skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

Title: Linking Biodiversity Data Using Evolutionary History
All life on earth is linked by a shared evolutionary history. Even before Darwin developed the theory of evolution, Linnaeus categorized types of organisms based on their shared traits. We now know these traits derived from these species’ shared ancestry. This evolutionary history provides a natural framework to harness the enormous quantities of biological data being generated today. The Open Tree of Life project is a collaboration developing tools to curate and share evolutionary estimates (phylogenies) covering the entire tree of life (Hinchliff et al. 2015, McTavish et al. 2017). The tree is viewable at https://tree.opentreeoflife.org, and the data is all freely available online. The taxon identifiers used in the Open Tree unified taxonomy (Rees and Cranston 2017) are mapped to identifiers across biological informatics databases, including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), NCBI, and others. Linking these identifiers allows researchers to easily unify data from across these different resources (Fig. 1). Leveraging a unified evolutionary framework across the diversity of life provides new avenues for integrative wide scale research. Downstream tools, such as R packages developed by the R OpenSci foundation (rotl, rgbif) (Michonneau et al. 2016, Chamberlain 2017) and others tools (Revell 2012), make accessing and combining this information more » straightforward for students as well as researchers (e.g. https://mctavishlab.github.io/BIO144/labs/rotl-rgbif.html). Figure 1. Example linking phylogenetic relationships accessed from the Open Tree of Life with specimen location data from Global Biodiversity Information Facility. For example, a recent publication by Santorelli et al. 2018 linked evolutionary information from Open Tree with species locality data gathered from a local field study as well as GBIF species location records to test a river-barrier hypothesis in the Amazon. By combining these data, the authors were able test a widely held biogeographic hypothesis across 1952 species in 14 taxonomic groups, and found that a river that had been postulated to drive endemism, was in fact not a barrier to gene flow. However, data provenance and taxonomic name reconciliation remain key hurdles to applying data from these large digital biodiversity and evolution community resources to answering biological questions. In the Amazonian river analysis, while they leveraged use of GBIF records as a secondary check on their species records, they relied on their an intensive local field study for their major conclusions, and preferred taxon specific phylogenetic resources over Open Tree where they were available (Santorelli et al. 2018). When Li et al. 2018 assessed large scale phylogenetic approaches, including Open Tree, for measuring community diversity, they found that synthesis phylogenies were less resolved than purpose-built phylogenies, but also found that these synthetic phylogenies were sufficient for community level phylogenetic diversity analyses. Nonetheless, data quality concerns have limited adoption of analyses data from centralized resources (McTavish et al. 2017). Taxonomic name recognition and reconciliation across databases also remains a hurdle for large scale analyses, despite several ongoing efforts to improve taxonomic interoperability and unify taxonomies, such at Catalogue of Life + (Bánki et al. 2018). In order to support innovative science, large scale digital data resources need to facilitate data linkage between resources, and address researchers' data quality and provenance concerns. I will present the model that the Open Tree of Life is using to provide evolutionary data at the scale of the entire tree of life, while maintaining traceable provenance to the publications and taxonomies these evolutionary relationships are inferred from. I will discuss the hurdles to adoption of these large scale resources by researchers, as well as the opportunities for new research avenues provided by the connections between evolutionary inferences and biodiversity digital databases. « less
Authors:
Award ID(s):
1759846
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10171009
Journal Name:
Biodiversity Information Science and Standards
ISSN:
2535-0897
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ( , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    Making the most of biodiversity data requires linking observations of biological species from multiple sources both efficiently and accurately (Bisby 2000, Franz et al. 2016). Aggregating occurrence records using taxonomic names and synonyms is computationally efficient but known to experience significant limitations on accuracy when the assumption of one-to-one relationships between names and biological entities breaks down (Remsen 2016, Franz and Sterner 2018). Taxonomic treatments and checklists provide authoritative information about the correct usage of names for species, including operational representations of the meanings of those names in the form of range maps, reference genetic sequences, or diagnostic traits. They increasingly provide taxonomic intelligence in the form of precise description of the semantic relationships between different published names in the literature. Making this authoritative information Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR; Wilkinson et al. 2016) would be a transformative advance for biodiversity data sharing and help drive adoption and novel extensions of existing standards such as the