USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70248302

The founding charter of the Omic Biodiversity Observation Network (Omic BON)

Abstract

Omic BON is a thematic Biodiversity Observation Network under the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), focused on coordinating the observation of biomolecules in organisms and the environment. Our founding partners include representatives from national, regional, and global observing systems; standards organizations; and data and sample management infrastructures. By coordinating observing strategies, methods, and data flows, Omic BON will facilitate the co-creation of a global omics meta-observatory to generate actionable knowledge. Here, we present key elements of Omic BON's founding charter and first activities.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Raissa Meyer, Neil Davies, Kathleen J. Pitz, Christopher Meyer, Robyn Samuel, Jane Anderson, Ward Appeltans, Katharine Barker, Francisco P. Chavez, J. Emmett Duffy, Kelly D. Goodwin, Maui Hudson, Margaret Hunter, Johannes Karstensen, Christine M. Laney, Margaret Leinen, Paula Mabee, James A. Macklin, Frank Muller-Karger, Nicolas Pade, Jay Pearlman, Lori Phillips, Pieter Provoost, Ioulia Santi, Dmitry Schigel, Lynn M. Schriml, Alice Soccodato, Saara Suominen, Katherine M. Thibault, Visotheary Ung, Jodie van de Kamp, Elycia Wallis, Ramona Walls, Pier Luigi Buttigieg. 2023-08-26. The founding charter of the Omic Biodiversity Observation Network (Omic BON). https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience%2Fgiad068

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Building a multi-scaled geospatial temporal ecology database from disparate data sources: Fostering open science through data reuse

Although there are considerable site-based data for individual or groups of ecosystems, these datasets are widely scattered, have different data formats and conventions, and often have limited accessibility. At the broader scale, national datasets exist for a large number of geospatial features of land, water, and air that are needed to fully understand variation among these ecosystems. However, such datasets originate from different sources and have different spatial and temporal resolutions. By taking an open-science perspective and by combining site-based ecosystem datasets and national geospatial datasets, science gains the ability to ask important research questions related to grand environmental challenges that operate at broad scales. Documentation of such complicated database integration efforts, through peer-reviewed papers, is recommended to foster reproducibility and future use of the integrated database. Here, we describe the major steps, challenges, and considerations in building an integrated database of lake ecosystems, called LAGOS (LAke multi-scaled GeOSpatial and temporal database), that was developed at the sub-continental study extent of 17 US states (1,800,000 km 2 ). LAGOS includes two modules: LAGOS GEO , with geospatial data on every lake with surface area larger than 4 ha in the study extent (~50,000 lakes), including climate, atmospheric deposition, land use/cover, hydrology, geology, and topography measured across a range of spatial and temporal extents; and LAGOS LIMNO , with lake water quality data compiled from ~100 individual datasets for a subset of lakes in the study extent (~10,000 lakes). Procedures for the integration of datasets included: creating a flexible database design; authoring and integrating metadata; documenting data provenance; quantifying spatial measures of geographic data; quality-controlling integrated and derived data; and extensively documenting the database. Our procedures make a large, complex, and integrated database reproducible and extensible, allowing users to ask new research questions with the existing database or through the addition of new data. The largest challenge of this task was the heterogeneity of the data, formats, and metadata. Many steps of data integration need manual input from experts in diverse fields, requiring close collaboration.

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ma