-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Resolving issues with plant and interaction terms #64
Comments
It may also resolve some issues with terms like:
Why the term I'm not sure if it make sense. Further discussions are needed to clarify it. But, the idea is to use We can not use both terms (single and multiple) together in the same interaction, since the we are considering one interaction = one flower visitation and then every interaction is always a single visit. On other hand, the same focal flower could still receive many other visitors (multiple visits), and then the these terms have to be used within plant occurrence instead of the interaction, or even a more complex model (aggregate multiple interactions by using Similarly to the terms I think that the addition of the term Another question is if Does anyone have any comments ??? |
Another issue it may help to solve is related to The
Second, without the term
Additionally, this reference should be useful to define what we mean by fruit set:
Source: Stephen G. Pallardy, CHAPTER 4 - Reproductive Growth, Editor(s): Stephen G. Pallardy, Physiology of Woody Plants (Third Edition), Academic Press, 2008, Pages 87-106, ISBN 9780120887651, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012088765-1.50005-1 If the terminology associated to the fruit set concept is really a proportion, then my suggestion is to algo change the name of the term to something like The terms |
Hi,
1) I agree with the term "numberOfVisits". It is very complete and will
allow estimation of several visitation-related metrics.
2) Regarding the plant reproductive success terms (from
cospecificPollenGrainsQuantitySingleVisits to seedMass):
We had already discussed some of these issues. Let's go back to some of the
points:
2.1) Single visit terms
Single visit measurements could be assigned to the interaction between one
animal species and one plant species. Usually, such measurements are
conducted when one wants to estimate the "effectiveness" of an animal
species as a pollinator of a plant species. In other words, how many pollen
grains an animal species deposits in a single visit (and consequently, how
many pollen tubes, number of fruits, seeds and so on). Such measurements
fit well our database. The problem is that they are quite rare because it
is very time consuming to conduct effectiveness approaches. I would say we
can keep those terms as they are very adequate for our database and we can
create all corresponding "Single visit" terms.
2.2) Multiple visit terms
Multiple visit terms would make more sense if we treat them as plant traits
(as we are treating flower color, nectar, etc). This because they cannot be
assigned to the interaction between one animal species and one plant
species. They are likely the product of multiple interactions (multiple
animals and one plant species). I am comparing with the other plant traits
because we also do not measure all specific flowers in a plant that
interacted with the animal. We measure some flowers in that population to
gain insight about average (and variability) of plant traits that we
suspect are important in defining plant-pollinator interactions. Similarly,
we measure reproductive success in some flowers of that population to gain
insight about average (and variability) of the consequences of
plant-pollinator interactions. Depending on the study, interactions, traits
and reproductive success may be measured in the same plant individuals (but
never in the same flowers) - however, it is not always the case.
2.3) Fruit set (multiple visits)
Fruit set is not related to the number of flowers exposed to animal
visitors. Usually, fruit set is measured by marking a subset of the flowers
available (it is very hard to mark all available flowers, especially in
trees or shrubs with multiple branches) and, from these subset of flowers
one will then count how many set fruit.
2.4) fruitMass, seedSet, seedMass
These measurements are not proportions and should be treated as
cospecificPollenGrains (and the other pollen-related reproductive success
variables: pollen tubes, fertilized ovules and so on).
…On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 3:32 PM José Augusto Salim ***@***.***> wrote:
Another issue it may help to solve is related to fruitSet (#34
<#34>),
fruitMass (#10
<#10>), seedSet(
#37 <#37>) and
seedMass (#13
<#13>)
The fruitSet is the most problematic term that we have in the entire
vocabulary. First its definition is about a *proportion*. It is not a raw
data, but something calculate between the *total number of fruits* / *total
number of flowers exposed to floral visitors*:
Proportion of the flowers exposed to floral visitors that yielded fruits
Second, without the term numberOfVisits and considering each interaction
as one visit, the fruitSet does not make sense, since any interaction is
always about just one flower!!! The term numberOfVisits should provide
the flexibility needed to use fruitSet and the definition can be improved
to provided a absolute/raw value instead of a *proportion*:
The total number of flowers that set mature fruit
Additionally, this reference should be useful to define what we mean by *fruit
set*:
The term “fruit set” has been used in the literature to refer to both
initial and final fruit set. Initial fruit set occurs shortly after
anthesis and is associated with the beginning of swelling of the ovary.
Final fruit set refers to the number of fruits on a tree when the fruits
and seeds are mature (Sedgley and Griffin, 1989). When a flower has been
successfully pollinated, growth of the ovary is stimulated and floral parts
such as stamens and petals usually wilt and abscise. Such changes, which
characterize transformation of a flower into a young fruit, comprise
initial fruit set.
