comparison with Belgian DAISIE dataset

timadriaens commented 4 years ago

I would like to start this issue as a forms of quality control of the Belgian GRIIS checklist after some in vain attempts to discuss this at overcrowded TrIAS core group meetings and some discussions with @sanderdevisscher but we lacked to time to address this. After all this is also one of the main reasons for having published DAISIE within the AlienCSI STSM. The procedure is relatively simple I think, the big work will be in finding the appropriate source to complement GRIIS Belgium:

select belgian species from DAISIE checklist, as locality = Belgium
do an outer join with GRIIS Belgium based on common field (taxonkey) to see which species GRIIS Belgium does not have and DAISIE does and vice versa
in depth quality control based on the fields occurrenceStatus, establishmentMeans, eventdata be used to explore differences with GRIIS Belgium and perhaps to improve it provided we have sources - we will also have an idea on mistakes in both registers
region_of_first_record is also interesting

peterdesmet commented 4 years ago

There are 421 species in the DAISIE checklist that are listed as present and introduced in Belgium (i.e. this filter). Of those:

124 (29%) are included in the unified checklist.
44 (11%) don't have a match with the GBIF backbone
253 (60%) have a match with the GBIF backbone, but they are not included in the unified list

So there seems to be hardly any (124) overlap between the unified checklist and daisie. Here are the ones in daisie that do not occur in the unified: daisie_not_in_unified.txt

qgroom commented 4 years ago

A large proportion seem to be agricultural pest species. I guess we have overlooked these in TrIAS.

timadriaens commented 4 years ago

@peterdesmet could there be something wrong with the query? I notice several species that I think should be on the unified (e.g. probably all the molluscs, Anguillicoloides crassus = Anguillicola crassus, Hippolyte desmarestii = Atyaephyra desmaresti, Chrysolina americana, Magallana gigas = Crassostrea gigas and there are many many more that I recognize).

Probably, as usual, issues with taxon names, synonyms etc.? I thought these would be easy to filter out with daisie and unified both mapped onto gbif?

timadriaens commented 4 years ago

Sporobolus townsendii = Spartina townsendii Anodonta woodiana = Sinanodonta woodiana

timadriaens commented 4 years ago

a lot of the species seem to be marine, molluscs or macroinverts

timadriaens commented 4 years ago

and the inevitable "Ve velutina nigrithorax"

peterdesmet commented 4 years ago

Ve velutina was an error that affected many taxa: https://github.com/trias-project/daisie-checklist/issues/37 I will run it again.

peterdesmet commented 4 years ago

New results:

24 cannot be matched to GBIF: expected, some DAISIE scientific names are really crappy: "Macrosiphum Macrosiphum albifrons Essig, 1911 aphidoidea". I wonder if we should invest time in cleaning these??
129 (5 more) now match with the unified
268 are not in unified: daisie_not_in_unified.txt. This included "Vespa velutina nigrithorax du Buysson, 1905" which is a subspecies, while the unified has the species.

sannegovaert commented 3 months ago

@peterdesmet @timadriaens Has anything been done with this data gap?

peterdesmet commented 3 months ago

No. Since then the waarnemingen.be checklist has been added to the unified, which likely filled many gaps.

trias-project / unified-checklist

comparison with Belgian DAISIE dataset #60