Search for: All records

Background: When phenotypic characters are described in the literature, they may be constrained or clarified with additional information such as the location or degree of expression, these terms are called “modifiers”. With effort underway to convert narrative character descriptions to computable data, ontologies for such modifiers are needed. Such ontologies can also be used to guide term usage in future publications. Spatial and method modifiers are the subjects of ontologies that already have been developed or are under development. In this work, frequency (e.g., rarely, usually), certainty (e.g., probably, definitely), degree (e.g., slightly, extremely), and coverage modifiers (e.g., sparsely, entirely) are collected, reviewed, and used to create two modifier ontologies with different design considerations. The basic goal is to express the sequential relationships within a type of modifiers, for example, usually is more frequent than rarely, in order to allow data annotated with ontology terms to be classified accordingly. Method: Two designs are proposed for the ontology, both using the list pattern: a closed ordered list (i.e., five-bin design) and an open ordered list design. The five-bin design puts the modifier terms into a set of 5 fixed bins with interval object properties, for example, one_level_more/less_frequently_than, where new terms can only be added as synonyms to existing classes. The open list approach starts with 5 bins, but supports the extensibility of the list via ordinal properties, for example, more/less_frequently_than, allowing new terms to be inserted as a new class anywhere in the list. The consequences of the different design decisions are discussed in the paper. CharaParser was used to extract modifiers from plant, ant, and other taxonomic descriptions. After a manual screening, 130 modifier words were selected as the candidate terms for the modifier ontologies. Four curators/experts (three biologists and one information scientist specialized in biosemantics) reviewed and categorized the terms into 20 bins using the Ontology Term Organizer (OTO) (http://biosemantics.arizona.edu/OTO). Inter-curator variations were reviewed and expressed in the final ontologies. Results: Frequency, certainty, degree, and coverage terms with complete agreement among all curators were used as class labels or exact synonyms. Terms with different interpretations were either excluded or included using “broader synonym” or “not recommended” annotation properties. These annotations explicitly allow for the user to be aware of the semantic ambiguity associated with the terms and whether they should be used with caution or avoided. Expert categorization results showed that 16 out of 20 bins contained terms with full agreements, suggesting differentiating the modifiers into 5 levels/bins balances the need to differentiate modifiers and the need for the ontology to reflect user consensus. Two ontologies, developed using the Protege ontology editor, are made available as OWL files and can be downloaded from https://github.com/biosemantics/ontologies. Contribution: We built the first two modifier ontologies following a consensus-based approach with terms commonly used in taxonomic literature. The five-bin ontology has been used in the Explorer of Taxon Concepts web toolkit to compute the similarity between characters extracted from literature to facilitate taxon concepts alignments. The two ontologies will also be used in an ontology-informed authoring tool for taxonomists to facilitate consistency in modifier term usage. 

Macrosystem‐scale research is supported by many ecological networks of people, infrastructure, and data. However, no network is sufficient to address all macrosystems ecology research questions, and there is much to be gained by conducting research and sharing resources across multiple networks. Unfortunately, conducting macrosystem research across networks is challenging due to the diversity of expertise and skills required, as well as issues related to data discoverability, veracity, and interoperability. The ecological and environmental science community could substantially benefit from networking existing networks to leverage past research investments and spur new collaborations. Here, we describe the need for a “network of networks” (NoN) approach to macrosystems ecological research and articulate both the challenges and potential benefits associated with such an effort. We describe the challenges brought by rapid increases in the volume, velocity, and variety of “big data” ecology and highlight how a NoN could build on the successes and creativity within component networks, while also recognizing and improving upon past failures. We argue that a NoN approach requires careful planning to ensure that it is accessible and inclusive, incorporates multimodal communications and ways to interact, supports the creation, testing, and promulgation of community standards, and ensures individuals and groups receive appropriate credit for their contributions. Additionally, a NoN must recognize important trade‐offs in network architecture, including how the degree of centralization of people, infrastructure, and data influence network scalability and creativity. If implemented carefully and thoughtfully, a NoN has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of ecological processes, characteristics, and trajectories across broad spatial and temporal scales in an efficient, inclusive, and equitable manner.

 

It is a critical time to reflect on the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) science to date as well as envision what research can be done right now with NEON (and other) data and what training is needed to enable a diverse user community. NEON became fully operational in May 2019 and has pivoted from planning and construction to operation and maintenance. In this overview, the history of and foundational thinking around NEON are discussed. A framework of open science is described with a discussion of how NEON can be situated as part of a larger data constellation—across existing networks and different suites of ecological measurements and sensors. Next, a synthesis of early NEON science, based on >100 existing publications, funded proposal efforts, and emergent science at the very first NEON Science Summit (hosted by Earth Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder in October 2019) is provided. Key questions that the ecology community will address with NEON data in the next 10 yr are outlined, from understanding drivers of biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales to defining complex feedback mechanisms in human–environmental systems. Last, the essential elements needed to engage and support a diverse and inclusive NEON user community are highlighted: training resources and tools that are openly available, funding for broad community engagement initiatives, and a mechanism to share and advertise those opportunities. NEON users require both the skills to work with NEON data and the ecological or environmental science domain knowledge to understand and interpret them. This paper synthesizes early directions in the community’s use of NEON data, and opportunities for the next 10 yr of NEON operations in emergent science themes, open science best practices, education and training, and community building.