Press "Enter" to skip to content

2 Comments

  1. Martin Pullan Martin Pullan

    Not wanting to be critical but I found the diagram rather an odd mixture of things. In some sense it is a workflow digram an in other some sort of entity relationship diagram, this makes it hard to understand what message it is trying to convey. This is particularly so in when you move onto the Lab side of the diagram.

    The diagram also seems to switch between context ie the context of biodiversity assessment of an area and the identification of an individual in an area. It may well be possible to do an assessment without having to identify everything in the area. Perhaps you need to tease these two things out a bit more.

    You make no mention of the measurement and recording of abundance of organisms in a habitat, nor for assessing and recording their vigour.

    You end the diagram at ‘Species list’ but make no mention of the analysys of the species list (and presumably abundance data) in order to actually make the assessment eg the production of an IUCN categorisation.

    Both of the above I think may offer opportunities for automation or ‘electonification’

  2. I think you are being a little unfair. I do have a speech bubble at the top that says there may be other ways of assessing biodiversity (in fact I expect there are probably better ways). The context is based on the assumption that one must identify individuals to measure biodiversity and so determination has to figure large whilst estimates of counts of individuals could be thought of a minor part of that data.

    I feel a bigger (larger context) diagram coming on!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.