Bridging Discrepancies across North American Butterfly Naming Authorities: Supporting Citizen

Science Data Integration

Dana L Campbell, Anne E Thessen, Leslie Riesannethessen@gmail.com

http://www.slideshare.net/athessen@diatomsRcool

The Data Detektiv

Acknowledgements

• DBI – 1052875• DEB - 1541557

Lepidopteran Monitoring

© Cláudio Dias Timm CC BY-NC-SA via Flickr and EOL

© 1999 California Academy of Sciences CC BY-NC-SA via CalPhotos and EOL

© michael_hodge CC BY via iNaturalist and EOL

By Andy Potter CC BY-SA via Wikimedia Commons and EOL

Lepidopteran Monitoring

Photo by Bernard Dupont

Bioindicator

© Ted Kropiewnicki CC BY-NC-SA via Tree of Life Web Project and EOL

Pollinator

Prey

Lepidopteran Monitoring

By Gail Gilliland, blogs.plos.org

wildresearch.ca

burrenbeo.com

By Kelly Donovan

Lepidopteran Monitoring

• North American Butterfly Monitoring Network

• Standardize protocols (Pollard Walk)

• Develop data management systems (PollardBase)

Lepidopteran Monitoring

Lepidopteran Classifications

• ITIS• NABA 2001• Pelham 2014• Opler & Warren 2005

Base List Number of taxa Number of species

Pelham 2827 820

Opler Warren 1043 784

NABA 1090 731

ITIS 2810 866

Subfamily Deviation

Genus Deviation

Lumping/Splitting Spelling Species

NameUnmatched

Taxon

ITIS/NABA 66 28 63 13 28 21

ITIS/OW 110 15 11 2 9 13

ITIS/Pelham 49 16 7 1 5 19

OW/NABA 69 34 62 11 22 17

OW/Pelham 159 28 13 3 14 27

NABA/Pelham 105 35 63 11 34 37

Project Lists

Project Start Year Base List Number of Species

Base List Species

DeviationsArea (sq mi)

Illinois 1986 NABA 143 4 7,000

Michigan 2011 NABA 136 2 97,000

Colorado 2013 OW 244 22 104,000

Tennessee 2014 NABA 136 8 42,000

Irvine Ranch 2012 OW 80 8 50,000 acres

Cascades 2011 Pelham 152 4Iowa 2007 NABA 119 2 56,000

Florida 2003 OW 192 8 66,000MPG Ranch Pelham 101 15

Ohio 1995 NABA 165 7 45,000

Project Lists

Project Species Complex Spelling Generic Species

nameUnmatched

TaxonLumping/Splitting Total

Illinois 2 2 1 0 1 0 6

Michigan 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Colorado 0 2 12 1 7 0 22

Tennessee 2 1 5 0 0 0 8

Irvine Ranch 0 0 1 0 6 1 8

Cascades 0 0 1 1 0 2 4Iowa 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Florida 0 0 4 0 3 1 8MPG Ranch 4 2 3 0 0 6 15

Ohio 0 4 1 0 1 1 7Total 9 12 30 2 18 11 80

Doing the Alignment• Manual alignment of the four

base lists• Projects declared a base list and

recorded discrepancies• Used nomenclature and

geography

Celastrina ladon complexRed = C. ladonBlue = C. luciaGreen = C. neglectaPurple = C. idellaGrey = C. echoYellow = C. humulus

Data Access

• Manual alignments• Darwin Core Archive• https://github.com/diatomsRcool/butterfly

Data Integration

• MPG Ranch Speyeria hesperis• Equivalent in Ohio?

Speyeria hesperisMPG Ranch

Speyeria hesperisPelham

Speyeria atlantis hesperisNABA

Speyeria atlantisOhio

Data Integration

• Colorado Adelpha eulalia• Equivalent in Cascades?

Adelpha eulaliaColorado

Adelpha bredowiiO&W

Adelpha californicaAdelpha eulalia

Pelham

Adelpha californicaCascades

© Jerry Oldenettel CC BY-NC-SA via EOL and Fickr

Conclusions

• Local projects and citizen scientists are important for Lepidopteran monitoring

• Large-scale problems require data integration across projects

• We successfully built crosswalks between four classifications and ten project lists

• Names infrastructure for integrating butterfly data

Questions?

CC BY-NC via Flickr and EOL