[PCA] Need info on std. template to profile life cycles of angiosperms -- reply to Peter Rauch's inquiry

[bmacbryde at netscape.net]

Thanks for the inquiry and comments.

First the easier clarification:  We've no plans to have a relational 
database for this, just static information. However, databases can help 
to narrow down categories to a functional minimum, which is what we'd 
like to start with in a standard agrobiology template. So, maybe 
someone has done the general profile work for a plant database, and a 
manual would give the summary.

Second, the basic use envisioned is just internal guidance, so that an 
array of people with different backgrounds can quickly and 
simplistically understand the basic dynamics of the species, which are 
often major crops such as corn, rice, cotton, rapeseed/canola, onion, 
etc., but include a range of other species, e.g. safflower, guayule, 
plum, and poplar. Reproductive concerns relate to placement of crop 
varieties (experimental or breeding strains) so they don't 
cross-pollinate with other varieties, don't come up as volunteers in 
subsequent crops, and whether they could be dispersed beyond the 
agricultural area.

The idea is not to go far into agroecological aspects, but recognize 
potentials. When fine-tuning refinements are needed for a particular 
species or planting situation, the idea is that they would just be 
added beyond the template. Also, if some new major fact became know, 
e.g., long seed dormancy in a crop thought to not have it, the crop 
profile would be changed, but by some internal staff review process, so 
that each staff person wouldn't be morphing the crop profile into their 
own version.

Thanks.
Bruce MacBryde
USDA/APHIS
Riverdale, MD

E-mail: bmacbryde at netscape.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu>
To: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
Sent: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [PCA] Need info on std. template to profile life cycles of 
angiosperms, emphasis on reproductive dynamics

Just two brief comments...

You say:
"The impetus behind this idea is to organize and focus internal 
information
better, and limit the categories to those we really need."
and,
"just to capture the main categories to profile the potential dynamics 
of such
species."
and in the subject line,
"to profile life cycles of angiosperms, emphasis on reproductive 
dynamics".

But, organize and focus better for what purposes ?   What is it that 
you really
need the data for ?  The "potential dynamics" of a (mainly common crop 
plants
and several plantation trees) species includes a world of possibilities 
--how is
this information intended to be used ?

That will help (you and others) determine what might constitute a 
"relatively
standard set of parameters to indicate basic life cycles of flowering 
plants in
the United States, focusing mainly on common crop plants and several 
plantation
trees".

"...envision preparing brief (several page) biological documents 
(profiles) on
individual species..."

Who is expected to read (be served by) these documents, and for what 
purpose(s)
?


Second, you refer a couple of time to "relational database".  I suggest 
that
_how_ the information is stored and accessed is a far second (but then 
very
important) consideration, after the full details are understood of "what
purposes" and "what data will serve those purposes."

Peter

At 09:48 08/12/22, you wrote:

>Where I work (USDA/APHIS), we are in early stages of planning to 
prepare and/or
fine-tune and adopt a relatively standard set of parameters (which we 
are
calling a template) to indicate basic life cycles of flowering plants 
in the
United States, focusing mainly on common crop plants and several 
plantation
trees. The impetus behind this idea is to organize and focus internal
information better, and limit the categories to those we really need. 
This would
not be for a relational database. We then envision preparing brief 
(several
page) biological documents (profiles) on individual species, which 
would adhere
tightly to the standard template. The results for a species would be 
something
like the Cliffs Notes, but much shorter.
>
>I would appreciate information on existing standard formats or 
templates of
this general type. For example, parameters of interest to put in the 
standard
template include: native or introduced; annual, biennial, herbaceous or 
woody
perennial; modes of pollination (wind, insects, both, percentages,
characteristics); outcrossing, selfing, both (and rough percentages); 
isolation
distances to maintain genetic separation between cultivated strains 
(cultivars);
vegetative propagation (kinds, extent); modes of dispersal (and
characteristics); seed dormancy (practical characteristics, longevity);
potential free-living strains (weedy strains or relatives, other taxa); 
etc.
Details on morphology are not a focus.
>
>Occasionally others have made thorough efforts to capture life history
variation in flowering plants, for example in standardizing categories 
for a
relational database. I'd much appreciate suggestions on major 
comprehensive
papers or similar efforts, whether they relate to wild plants (native or
naturalized), horticultural plants, silvicultural plants, or 
agricultural
plants. The idea is not to elaborate on the infinite variation, but 
just to
capture the main categories to profile the potential dynamics of such 
species.
>
>Thanks, Bruce MacBryde, Ph.D.
>USDA/APHIS
>Riverdale, MD
>
>E-mail: bmacbryde at netscape.net



_______________________________________________
native-plants mailing list
native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org

Disclaimer
Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is 
posting the
message; they are not official opinions or positions of the Plant 
Conservation
Alliance.

To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to 
native-plants-request at lists.plantconservation.org
with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.