Visualisation to Aid Biodiversity Studies through Accurate Taxonomic Reconciliation

  • Martin Graham
  • Paul Craig
  • Jessie Kennedy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5071)


All aspects of organismal biology rely on the accurate identification of specimens described and observed. This is particularly important for ecological surveys of biodiversity, where organisms must be identified and labelled, both for the purposes of the original research, but also to allow reinterpretation or reuse of collected data by subsequent research projects. Yet it is now clear that biological names in isolation are unsuitable as unique identifiers for organisms. Much modern research in ecology is based on the integration (and re-use) of multiple datasets which are inherently complex, reflecting any of the many spatial and temporal environmental factors and organismal interactions that contribute to a given ecosystem. We describe visualization tools that aid in the process of building concept relations between related classifications and then in understanding the effects of using these relations to match across sets of classifications.


Biodiversity taxonomy concepts concept relationships visualization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Higgins, S.I., Richardson, D.M., Cowling, R.M., Trinder-Smith, T.H.: Predicting the landscape-scale distribution of alien plants and their threat to plant diversity. Conversation Ecology 13, 303–313 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Michener, W.K., Brunt, J.W. (eds.): Ecological Data: Design, Management, and Processing. Blackwell Science, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foster, I., Kesselman, C. (eds.): The GRID 2: blueprint for a new computing infrastructure, 2nd edn. Elsevier Series in Grid Computing. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berendsohn, W.G.: The concept of potential taxa in databases. Taxon 44, 207–212 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pullan, M.R., Watson, M.F., Kennedy, J.B., Raguenaud, C., Hyam, R.: The Prometheus Taxonomic Model. Taxon 49, 55–75 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peterson, A.T., Navarro-Sigüenza, A.G.: Alternate species concepts as bases for determining priority conservation areas. Conservation Biology 13, 427–431 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Minelli, A.: The status of taxonomic literature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 75–76 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy, J.B., Kukla, R., Paterson, T.: Scientific names are ambiguous as identifiers for biological taxa: their context and definition are required for accurate data integration. In: Ludäscher, B., Raschid, L. (eds.) DILS 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3615, pp. 80–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuh, R.T.: Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Cornell University Press, Ithica (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groves, C.P.: A history of gorilla taxonomy. In: Taylor, A.B., Goldsmith, M.L. (eds.) Gorilla biology, pp. 15–34. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wickings, E.J., Clifford, S.L., Anthony, N.M., Jeffery, K., Johnson-Bawe, M., Abernethy, K.A., Bruford, M.W.: Gorilla mtDNA - Sequences Unravelled and Secrets Revealed. Gorilla Journal 29 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kennedy, J.: Exploiting Diverse Sources of Scientific Data. Final Theme report, e-Science Institute (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kennedy, J., Bowers, S., Jones, M., Madin, J., Peet, R., Pennington, D., Schildhauer, M., Stewart, A.:
  14. 14.
    Berendsohn, W.G., Geoffroy, M.: Networking taxonomic concepts – uniting without unitary-ism. In: Curry, G., Humphries, C. (eds.) Biodiversity Databases - Techniques, Politics, and Applications, pp. 13–22. CRC Taylor & Francis (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koperski, M., Sauer, M., Braun, W., Gradstein, S.R.: Referenzliste der Moose Deutschlands. LV Druck im Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, Münster-Hiltrup (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franz, N., Peet, R., Weakley, A.: On the use of taxonomic concepts in support of biodiversity research and taxonomy. In: Wheeler, Q.D. (ed.) The New Taxonomy. Systematics Association Special Volume Series, vol. 74, pp. 61–85. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Card, S.K., Mackinlay, J.D., Shneiderman, B. (eds.): Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think, 1st edn. The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thau, D., Ludäscher, B.: Reasoning about Taxonomies in First-Order Logic. Ecological Informatics 2, 195–209 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graham, M., Kennedy, J.: Visual exploration of alternative taxonomies through concepts. Ecological Informatics 2, 248–261 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roberts, J.C.: Multiple-View and Multiform Visualization. In: Erbacher, R., Pang, A., Wittenbrink, C., Roberts, J. (eds.) Visual Data Exploration and Analysis VII. SPIE, vol. 3960, pp. 176–185. SPIE Press, Bellingham (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graham, M., Kennedy, J.: Combining linking & focusing techniques for a multiple hierarchy visualisation. In: Banissi, E., Khosrowshahi, F., Sarfraz, M., Ursyn, A. (eds.) IEEE Conference on Information Visualization, pp. 425–432. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Craig, P., Kennedy, J.: Concept Relationship Editor: A visual interface to support the assertion of synonymy relationships between taxonomic classifications. In: Visualization and Data Analysis. SPIE, vol. 6809, p. 12. SPIE Press, Bellingham (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cockburn, A., Karlson, A., Bederson, B.B.: A Review of Overview+Detail, Zooming, and Focus+Context Interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys 41 (to appear, 2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tognazzini, B.: User testing on the cheap TOG on Interface, pp. 79–89. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nielsen, J.: Guerrila HCI: Using Discount Usability Engineering to Penetrate the Intimidation Barrier. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 245–272. Academic Press Professional, London (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wixon, D.: Evaluating Usability Methods. Interactions 10, 28–34 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Graham
    • 1
  • Paul Craig
    • 1
  • Jessie Kennedy
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Information and Software SystemsNapier UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations