Next-generation field guides

BioScience

Volumn 63, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 891-899

  Farnsworth, Elizabeth J ^a   Chu, Miyoko ^b   Kress, W John ^c   Neill, Amanda K ^d   Best, Jason H ^e   Pickering, John ^f   Stevenson, Robert D ^g   Courtney, Gregory W ^d   Vandyk, John K ^h   Ellison, Aaron M ⁱ  

^a New England Wild Flower Society   (United States)

^b Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program   (United States)

^c SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION   (United States)

^d Botanical Research Institute of Texas ^*  (United States)

^e BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^h IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

citizen science; digital data; species identification; taxonomy; Web applications

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889263344     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.11.8     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Agarwal G, et al. 2006. First steps toward an electronic field guide for plants. Taxon 55: 597-610
2. Andelman SJ. 2011. Conservation science outside the comfort zone. Nature 475: 290-291
3. Angles R, Gutierrez C. 2008. Survey of graph database models. ACM Computing Surveys 40 (art. 1).
4. Belhumeur PN, et al. 2008. Searching the world's herbaria: A system for visual identification of plant species. Pages 116-129 in Forsyth D, Torr P, Zisserman A, eds. Computer Vision - ECCV 2008: 10th European Conference on Computer
5. Vision, Marseille, France, October 12-18, 2008, part IV. Springer
6. Brach AR, Song H. 2005. ActKey: A Web-based interactive identification key program. Taxon 54: 1041-1046
7. Brach AR, Song H. 2006. eFloras: New directions for online floras exemplified by the Flora of China project. Taxon 55: 188-192
8. Cooper A, Reimann R, Cronin D. 2007. About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley
9. Dallwitz MJ. 2010. A Comparison of Formats for Descriptive Data. Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (2 August 2013; http://delta-intkey. com/www/compdata.htm
10. Dallwitz MJ. 2011. A Comparison of Interactive Identification Programs. Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (2 August 2013; http://delta-intkey. com/www/comparison.htm
11. Dallwitz MJ, Paine TA, Zurcher EJ. 2013. Principles of Interactive Keys. Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (2 August 2013; http://delta-intkey. com/www/interactivekeys.htm
12. Dunlap T. 2005. Tom Dunlap on early bird guides. Environmental History 10: 110-118
13. Edwards M, Morse DR. 1995. The potential for computer-aided identification in biodiversity research. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 153-158
14. Ellis JD. 1984. A rationale for using computers in science education. American Biology Teacher 46: 200-206
15. Givens JA. 2006. Reading and writing the illustrated Tractatus de herbis, 1280-1526. Pages 115-145 in Givens JA, Reeds KM, Touwaide A, eds. Visualizing Medieval Medicine and Natural History, 1200-1500. Ashgate
16. Gobi AF. 2010. Towards generalized benthic species recognition and quantification using computer vision. Pages 94-100 in the Proceedings of the Fourth Pacific-Rim Symposium on Image and Video Technology: PSIVT 2010. IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/PSIVT.2010.23
17. Goodall DW. 1968. Identification by computer. BioScience 18: 485-488
18. Hagedorn G, Mietchen D, Morris RA, Agosti D, Penev L, Berendsohn WG, Hobern D. 2011. Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information. ZooKeys 150: 127-149
19. Haines A. 2011. Flora Novae Angliae: A Manual for the Identification of Native and Naturalized Higher Vascular Plants of New England. Yale University Press
20. awthorne W, Harris S. 2006. Plant names and botanical publications. Pages 61-90 in Lawrence A, Hawthorne W, eds. Plant Identification: Creating User-Friendly Field Guides for Biodiversity Management. Earthscan
21. Kempen K, Tredoux CG. 2012. "Seeing is believing": The effect of viewing and constructing a composite on identification performance. South African Journal of Psychology 42: 434-444
22. Knapp S, McNeill J, Turland NJ. 2011. Changes to publication requirements made at the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne - What does e-publication mean for you? BMC Evolutionary Biology 11 (art. 250).
23. Kress WJ. 2004. Paper floras: How long will they last? American Journal of Botany 91: 2124-2127
24. Labeda DP, Oren A. 2008. International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes; XIth International (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology: Minutes of the meetings, 23, 24, 26 and 28 July 2005, San Francisco, CA, USA. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 58: 1746-1752
25. Leggett R, Kirchoff BK. 2011. Image use in field guides and identification keys: Review and recommendations. AoB Plants 2011 (art. plr004). doi:10.1093/ aobpla/plr004
26. Lytle DA, Martínez-Muñoz G, Zhang W, Larios N, Shapiro L, Paasch R, Moldenke A, Mortensen EA, Todorovic S, Dietterich TG. 2010. Automated processing and identification of benthic invertebrate samples. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 867-874
27. MacLeod N, ed. 2008. Automated Taxon Identification in Systematics: Theory, Approaches and Applications. CRC Press
28. Morris RA, Stevenson RD, Haber W. 2007. An architecture for electronic field guides. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 29: 97-110
29. Morse LE. 1971. Specimen identification and key construction with time-sharing computers. Taxon 20: 269-282
30. Newman G, Wiggins A, Crall A, Graham E, Newman S, Crowston K. 2012. The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 298-304
31. Pankhurst RJ. 1991. Practical Taxonomic Computing. Cambridge University Press
32. Scharf ST. 2007. Identification Keys and the Natural Method: The Development of Text-Based Information Management Tools in Botany in the Long Eighteenth Century. PhD dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
33. Scharf ST. 2009. Identification keys, the "Natural Method," and the development of plant identification manuals. Journal of the History of Biology 42: 73-117
34. Schmidt D. 2006. Field guides in academe: A citation study. Journal of Academic Librarianship 32: 274-285
35. Schroeder CM, Scott TP, Tolson H, Huang T-Y, Lee Y-H. 2007. A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44: 1436-1460
36. Schwartz MD, Betancourt JL, Weltzin JF. 2012. From Caprio's lilacs to the USA National Phenology Network. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 324-327
37. Simpson DR, Janos D. 1974. A Punch Card Key to the Families of Dicotyledons of the Western Hemisphere South of the United States. Field Museum of Natural History
38. Stevenson RD, Haber WA, Morris RA. 2003. Electronic field guides and user communities in the eco-informatics revolution. Conservation Ecology 7 (art. 3). (5 August 2013; www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art3
39. Tapscott D. 1998. Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. McGraw- Hill
40. Walls RL, et al. 2012. Ontologies as integrative tools for plant science. American Journal of Botany 99: 1263-1275
41. Zhang Z-Q. 2012. A new era in zoological nomenclature and taxonomy: ICZN accepts e-publication and launches ZooBank. Zootaxa 3450: 8. (5 August 2013; www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2012/f/zt03450-008.pdf)