. The last four are taxonomic based. By adding crayfishes and vertebrates as two different grouping variables, we allow people to select all animals which are not crayfishes and viceversa. @niconoe: where did you find info about the spread category? IMHO, the spread category can be not very clear for users within and outside the project. Data structureA flat table to make things easy! Each group/category is a variable. We love tidy data, isn't?
@niconoe: I suppose you will put such a table in the repo somewhere and you will read it at every night before triggering a download? Notice that there are some logical constraints you could add while reading this table: in this way, if there are errrors, the previous version of the table is used or, easier, no download is triggered for that night. Another possible change, @niconoe is to merge the columns Constraints:
Notice these are all basic taxonomic constraints. Some project related constraints could be added too, but I think they could be changed during the project, so I would not add them. Example: @timadriaens, as invasive species expert and RIPARIAS member: do you give us the final GO on the species list and grouping? |
after discussion with @damianooldoni and @bramdhondt we feel it is better for a first go to limit the scope to:
|
Thanks a lot @damianooldoni. It's good that we have a species list already, waiting for its confirmation by @timadriaens. A few questions about it:
I'll try here to already answer your inline questions:
I think @SoVDH give that data to me at the time. Anyway, we can remove this classification if it's more confusing than helpful to users.
No, the web app has a database table for species that acts like the single source of truth for that. This table can be very easily edited by any Admin user (I can give you access so you have a look), constraints are enforced immediately, ... So unless there's some requirements I didn't get yet, I don't see what would be the benefit to make the app dependent of some tabular data in a GitHub repo. (I can elaborate on the why if you want, just tell me!)
Thanks, that's indeed the possibility. Don't worry too much about the details of the table structure (type of columns, ...). If I have the full species list (with GBIF taxon key) and some explanations in plain English about what should be possible in terms of categories/grouping, that's already great and I'll figure out a table structure that deals with all the constrains we have (we want the code to stay simple and flexible, there are Django conventions, performance considerations, ...). Have a great weekend! |
Thanks @niconoe for your comment.
Yes, that's just an example of the table format. I have just edited the table by adding dots as last row
No, just an error: I have just corrected it. I will provide you the final table in the format above asap. I think on Monday. Have a nice weekend you too. |
Adding on #6 (comment), during short meeting,@timadriaens, @bramdhondt and I decided to not add any category regarding emerging status at the moment to avoid any issue with organisations running their own established alert systems with such categories. |
a quick check of that table for the crayfish because the taxonomy changed: Orconectes limosus should be Faxonius limosus, so https://www.gbif.org/species/8909595 |
From mail of @bramdhondt: the alert list species in #6 (comment) are quite outdated. The reference document for alert list is still in development. However, we can take these alert list species for early alert system version 1: |
I worked on the existing species list gsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15f17hXE9ZyUxEe2xA0seKs0CSibgYJdkaWcnmVoI1yY/edit#gid=921617273) and I made three sheets:
Some notes:
|
Looking good, made a few tweeks:
|
Thanks @timadriaens for checking this! Very much appreciated. Can you also confirm the presence of crayfish Faxonius virilis in both lists (project key species, alert list species) is correct? I assumed that key species were all quite established. But I am still missing something... |
ah, yes, F. virilis is not a target species but an alert list species, adjusted in sheet 1 and 3 |
Thanks @timadriaens. I opened the proposal to check the target species myself: |
if they are absent, they are alert list species, right, even if they are mentioned in the original project proposal. The reason they are there (and not considered anymore for the alert list exercise) is simply because they are Union List species. It's a bit of semantics. Does it really matter how they are coded for the system implementation? |
The importance for the early alert system is about the groups in the taxonomic selection dropdown menu: @niconoe will creates "groups" i nthe data filtering (and in the alert making page) so that users can easily select such groups if they are interested in them (selecting species by species is of course still possible).
|
OK, I'd say they are alert list species as they do not occur in the riparias project area but when detected will be rapid responsed |
Thanks @timadriaens. So, we have 19 instead of 20 target species and we state that a species may not be present in both lists (target species and alert species lists). For me it's totally fine. Do you think should I contact Etienne about this as well to be sure nobody complaints about it while using the the early alert system version 1? Or if you want to contact him, you are welcome. |
let's just move forward, this is a small detail. If the code needs to be adjusted later we can easily do it. |
Happy to hear this! 🥳 I propose, @niconoe the following:
|
It seems that we were not the only ones struggling with the question of having a well defined list of species 😄 Xavier Vermeersch from BE had the same problem and this is a nice clear answer of Etienne:
My proposal is therefore to refer to such list. I will update our internal gsheet. |
I updated the species list in the spreadsheet based on the official list I got by RIPARIAS coordination (BE). |
@damianooldoni: do we agree the current list of species on the development website is good enough for the first release? In that case, I suggest closing this issue. |
As with @timadriaens ever discussed, we should not only visualize the key species for RIPARIAS, but also the species of EU concern. You can find the list here: https://github.com/trias-project/indicators/blob/master/data/input/eu_concern_species.tsv
It seems this list could be updated soon (~December) with 33 new species. We are going to update the file above as soon as this happens.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: