scieee AI-readable full text Open interactive document viewer

Structuring Biological Survey Metadata for Reuse: Implementing the Humboldt Extension in Flemish Bird Monitoring Datasets on GBIF

Cooleman, Stijn; Heughebaert, André; Brosens, Dimitri

Abstract

The effective reuse of biodiversity data is essential for informing evidence-based policy. As the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) increasingly aggregates data from diverse biological surveys, machine-readable metadata becomes progressively crucial. Structuring survey metadata from textual descriptions into standardized format improves their comparability and alignment with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016). The Humboldt Extension for Ecological Inventories (TDWG Humboldt Extension Task Group 2024) provides a controlled vocabulary to capture key methodological details of surveys and monitoring, enabling more robust analyses of biodiversity indices across spatial and temporal scales.At the Belgian Biodiversity Platform (BBPF), we apply the Humboldt Extension guidelines to enhance two bird monitoring datasets on GBIF. Although both represent counts of observed birds in Flemish areas, they differ in spatial scope and methodology: the Common Breeding bird monitoring in Flanders (Piesschaert et al. 2025) dataset, published by the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), uses point counts across 1x1 km squares throughout the entire Flemish region, while the Bird census counts at the Zwin Nature Park (Faveyts and Cooleman 2025) dataset, published by the BBPF, combines point and transect counts within one location.In this presentation, we review our practices for selecting and mapping Humboldt Extension terms in both sampling-event datasets. We thereby highlight our findings on how to structure their events' metadata hierarchically to reflect spatial nesting, sampling effort, and taxonomic scope. For instance, both protocols focus on the same target taxonomic scope at the class' rank (Aves). A critical distinction, however, is that only the Common Breeding bird monitoring protocol excludes certain behavior-based observations of species groups breeding outside the counting area, such as foraging gulls (Larinae) and herons (Ardeinae) or corvids (Corvidae) in flocks flying over. Consequently, the excludedTaxonomicScope term is technically appropriate for mapping that methodological difference. Generically, we propose a schema that facilitates the identification of protocol-specific nuances and supports the more accurate derivation of species densities, abundances, and absences.Implementing the Humboldt Extension to Darwin Core in these real-world cases demonstrates the practical value of structured metadata for enhancing biodiversity data interoperability and reusability. This standardization generally contributes to meeting targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

Full text

Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 9: e180578 doi: 10.3897/biss.9.180578 Conference Abstract Structuring Biological Survey Metadata for Reuse: Implementing the Humboldt Extension in Flemish Bird Monitoring Datasets on GBIF Stijn Cooleman , André Heughebaert , Dimitri Brosens ‡ Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Brussels, Belgium § Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Corresponding author: Stijn Cooleman ([email protected]) Received: 27 Nov 2025 | Published: 28 Nov 2025 Citation: Cooleman S, Heughebaert A, Brosens D (2025) Structuring Biological Survey Metadata for Reuse: Implementing the Humboldt Extension in Flemish Bird Monitoring Datasets on GBIF. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 9: e180578. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.9.180578 Abstract The effective reuse of biodiversity data is essential for informing evidence-based policy. As the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) increasingly aggregates data from diverse biological surveys, machine-readable metadata becomes progressively crucial. Structuring survey metadata from textual descriptions into standardized format improves their comparability and alignment with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016). The Humboldt Extension for Ecological Inventories ( TDWG Humboldt Extension Task Group 2024) provides a controlled vocabulary to capture key methodological details of surveys and monitoring, enabling more robust analyses of biodiversity indices across spatial and temporal scales. At the Belgian Biodiversity Platform (BBPF), we apply the Humboldt Extension guidelines to enhance two bird monitoring datasets on GBIF. Although both represent counts of observed birds in Flemish areas, they differ in spatial scope and methodology: the Common Breeding bird monitoring in Flanders ( Piesschaert et al. 2025) dataset, published by the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), uses point counts across 1x1 km squares throughout the entire Flemish region, while the Bird census counts at the Zwin Nature Park (Faveyts and Cooleman 2025) dataset, published by the BBPF, combines point and transect counts within one location. ‡,§ ‡ § © Cooleman S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. In this presentation, we review our practices for selecting and mapping Humboldt Extension terms in both sampling-event datasets. We thereby highlight our findings on how to structure their events’ metadata hierarchically to reflect spatial nesting, sampling effort, and taxonomic scope. For instance, both protocols focus on the same target taxonomic scope at the class' rank (Aves). A critical distinction, however, is that only the Common Breeding bird monitoring protocol excludes certain behavior-based observations of species groups breeding outside the counting area, such as foraging gulls (Larinae) and herons (Ardeinae) or corvids (Corvidae) in flocks flying over. Consequently, the excludedTaxonomicScope term is technically appropriate for mapping that methodological difference. Generically, we propose a schema that facilitates the identification of protocol-specific nuances and supports the more accurate derivation of species densities, abundances, and absences. Implementing the Humboldt Extension to Darwin Core in these real-world cases demonstrates the practical value of structured metadata for enhancing biodiversity data interoperability and reusability. This standardization generally contributes to meeting targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Keywords ecological inventories, data mapping, interoperable, science support Presenting author Stijn Cooleman Presented at Living Data 2025 Conflicts of interest The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. References • Faveyts W, Cooleman S (2025) Bird census counts at the Zwin Nature Park. Belgian Biodiversity Platform. Sampling event dataset. https://doi.org/10.15468/saesvn • Piesschaert F, Vermeersch G, Brosens D, Westra T, Desmet P, Feys S, Van de Poel S, Pollet M, Cooleman S (2025) ABV - Common breeding birds in Flanders, Belgium (post 2016). Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO). Sampling event dataset. https:// doi.org/10.15468/pj2v6h 2Cooleman S et al • TDWG Humboldt Extension Task Group (2024) Humboldt Extension Vocabulary List of Terms. Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG). http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/doc/eco/ 2024-03-26 • Wilkinson M, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg I, et al. (2016) The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3: 160018. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 Structuring Biological Survey Metadata for Reuse: Implementing the Humboldt ... 3