Taxonomic Concept Schema and the OpenBiodiv Ontology (Kennedy et al. 2006, Senderov et al. 2018). We call for the greater, global Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) and taxonomy community to commit to extending and expanding on how FAIR applies to biodiversity data and includemore »practical targets and criteria for the publication and digitization of taxonomic concept representations and alignments in taxonomic treatments, checklists, and backbones. As a motivating case, consider the abundantly sampled North American deer mouse— Peromyscus maniculatus (Wagner 1845)—which was recently split from one continental species into five more narrowly defined forms, so that the name P. maniculatus is now only applied east of the Mississippi River (Bradley et al. 2019, Greenbaum et al. 2019). That single change instantly rendered ambiguous ~7% of North American mammal records in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (n=242,663, downloaded 2021-06-04; GBIF.org 2021) and ⅓ of all National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) small mammal samples (n=10,256, downloaded 2021-06-27). While this type of ambiguity is common in name-based databases when species are split, the example of P. maniculatus is particularly striking for its impact upon biological questions ranging from hantavirus surveillance in North America to studies of climate change impacts upon rodent life-history traits. Of special relevance to NEON sampling is recent evidence suggesting deer mice potentially transmit SARS-CoV-2 (Griffin et al. 2021). Automating the updating of occurrence records in such cases and others will require operational representations of taxonomic concepts—e.g., range maps, reference sequences, and diagnostic traits—that are FAIR in addition to taxonomic concept alignment information (Franz and Peet 2009). Despite steady progress, it remains difficult to find, access, and reuse authoritative information about how to apply taxonomic names even when it is already digitized. It can also be difficult to tell without manual inspection whether similar types of concept representations derived from multiple sources, such as range maps or reference sequences selected from different research articles or checklists, are in fact interoperable for a particular application. The issue is therefore different from important ongoing efforts to digitize trait information in species circumscriptions, for example, and focuses on how already digitized knowledge can best be packaged to inform human experts and artifical intelligence applications (Sterner and Franz 2017). We therefore propose developing community guidelines and criteria for FAIR taxonomic concept representations as "semantic artefacts" of general relevance to linked open data and life sciences research (Le Franc et al. 2020).« less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    International collaboration between collections, aggregators, and researchers within the biodiversity community and beyond is becoming increasingly important in our efforts to support biodiversity, conservation and the life of the planet. The social, technical, logistical and financial aspects of an equitable biodiversity data landscape – from workforce training and mobilization of linked specimen data, to data integration, use and publication – must be considered globally and within the context of a growing biodiversity crisis. In recent years, several initiatives have outlined paths forward that describe how digital versions of natural history specimens can be extended and linked with associated data. In the United States, Webster (2017) presented the “extended specimen”, which was expanded upon by Lendemer et al. (2019) through the work of the Biodiversity Collections Network (BCoN). At the same time, a “digital specimen” concept was developed by DiSSCo in Europe (Hardisty 2020). Both the extended and digital specimen concepts depict a digital proxy of an analog natural history specimen, whose digital nature provides greater capabilities such as being machine-processable, linkages with associated data, globally accessible information-rich biodiversity data, improved tracking, attribution and annotation, additional opportunities for data use and cross-disciplinary collaborations forming the basis for FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable,more »Reproducible) and equitable sharing of benefits worldwide, and innumerable other advantages, with slight variation in how an extended or digital specimen model would be executed. Recognizing the need to align the two closely-related concepts, and to provide a place for open discussion around various topics of the Digital Extended Specimen (DES; the current working name for the joined concepts), we initiated a virtual consultation on the discourse platform hosted by the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge through GBIF. This platform provided a forum for threaded discussions around topics related and relevant to the DES. The goals of the consultation align with the goals of the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge: expand participation in the process, build support for further collaboration, identify use cases, identify significant challenges and obstacles, and develop a comprehensive roadmap towards achieving the vision for a global specification for data integration. In early 2021, Phase 1 launched with five topics: Making FAIR data for specimens accessible; Extending, enriching and integrating data; Annotating specimens and other data; Data attribution; and Analyzing/mining specimen data for novel applications. This round of full discussion was productive and engaged dozens of contributors, with hundreds of posts and thousands of views. During Phase 1, several deeper, more technical, or additional topics of relevance were identified and formed the foundation for Phase 2 which began in May 2021 with the following topics: Robust access points and data infrastructure alignment; Persistent identifier (PID) scheme(s); Meeting legal/regulatory, ethical and sensitive data obligations; Workforce capacity development and inclusivity; Transactional mechanisms and provenance; and Partnerships to collaborate more effectively. In Phase 2 fruitful progress was made towards solutions to some of these complex functional and technical long-term goals. Simultaneously, our commitment to open participation was reinforced, through increased efforts to involve new voices from allied and complementary fields. Among a wealth of ideas expressed, the community highlighted the need for unambiguous persistent identifiers and a dedicated agent to assign them, support for a fully linked system that includes robust publishing mechanisms, strong support for social structures that build trustworthiness of the system, appropriate attribution of legacy and new work, a system that is inclusive, removed from colonial practices, and supportive of creative use of biodiversity data, building a truly global data infrastructure, balancing open access with legal obligations and ethical responsibilities, and the partnerships necessary for success. These two consultation periods, and the myriad activities surrounding the online discussion, produced a wide variety of perspectives, strategies, and approaches to converging the digital and extended specimen concepts, and progressing plans for the DES -- steps necessary to improve access to research-ready data to advance our understanding of the diversity and distribution of life. Discussions continue and we hope to include your contributions to the DES in future implementation plans.« less
  3. ; ; ; ( , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    “What is crucial for your ability to communicate with me… pivots on the recipient’s capacity to interpret—to make good inferential sense of the meanings that the declarer is able to send” (Rescher 2000, p148). Conventional approaches to reconciling taxonomic information in biodiversity databases have been based on string matching for unique taxonomic name combinations (Kindt 2020, Norman et al. 2020). However, in their original context, these names pertain to specific usages or taxonomic concepts, which can subsequently vary for the same name as applied by different authors. Name-based synonym matching is a helpful first step (Guala 2016, Correia et al. 2018), but may still leave considerable ambiguity regarding proper usage (Fig. 1). Therefore, developing "taxonomic intelligence" is the bioinformatic challenge to adequately represent, and subsequently propagate, this complex name/usage interaction across trusted biodiversity data networks. How do we ensure that senders and recipients of biodiversity data not only can share messages but do so with “good inferential sense” of their respective meanings? Key obstacles have involved dealing with the complexity of taxonomic name/usage modifications through time, both in terms of accounting for and digitally representing the long histories of taxonomic change in most lineages. An important critique of proposals tomore »use name-to-usage relationships for data aggregation has been the difficulty of scaling them up to reach comprehensive coverage, in contrast to name-based global taxonomic hierarchies (Bisby 2011). The Linnaean system of nomenclature has some unfortunate design limitations in this regard, in that taxonomic names are not unique identifiers, their meanings may change over time, and the names as a string of characters do not encode their proper usage, i.e., the name “Genus species” does not specify a source defining how to use the name correctly (Remsen 2016, Sterner and Franz 2017). In practice, many people provide taxonomic names in their datasets or publications but not a source specifying a usage. The information needed to map the relationships between names and usages in taxonomic monographs or revisions is typically not presented it in a machine-readable format. New approaches are making progress on these obstacles. Theoretical advances in the representation of taxonomic intelligence have made it increasingly possible to implement efficient querying and reasoning methods on name-usage relationships (Chen et al. 2014, Chawuthai et al. 2016, Franz et al. 2015). Perhaps most importantly, growing efforts to produce name-usage mappings on a medium scale by data providers and taxonomic authorities suggest an all-or-nothing approach is not required. Multiple high-profile biodiversity databases have implemented internal tools for explicitly tracking conflicting or dynamic taxonomic classifications, including eBird using concept relationships from AviBase (Lepage et al. 2014); NatureServe in its Biotics database; iNaturalist using its taxon framework (Loarie 2020); and the UNITE database for fungi (Nilsson et al. 2019). Other ongoing projects incorporating taxonomic intelligence include the Flora of Alaska (Flora of Alaska 2020), the Mammal Diversity Database (Mammal Diversity Database 2020) and PollardBase for butterfly population monitoring (Campbell et al. 2020).« less
