Jeremy Minns wrote:
> Luciano recently posted the same request for advice on the NEOORN
> list-serve. I suggested he joined Nature Recordists and posted the same
> message.
>
> I am forwarding below the answer that I sent to NEOORN. So far as I
> remember there has been little discussion on Nature Recordists about the=
> design of a data base for recordings.
>>My data base was developed by me in Microsoft Access.
A few random comments:
I prefer Filemaker Pro, It's easy to use, is not limited to a single OS
as is Microsoft Access. You can even directly use Filemaker Pro
databases in a website if the server is set up right. As far as I'm
aware it's the only modern database program that is so easily cross
platform.
Anyone who is going to the trouble of doing a database, presumably for
scientific uses, should be determining location with a GPS. You can do
whatever else you wish in describing the location, but a GPS reading is
going to be the most reliable on average. Be sure and study how to get
good readings out of your GPS.
You need to decide what all will be included in the database. A bird
database will be quite different from a frog database, for instance.
And, of course a database that covered all types and maybe ambiance
would be very complex indeed. I'm kind of the opinion it might be better
to not go the route of a one size fits all database, but have more than
one database.
It's no longer necessary to have each little piece of info in it's own
field with modern databases, they are perfectly capable of finding
pieces of a larger field. And it may be much more readable is less
fields are used. By the same measure, number of characters in a field is
also not limited like it was when databases were based on punched cards.
Avoid cryptic abbreviations you will later forget. Nor does the data
have to be on one line. It helps to make sure you are absolutely
consistent in your entries. A lot of the fields of my Filemaker Pro frog
database are actually linked to lists of allowable entries. Many of
those fields are pop up menu's of those lists. That way typo's are
minimized.
My database corresponds to my field cards. This is a very good idea,
have a field card to get all the data in the first place. I also have
this ultimate backup, the original field cards. No computer crash can
destroy them. Which brings us to backup, be extremely paranoid about
computers. Have lots of backup, in more than one site. A multi year
database is a lot of work to reconstruct.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:23:12 2005
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:53:35 -0500
From: Walter Knapp <>
Subject: Re: The abstraction of city ecology
Wild Sanctuary wrote:
>>I saw one more thing here, a somewhat different take. It comes when you
>>ask why these folks are studying the city. I've been a biologist, tied
>>to the realities of that world for some time. I've watched funding dry
>>up more and more. Meanwhile in order to hold a job it's necessary to
>>publish. It's hard to think of a research project that will require less
>>funds than studying what's just outside your door. Field surveys, even
>>in a city require very little in the way of equipment.
>
>
> I thought of that, too, Walt. You're certainly on target here. I've
> got a client who may not be able to find a way to get me to the SE US
> this spring to do some field recording for a visitor center project.
Sounds like what I'm seeing, biology is very funds limited. Many
biologists have not got the support it takes to do much. A awful lot of
their energy and planning time is consumed just hunting funds.
If I can be of any assistance, just ask. I'm still hoping to get
together if you get down this way.
>>
>>As a ecologist I don't worry too much about biological equilibrium. That
>>implies some sort of steady state ideal. And that's just not how it
>>works. Change is the routine of biology. And humans as they are now are
>>very transitory. Maybe humans will just be the catalist for a new burst
>>of evolutionary activity. They are part of the biological equilibrium,
>>such as it is.
>
>
> I don't mean this as a "steady state" paradigm but rather an evolving
> state over the long arc of time where abrupt changes obviously happen
> but are certainly more rare.
Yes, that's certainly much more the case and what I was pointing out.
I think one of the problems many people have is assuming that all
species would always be here. Species come and go even without human
intervention. A entire species has a lifetime, just like a individual.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|