While trying to update indicators and helping @timadriaens for making some graphs, I found the following:
description %>% distinct(type)
distinct: removed 12,232 rows (>99%), 12 rows remaining
# A tibble: 12 x 1
type
<chr>
1 pathway
2 degree of establishment
3 native range
4 Introduced species vector dispersal
5 Introduced species impact
6 Introduced species abundance
7 introduction pathway
8 Introduced species remark
9 Introduced species management
10 pathway of introduction
11 Introduced species population
12 Introduced species population trend
There are 3(!) types for encoding pathway information, where type pathway is the most used (and the correct one):
type_pathways<- c(
"pathway",
"introduction pathway",
"pathway of introduction"
)
description %>%
filter(type %in% type_pathways) %>%
group_by(type) %>%
count() %>%
arrange(desc(n))
# A tibble: 3 x 2
# Groups: type [3]
type n
<chr> <int>
1 pathway 3283
2 introduction pathway 163
3 pathway of introduction 61
While trying to update indicators and helping @timadriaens for making some graphs, I found the following:
There are 3(!) types for encoding pathway information, where type
pathway
is the most used (and the correct one):Description data with type
introduction pathway
All these data come from the Checklist of alien herpetofauna of Belgium (https://doi.org/10.15468/pnxu4c):
Description data with type
pathway of introduction
All these data come from Checklist of alien species in the Scheldt estuary in Flanders, Belgium (https://doi.org/10.15468/8zq9s4):
I think this are issues to solve at checklist level. @peterdesmet: what do you think?