Feedback from plant e-Flora and occurrence session

The Policy

Prioritise what we can and should include in the e-Flora website for every species:

1. One morphological description

2. One image

3. Habitat and distribution information

4. Distribution map

5. A link to the SANBI Red List

6. Specimen information from BRAHMS

Markup Add In Tool

Literature R

ibbon

Display taxon

panel

Excel export button

e-Flora mock-up species page

Status of digitising plant specimen data • 44% of South Africa’s plant

specimens have been electronically encoded (NRF, 2011)

• 90% of the country’s ca. 3,263,200 plant specimens concentrated in 6 major herbaria (PRE, NBG, NH, NU, BOL, GRA)

• Network of herbaria working with SANBI

• Set-one migrate to BRAHMS • Central publishing platform

(Integrated Publishing Tools) • Curation of specimens remain

responsibility of each herbarium

e-Flora

• Markup time – depending on quality of scan of the revision / OCR some can go very fast

• Integration of indigenous knowledge into e-Flora; methods to integrate the data? – Info would not necessarily be incorporate by 2016 but

could look at incorporating with time

– SANBI tool?

– Research Chairs on IK – incorporate how?

• SANBI Sustainable devlopment?

e-Fauna

• Vernacular names should include reference citation

Speeding up digitisation of plant specimens

• Challenges:

– Speeding up

– Human resources are limited

– Training and assistance with BRAHMS, also in data capturing

– Staff; local teams (turnover issues)

Digitising plant specimens cont.

• Some solutions: – SANBI provides BRAHMS training (Hannelie Snyman) –

EWC, WITS, Shonaland

– Dedicated effort to make speed up digitisation – core team

– Crowd sourcing

– Central place for digitised images of specimens required

– Investigate OCR for typed labels

– Training to herbaria staff for a certain level of quality of digitisation to manage ongoing updates and loans.

– Students should put their research in BRAHMS (even via Excel)

Specimen Verification

• Dual process needed: 1. Incorrect IDs

- solution network of experts to share load - Users should sign contract to verify/det specimens

(loan and visit conditions); complete list of cited specimens not necessarily published – more people/capacity involved

- Photographing specimens virtual herbaria (Require capacity to scan)

2. Incorrect georeferenced data

Specimen Verification

2. Incorrect georeferenced data

• Fast tracking georeferencing work with collector itinerary

• Consolidated system of BRAHMS for all herbaria in country – fast track quality control; but we need a virtual herbarium – duplicate specimens.

Specimens

• Observe errors – feedback process and BRAHMS; IPT?? – Feedback to herbaria and specialists? – Everybody has to be on the same system – Automate feedback and entry flagged – Herbarium pull report of queries or errors (for certain

families/groups and within certain dates); BRAHMS functionality? Put request forward to Denis

– API people had a system for feedback on errors? (Should be possible)

– Users flag and comment on errors

Specimens

• SAFARIS (field expeditions)

• DigiVol (volunteers building knowledge); digitisation verification projects

• Each project has a tutorial on how or what to do

• Not in game format

• Specimen information verified by two pairs of eyes (review vs validate)

• Awarding effort of volunteers via access to gardens; BotSoc membership?

Specimens

• SAFARIS (field expeditions) • Preparing files and setting up project:

– Photograph pages/specimens – Batch upload – Specify fields that need to be checked/updated – Can include using a mapping tool – DwC fields used – Ready for import into GBIF

• Les gives feedback to every volunteer (for specimens batch feedbacks could work better) – volunteers should feel more inclined to continue if they receive feedback

Specimens

• SAFARIS (field expeditions)

• Digitisation game (French) – engage with developers and ask to translate

• Following collector’s field trail/itinerary (more interesting and more effective – georeferencing multiple specimens for single locality or close proximity)

• Verification: specimen against database (verification); georeferencing is a different process)

• Georeferencing is possible (Les showed example)

Digitisation summary

• Masses of encoding needs to be done • Look into crowd sourcing possibilities • DigiVol possibility • Gaming possibility • Continue digitisation:

– Train herbarium staff – Invest in centralised team to work on specimens

(anywhere in country) – Actual text on label digitised (separate process to

georeferencing) – Collectors and expeditions

• SANBI has a gazetteer available (could assist with localities)

Digitisation summary

• Locality issues (specific vs general location)

• Go back to existing georeferenced data using a programme to pick up inconsistencies

• How to deal with feedback of incorrect data (BRAHMS committee to investigate)

• 50% digitised records not all unique – duplicates in other herbaria; could a system be developed to integrate data and flag that information/georeferenced data captures; also process to assist with verification (note: all labels don’t have accurate data)

Digitisation summary

• Process of encoding – herbaria busy encoding search and find information that is exist in other herbaria that have completed digitisation (herbarium should be able to personalise data)

Way forward

• Opportunities to apply for funding? • Projects not coherent • SANBI coordinate under one project • Herbarium/researcher feels capacitated should apply

individually for small grants • Theme to be added to funding categories: Digitising

processes • Strongest approach theme 5:

– New technologies – Plants or animals – Digitised medicinally valuable species (combination) – Biodiversity in general important (what about utilised

species??)