-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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 native in one Belgian region, but not in another #49
Comments
I understand your point, @timadriaens. About the examples you mention:
I think that the unified checklist, which is published as the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species - Belgium, should contain only taxa which are alien in all Belgium. As written in checklist's general description on GBIF:
As Belgium = Flanders + Brussels + Wallonia, I read the sentence above as follows: Or logically speaking with symbols: the function non_nativity is a AND function with respect to sum: non_nativity(a+b) = non_nativity(a) AND non_nativity(b) The other interpretation, where the function non_nativity is a OR function with respect to sum: non_nativity(a+b) = non_nativity(a) OR non_nativity(b) sounds me quite strange and can arise cases as mentioned by @timadriaens above. The problem is that sometimes the error is at checklist level (see example 1) so we start with wrong information. |
I agree that for the unified checklist of Belgium we only have to consider species that are non-native in all regions (so the and-function). Some species are non-native to Belgium and have only been recorded in one region, sometimes the only thing we know is that it's non-native to Belgium and we don't have regional information. On the other hand, if it is present in one region, it is also present in Belgium of course.
In fact the RINSE checklist is correct because the working area of that project was entirely in Flanders in that case. And the add hoc for Natrix is also correct as the species IS non-native but only in Flanders... So in order for the AND function to work properly the regional distribution should be filled for all the species? Which means we have to triplicate every record? |
As the problem of these two species comes back while discussing indicators, this problem, already theoretically important, becomes in practice also relevant, and therefore should be solved. |
yes, that should do it I think. |
A problem (already raised in #32) arising from including regional distributions in the unified checklist (see #45 and #43) is that eventually, species that have been introduced in one region but are native in another, are included in the checklist of alien species of Belgium. I think it would be best to not include those in the unified? Some examples are
@damianooldoni @peterdesmet We should decide what to do with such cases, because it is strange they appear on a Belgian alien species checklist.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: