Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS)
Summary
- There are 6 posts — by 5 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Dan Randow at Jun 09 16:34 NZST
Thanks for opening the discussion about FBIS, Andrew. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/1GhxmvYMcHMaUkxHpttgfl I suggest moving the discussion from that topic as FBIS is not a Nationally Significant Database (although its older sibling, NZ Freshwater Fish Database is). > NIWA has a set of services that relate to biodiversity including > > FBIS https://secure.niwa.co.nz/fbis/index.do Freshwater biodiversity > information system FINZ http://finz.niwa.co.nz/NewZealand/viewer.htm > - an alt GIS layer on FBIS FBIS is listed on our National Databases page. http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/ I have added the link to FINZ. > This system was put together a few years ago and I have inherited it > into the systems development team at NIWA. I am interested in > getting feedback about the service from actual users, if there are > any. Also interested in feedback from those who are interested in > this type of information but don't use FBIS because of various > reasons. e.g. undiscoverability, lack of content etc. I think it would be useful to share views about FBIS here. If you use FBIS in a local government context, or if you have considered but decided against using it, please let us know why.
cheers, Dan
Hi folks About 6 years ago, NIWA and DoC developed the Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS) as a web accessible database for, amongst other things, fish, algae, aquatic plants and invertebrate data and metadata gathered from New Zealand's freshwater streams, rivers, and lakes. FBIS was intended to be a nationally available resource for the New Zealand public, local government, research and educational organisations which need access to a well-maintained long-term repository of biological data. FBIS got off to a good start, however, its uptake and use both as a repository and source of data has not been as great as originally envisioned. From NIWA’s perspective we feel this may reflect issues such as: 1. Lack of awareness of FBIS by end users; 2. The somewhat limited datasets on freshwater biological data; 3. Difficulty for individuals to add data to FBIS without technical help from NIWA; 4. Limited user instructions, or training guides; 5. Limited ability to perform routine tasks such as calculating commonly used biological indices. (Bear in mind, however, that FBIS was never intended to be a generator of indices but instead a comprehensive spatially enabled database with full spatial search functionality). DoC has asked NIWA to undertake an audit of FBIS, and conduct a user needs survey on how we can improve its functionality and utility. Things to consider could include (but not be limited to): 1. The migration of more freshwater datasets (fish, invertebrate, diatom, macrophyte) from both NIWA, regional councils, DoC, and other environmental consultancies to the FBIS platform; 2. Revisit the web portal to improve importing and retrieval of data; 3. Production of useful diagnostic tools in FBIS to calculate commonly used biotic metrics such as the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) score, and the number of Ephemeroptera / Plecoptera / Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, or the % EPT, taxonomic richness, or presence of weedy plants etc; 4. Production of more detailed online training instructions; 5. Provision of metadata that allows users to assess the “fitness for purpose” of data sets 6. Accommodating differences between taxonomic resolution of different data providers; 7. Dealing with commercially sensitive data / private data. I am more than ever convinced that one of the big stumbling blocks to the proper management of our freshwater resources lies in the absence of easy access to national data describing the biological communities of the very resource we are trying to protect. I see that provision of a national repository for freshwater biodata will help immensely with better environmental management. As part of my revision of FBIS user requirements, I need a few representatives of agencies with responsibilities and/or interests in freshwater biodiversity/biosecurity to help form a focus group. As with the recently created Technical Advisory Group formed by MfE to improve freshwater monitoring and reporting consistency in New Zealand, I would imagine that we could conduct most (or all) of our meetings via email (perhaps via this forum in a Discussion Group) with the odd phone or video conference thrown in for good measure. If anyone is interested in becoming part of this FBIS focus group, I would love to hear from you so that I can start the ball rolling. Thanks Alastair
Hi alistair Just a quick response to the forum to remind you of the potential of NZBRN or derivatives to provide the platform for displaying biospatial data with existing online capacity for adding, data-basing, viewing and processing biological observations. I'll leave it there for now but wondered if your review might include consideration of some joint role. There have already been some discussions with NIWA staff about this. Remember, whereas NZBRN is hosted by Landcare Research it is run by an independent steering group to which any significant party would be expected to join. Cheers
colin -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of <email obscured> Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 12:30 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS) Hi folks About 6 years ago, NIWA and DoC developed the Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS) as a web accessible database for, amongst other things, fish, algae, aquatic plants and invertebrate data and metadata gathered from New Zealand's freshwater streams, rivers, and lakes. FBIS was intended to be a nationally available resource for the New Zealand public, local government, research and educational organisations which need access to a well-maintained long-term repository of biological data. FBIS got off to a good start, however, its uptake and use both as a repository and source of data has not been as great as originally envisioned. From NIWA’s perspective we feel this may reflect issues such as: 1. Lack of awareness of FBIS by end users; 2. The somewhat limited datasets on freshwater biological data; 3. Difficulty for individuals to add data to FBIS without technical help from NIWA; 4. Limited user instructions, or training guides; 5. Limited ability to perform routine tasks such as calculating commonly used biological indices. (Bear in mind, however, that FBIS was never intended to be a generator of indices but instead a comprehensive spatially enabled database with full spatial search functionality). DoC has asked NIWA to undertake an audit of FBIS, and conduct a user needs survey on how we can improve its functionality and utility. Things to consider could include (but not be limited to): 1. The migration of more freshwater datasets (fish, invertebrate, diatom, macrophyte) from both NIWA, regional councils, DoC, and other environmental consultancies to the FBIS platform; 2. Revisit the web portal to improve importing and retrieval of data; 3. Production of useful diagnostic tools in FBIS to calculate commonly used biotic metrics such as the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) score, and the number of Ephemeroptera / Plecoptera / Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, or the % EPT, taxonomic richness, or presence of weedy plants etc; 4. Production of more detailed online training instructions; 5. Provision of metadata that allows users to assess the “fitness for purpose” of data sets 6. Accommodating differences between taxonomic resolution of different data providers; 7. Dealing with commercially sensitive data / private data. I am more than ever convinced that one of the big stumbling blocks to the proper management of our freshwater resources lies in the absence of easy access to national data describing the biological communities of the very resource we are trying to protect. I see that provision of a national repository for freshwater biodata will help immensely with better environmental management. As part of my revision of FBIS user requirements, I need a few representatives of agencies with responsibilities and/or interests in freshwater biodiversity/biosecurity to help form a focus group. As with the recently created Technical Advisory Group formed by MfE to improve freshwater monitoring and reporting consistency in New Zealand, I would imagine that we could conduct most (or all) of our meetings via email (perhaps via this forum in a Discussion Group) with the odd phone or video conference thrown in for good measure. If anyone is interested in becoming part of this FBIS focus group, I would love to hear from you so that I can start the ball rolling. Thanks Alastair ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/30hq6CIr801uLyF9ExJ5DH To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Hi Both I've compared FBIS and NZBRN and they currently don't overlap much. NZBRN is primarily a public observation repository whereas FBIS is a data warehouse for numerous biodiversity datasets. They both have their good points and I hope to see both grow. Some datasets may be common to both - for example the NZ Fresh water Fish database - which is based on public observations could be stored in a node in NZBRN. However as a complete geospatial dataset it can also be added to FBIS. Regards Andrew Andrew Watkins Systems Development Team Manager National Institute Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA). >>> On 2/2/2010 at 01:26 PM, in message <email obscured>>, Colin Meurk <email obscured>> wrote: Hi alistair Just a quick response to the forum to remind you of the potential of NZBRN or derivatives to provide the platform for displaying biospatial data with existing online capacity for adding, data-basing, viewing and processing biological observations. I'll leave it there for now but wondered if your review might include consideration of some joint role. There have already been some discussions with NIWA staff about this. Remember, whereas NZBRN is hosted by Landcare Research it is run by an independent steering group to which any significant party would be expected to join. Cheers
colin -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of <email obscured> Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 12:30 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS) Hi folks About 6 years ago, NIWA and DoC developed the Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS) as a web accessible database for, amongst other things, fish, algae, aquatic plants and invertebrate data and metadata gathered from New Zealand's freshwater streams, rivers, and lakes. FBIS was intended to be a nationally available resource for the New Zealand public, local government, research and educational organisations which need access to a well-maintained long-term repository of biological data. FBIS got off to a good start, however, its uptake and use both as a repository and source of data has not been as great as originally envisioned. From NIWA’s perspective we feel this may reflect issues such as: 1. Lack of awareness of FBIS by end users; 2. The somewhat limited datasets on freshwater biological data; 3. Difficulty for individuals to add data to FBIS without technical help from NIWA; 4. Limited user instructions, or training guides; 5. Limited ability to perform routine tasks such as calculating commonly used biological indices. (Bear in mind, however, that FBIS was never intended to be a generator of indices but instead a comprehensive spatially enabled database with full spatial search functionality). DoC has asked NIWA to undertake an audit of FBIS, and conduct a user needs survey on how we can improve its functionality and utility. Things to consider could include (but not be limited to): 1. The migration of more freshwater datasets (fish, invertebrate, diatom, macrophyte) from both NIWA, regional councils, DoC, and other environmental consultancies to the FBIS platform; 2. Revisit the web portal to improve importing and retrieval of data; 3. Production of useful diagnostic tools in FBIS to calculate commonly used biotic metrics such as the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) score, and the number of Ephemeroptera / Plecoptera / Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, or the % EPT, taxonomic richness, or presence of weedy plants etc; 4. Production of more detailed online training instructions; 5. Provision of metadata that allows users to assess the “fitness for purpose” of data sets 6. Accommodating differences between taxonomic resolution of different data providers; 7. Dealing with commercially sensitive data / private data. I am more than ever convinced that one of the big stumbling blocks to the proper management of our freshwater resources lies in the absence of easy access to national data describing the biological communities of the very resource we are trying to protect. I see that provision of a national repository for freshwater biodata will help immensely with better environmental management. As part of my revision of FBIS user requirements, I need a few representatives of agencies with responsibilities and/or interests in freshwater biodiversity/biosecurity to help form a focus group. As with the recently created Technical Advisory Group formed by MfE to improve freshwater monitoring and reporting consistency in New Zealand, I would imagine that we could conduct most (or all) of our meetings via email (perhaps via this forum in a Discussion Group) with the odd phone or video conference thrown in for good measure. If anyone is interested in becoming part of this FBIS focus group, I would love to hear from you so that I can start the ball rolling. Thanks Alastair ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/30hq6CIr801uLyF9ExJ5DH To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/opJl6pHLO1jOBQ3YcF4N3 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.
Actually a significant component (most) of the current data in the NZBRN is from a diverse range of archival datasets. Agreed the NZBRN does combine this archival function with 'citizen science' current observations, and perhaps those two functions are better served separately, but that's a different discussion.
Jerry -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Andrew Watkins Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 3:51 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS) Hi Both I've compared FBIS and NZBRN and they currently don't overlap much. NZBRN is primarily a public observation repository whereas FBIS is a data warehouse for numerous biodiversity datasets. They both have their good points and I hope to see both grow. Some datasets may be common to both - for example the NZ Fresh water Fish database - which is based on public observations could be stored in a node in NZBRN. However as a complete geospatial dataset it can also be added to FBIS. Regards Andrew Andrew Watkins Systems Development Team Manager National Institute Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA). >>> On 2/2/2010 at 01:26 PM, in message <email obscured>>, Colin Meurk <email obscured>> wrote: Hi alistair Just a quick response to the forum to remind you of the potential of NZBRN or derivatives to provide the platform for displaying biospatial data with existing online capacity for adding, data-basing, viewing and processing biological observations. I'll leave it there for now but wondered if your review might include consideration of some joint role. There have already been some discussions with NIWA staff about this. Remember, whereas NZBRN is hosted by Landcare Research it is run by an independent steering group to which any significant party would be expected to join. Cheers colin -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of <email obscured> Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 12:30 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS) Hi folks About 6 years ago, NIWA and DoC developed the Freshwater Biodata Information System (FBIS) as a web accessible database for, amongst other things, fish, algae, aquatic plants and invertebrate data and metadata gathered from New Zealand's freshwater streams, rivers, and lakes. FBIS was intended to be a nationally available resource for the New Zealand public, local government, research and educational organisations which need access to a well-maintained long-term repository of biological data. FBIS got off to a good start, however, its uptake and use both as a repository and source of data has not been as great as originally envisioned. From NIWA’s perspective we feel this may reflect issues such as: 1. Lack of awareness of FBIS by end users; 2. The somewhat limited datasets on freshwater biological data; 3. Difficulty for individuals to add data to FBIS without technical help from NIWA; 4. Limited user instructions, or training guides; 5. Limited ability to perform routine tasks such as calculating commonly used biological indices. (Bear in mind, however, that FBIS was never intended to be a generator of indices but instead a comprehensive spatially enabled database with full spatial search functionality). DoC has asked NIWA to undertake an audit of FBIS, and conduct a user needs survey on how we can improve its functionality and utility. Things to consider could include (but not be limited to): 1. The migration of more freshwater datasets (fish, invertebrate, diatom, macrophyte) from both NIWA, regional councils, DoC, and other environmental consultancies to the FBIS platform; 2. Revisit the web portal to improve importing and retrieval of data; 3. Production of useful diagnostic tools in FBIS to calculate commonly used biotic metrics such as the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) score, and the number of Ephemeroptera / Plecoptera / Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, or the % EPT, taxonomic richness, or presence of weedy plants etc; 4. Production of more detailed online training instructions; 5. Provision of metadata that allows users to assess the “fitness for purpose” of data sets 6. Accommodating differences between taxonomic resolution of different data providers; 7. Dealing with commercially sensitive data / private data. I am more than ever convinced that one of the big stumbling blocks to the proper management of our freshwater resources lies in the absence of easy access to national data describing the biological communities of the very resource we are trying to protect. I see that provision of a national repository for freshwater biodata will help immensely with better environmental management. As part of my revision of FBIS user requirements, I need a few representatives of agencies with responsibilities and/or interests in freshwater biodiversity/biosecurity to help form a focus group. As with the recently created Technical Advisory Group formed by MfE to improve freshwater monitoring and reporting consistency in New Zealand, I would imagine that we could conduct most (or all) of our meetings via email (perhaps via this forum in a Discussion Group) with the odd phone or video conference thrown in for good measure. If anyone is interested in becoming part of this FBIS focus group, I would love to hear from you so that I can start the ball rolling. Thanks Alastair ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/30hq6CIr801uLyF9ExJ5DH To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/opJl6pHLO1jOBQ3YcF4N3 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/1IqNtK6JE2VKIt7Dhx0Ml9 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Congratulations to Alastair Suren on the approval of NIWA's application for TFBIS funding to upgrade FBIS. Details of the planned improvements, and the review of the existing FBIS are in the FBIS user group at <http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4MGi6pE3K94QMpUH5tGCH6>.
cheers, Dan
Loading…
Privacy | Acceptable Use | Terms of Service | About OnlineGroups.Net | Contact OnlineGroups.Net
Start an OnlineGroups.Net site for easier email collaboration in your organization.
Powered by GroupServer, the open source web-based mailing list manager.