*Source*: Stephen G. Pallardy, CHAPTER 4 - Reproductive Growth,
Editor(s): Stephen G. Pallardy, Physiology of Woody Plants (Third Edition),
Academic Press, 2008, Pages 87-106, ISBN 9780120887651,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012088765-1.50005-1
If the terminology associated to the *fruit set* concept is really a
*proportion*, then my suggestion is to algo change the name of the term
to something like numberOfFruits. The term seedSet is not a *proportion*
and may be it is only a matter of definition here.
The terms seedSet and seedMass should be changed to accommodate the
addition of the term numberOfVisists by including that they are about the
*total* number of seeds. Then, from the *total mass of the seeds* and *total
number of seeds* it is possible to calculate (among other thins) the
average mass of a seed (totalMass/totalOfSeeds). The same applies to fruits.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#64 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK6P647MDPW2ZXDIYG4VG6DTOP73TANCNFSM45E7F5IQ>
.
--
Pedro J. Bergamo
Postdoctoral fellow
Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden
Pacheco Leão St 915, 22460-030
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
|
@pjbergamo thank you reply. Please, see my comments bellow:
If these kind of data are rare, I don't see much evidence of demand to standardize such data. I can still capture for the REBIPP database, but we don't need to mint terms for that. At the end, it will only make things more complicate, since people will have to know that can't use single terms and multiple terms at same time. Otherwise, because it is related to just one interaction it is simpler than multiple terms to be used, but again it they are quite rare we can simplify the vocabulary and keep only multiple visits terms. Those terms (single visit) can be added later if we see sufficient evidence for create such terms.
If we treat such terms as plant traits then we will lost any links with the interaction. We still have, for example, the number of conspecific pollen grains deposited by multiple visits*, but we will no be able to recover which were the interacting animal(s) that transported the pollen grains. Any plant trait is totally separated from the interaction, since they can exist without any interaction being recorded (e.g The way it is now, a dataset like this one:
Should be interpreted as
On other hand if we treat
Is it right? Again, if it is not the right interpretation for the term
If
This are less concern terms. Since they are defined to be single visit they can be document together with the interaction. |
Based on the dataset from Bergamo, P.J., Susin Streher, N., Traveset, A., Wolowski, M. and Sazima, M. (2020), Pollination outcomes reveal negative density-dependence coupled with interspecific facilitation among plants. Ecol Lett, 23: 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13415, I could identify some use cases that the actual version of the vocabulary cannot handle.
We don't have term for number of visits, and so, each visit have to be recorded separated (one visit - one interaction). To simplify it and allows any interaction to includes any number of visits I'm introducing a new term numberOfVisits (see #63).
It will simplifies data standardization process by avoid the duplication of records, but also (I'm not sure) we can use this term (
numberOfVisits
) as an indicator ofsingle
ormultiple
visits for others term in the vocabulary (like #23 and #36).A simplified example of usage of the terms
numberOfVisits
,availableFlowerQuantity
(#40), anddwc:organismQuantity
:Core: interactions.csv
Row Type:
dwc:Event
Occurrences extension: occurrences.csv
Row Type:
dwc:Occurrence
individuals
individuals
individuals
individuals
individuals
individuals
MeasurementOrFact extension: mof.csv
Row Type:
dwc:MeasurementOrFact
numberOfVisits
availableFlowerQuantity
numberOfVisits
availableFlowerQuantity
numberOfVisits
availableFlowerQuantity
Thus, from the example above we know that the interaction
evt_1
recorded in 2017-03-14 is an interaction between one individual of the species Pfaffia tuberosa and one individual of the species Ceratina asunciana. We also know that the C. asunciana individual visits one flower of the plant and that the plant had 18 flowers available to floral visistors.Additionally, we know that the interaction
evt_2
recorded in 2017-03-15 is an interaction between one individual of the species Lithrea brasiliensis and 2 individuals of the species Apis mellifera. We also know that these two individuals of A. mellifera visit 5 flowers of the plant and that the plant had 22 flowers available.Similarly, we also know that the interaction
evt_3
recorded in 2018-04-18 is an interaction between 3 individuals of the species Lithrea brasiliensis and 5 individuals from the species Trigona spinipes. We also know that the individuals of T. spinipes visit 16 flowers of the 3 plant individuals and the total number of flowers available considering all 3 plants were equals to 58.With those terms we will be able to calculate things like visitation rate (
numberOfVisits
/availableFlowerQuantity
/samplingEffort
) but other metrics can also be derived.Curious to know what others think about it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: