Federated or cached searches: Providing expected performance from multiple invasive species databases

Frontiers of Earth Science

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 111-119

  Graham, Jim ^a   Jarnevich, Catherine S ^b   Simpson, Annie ^c   Newman, Gregory J ^a   Stohlgren, Thomas J ^b  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b FORT COLLINS SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^c U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

databases; design; federated search; invasive species; performance; search engine; web services

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DATABASE; ECOSYSTEM APPROACH; INVASIVE SPECIES; INVASIVENESS; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84857654820     PISSN: 20950195     EISSN: 20950209     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11707-011-0152-7     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Baeza-Yates R, Gionis A, Junqueira F P, Murdock V, Plachouras V, Silvestri F (2008). Design Trade-Offs for Search Engine Caching. Acm Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 2(4).
2. Casal C M V (2006). Global documentation of fish introductions: the growing crisis and recommendations for action. Biol Invasions, 8(1): 3-11.
3. Committee on the Scientific Basis for Predicting the Invasive Potential of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests in the United States (2002). Predicting Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 198.
4. Crall A W, Meyerson L A, Stohlgren T J, Jarnevich C S, Newman G J, Graham J (2006). Show me the numbers: What data currently exist for non-native species in the USA? Front Ecol Environ, 4(8): 414-418.
5. Curcin V, Ghanem M, Guo Y (2005). Web services in the life sciences. Drug Discov Today, 10(12): 865-871.
6. de Giovanni R, Doering M, de la Torre J (2006). TAPIR 1. 0. In: Proceedings of TDWG.
7. Edwards J L (2004). Research and societal benefits of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Bioscience, 54(6): 486.
8. Fan J C, Kambhampati S (2005). A snapshot of public web services. SIGMOD Rec, 34(1): 24-32.
9. Fox E A, Gonçalves M A, Luo M, Chen Y, Krowne A, Zhang B, McDevitt K, Ñones M P Q, Richardson R, Cassel L N (2004). Harvesting: Broadening the field of distributed information retrieval. Distributed Multimedia Information Retrieval, 2924: 1-20.
10. Graham J, Simpson A, Crall A, Jarnevich C, Newman G, Stohlgren T J (2008). Vision of a cyberinfrastructure for nonnative, invasive species management. Bioscience, 58(3): 263-268.
11. Halpin P N, Read A J, Best B D, Hyrenbach K D, Fujioka E, Coyne MS, Crowder L B, Freeman S A, Spoerri C (2006). OBIS-SEAMAP: developing a biogeographic research data commons for the ecological studies of marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 316: 239-246.
12. Jacsó P (2004). Thoughts About Federated Searching. Information Today 21(9) October, 2004, p. 17.
13. Mack R N, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz F A (2000). Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl, 10(3): 689-710.
14. Martens A (2005). Analyzing Web service based business processes. Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. Proceedings, 3442: 19-33.
15. Nielsen J (2000). Designing Web Usability. New Riders Publishing.
16. Pearson J M, Pearson A M (2008). An exploratory study into determining the relative importance of key criteria in Web usability: A multi-criteria approach. J Comput Inf Syst, 48: 115-127.
17. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005). Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ, 52: 273-288.
18. Vieglais D (2006). The Big Dig. In: Proceedings of TDWG2006.
19. Wilcove D S, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998). Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience, 48(8): 607-615.