  4. ; ; ( , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    Large systematic revisionary projects incorporating data for hundreds or thousands of taxa require an integrative approach, with a strong biodiversity-informatics core for efficient data management to facilitate research on the group. Our original biodiversity informatics platform, 3i (Internet-accessible Interactive Identification) combined a customized MS Access database backend with ASP-based web interfaces to support revisionary syntheses of several large genera of leafhopers (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadellidae). More recently, for our National Science Foundation sponsored project, “GoLife: Collaborative Research: Integrative genealogy, ecology and phenomics of deltocephaline leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), and their microbial associates”, we selected the new open-source platform TaxonWorks as the cyberinfrastructure. In the scope of the project, the original “3i World Auchenorrhyncha Database” was imported into TaxonWorks. At the present time, TaxonWorks has many tools to automatically import nomenclature, citations, and specimen based collection data. At the time of the initial migration of the 3i database, many of those tools were still under development, and complexity of the data in the database required a custom migration script, which is still probably the most efficient solution for importing datasets with long development history. At the moment, the World Auchenorrhyncha Database comprehensively covers nomenclature of the group and includes data on 70 validmore »families, 6,816 valid genera, 47,064 valid species as well as synonymy and subsequent combinations (Fig. 1). In addition, many taxon records include the original citation, bibliography, type information, etymology, etc. The bibliography of the group includes 37,579 sources, about 1/3 of which are associated with PDF files. Species have distribution records, either derived from individual specimens or as country and state level asserted distribution, as well as biological associations indicating host plants, predators, and parasitoids. Observation matrices in TaxonWorks are designed to handle morphological data associated with taxa or specimens. The matrices may be used to automatically generate interactive identification keys and taxon descriptions. They can also be downloaded to be imported, for example, into Lucid builder, or to perform phylogenetic analysis using an external application. At the moment there are 36 matrices associated with the project. The observation matrix from GoLife project covers 798 taxa by 210 descriptors (most of which are qualitative multi-state morphological descriptors) (Fig. 2). Illustrations are provided for 9,886 taxa and organized in the specialized image matrix and could be used as a pictorial key for determination of species and taxa of a higher rank. For the phylogenetic analysis, a dataset was constructed for 730 terminal taxa and >160,000 nucleotide positions obtained using anchored hybrid enrichment of genomic DNA for a sample of leafhoppers from the subfamily Deltocephalinae and outgroups. The probe kit targets leafhopper genes, as well as some bacterial genes (endosymbionts and plant pathogens transmitted by leafhoppers). The maximum likelihood analyses of concatenated nucleotide and amino acid sequences as well as coalescent gene tree analysis yielded well-resolved phylogenetic trees (Cao et al. 2022). Raw sequence data have been uploaded to the Sequence Read Archive on GenBank. Occurrence and morphological data, as well as diagnostic images, for voucher specimens have been incorporated into TaxonWorks. Data in TaxonWorks could be exported in raw format, get accessed via Application Programming Interface (API), or be shared with external data aggregators like Catalogue of Life, GBIF, iDigBio.« less
  5. ; ; ( , PeerJ)
    The Copepoda is a clade of pancrustaceans containing 14,485 species that are extremely varied in their morphology and lifestyle. Not only do copepods dominate marine plankton and sediment communities and make up a sizeable component of the freshwater plankton, but over 6,000 species are symbiotically associated with every major phylum of marine metazoans, mostly as parasites. Unfortunately, our understanding of copepod evolutionary relationships is relatively limited in part because of their extremely divergent morphology, sparse taxon sampling in molecular phylogenetic analyses, a reliance on only a handful of molecular markers, and little taxonomic overlap between phylogenetic studies. Here, a synthesis tree method is used to integrate published phylogenies into a more comprehensive tree of copepods by leveraging phylogenetic and taxonomic data. A literature review in this study finds fewer than 500 species of copepods have been sampled in molecular phylogenetic studies. Using the Open Tree of Life platform, those taxa that have been sampled in previous phylogenetic studies are grafted together and combined with the underlying copepod taxonomic hierarchy from the Open Tree of Life Taxonomy to make a synthesis phylogeny of all copepod species. Taxon sampling with respect to molecular phylogenetic analyses is reviewed for all orders of copepodsmore »and shows only 3% of copepod species have been sampled in phylogenetic studies. The resulting synthesis phylogeny reveals copepods have transitioned to a parasitic lifestyle on at least 14 occasions. We examine the underlying phylogenetic, taxonomic, and natural history data supporting these transitions to parasitism; review the species diversity of each parasitic clade; and identify key areas for further phylogenetic investigation.« less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email