RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Obtaining fit-to-use data associated with diverse aspects of biodiversity, ecology and environment is challenging since often it is fragmented, sub-optimally managed and available in heterogeneous formats. Recently, with the universal acceptance of the FAIR data principles, the requirements and standards of data publications have changed substantially. Researchers are encouraged to manage the data as per the FAIR data principles and ensure that the raw data, metadata, processed data, software, codes and associated material are securely stored and the data be made available with the completion of the research. NEW INFORMATION: We have developed BEXIS2 as an open-source community-driven web-based research data management system to support research data management needs of mid to large-scale research projects with multiple sub-projects and up to several hundred researchers. BEXIS2 is a modular and extensible system providing a range of functions to realise the complete data lifecycle from data structure design to data collection, data discovery, dissemination, integration, quality assurance and research planning. It is an extensible and customisable system that allows for the development of new functions and customisation of its various components from database schemas to the user interface layout, elements and look and feel.During the development of BEXIS2, we aimed to incorporate key aspects of what is encoded in FAIR data principles. To investigate the extent to which BEXIS2 conforms to these principles, we conducted the self-assessment using the FAIR indicators, definitions and criteria provided in the FAIR Data Maturity Model. Even though the FAIR data maturity model is developed initially to judge the conformance of datasets, the self-assessment results indicated that BEXIS2 remarkably conforms and supports FAIR indicators. BEXIS2 strongly conforms to the indicators Findability and Accessibility. The indicator Interoperability is moderately supported as of now; however, for many of the lesssupported facets, we have concrete plans for improvement. Reusability (as defined by the FAIR data principles) is partially achieved.This paper also illustrates community deployment examples of the BEXIS2 instances as success stories to exemplify its capacity to meet the biodiversity and ecological data management needs of differently sized projects and serve as an organisational research data management system.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The 150 grassland plots were located in three study regions in Germany, 50 in each region. The dataset describes the yearly grassland management for each grassland plot using 116 variables.General information includes plot identifier, study region and survey year. Additionally, grassland plot characteristics describe the presence and starting year of drainage and whether arable farming had taken place 25 years before our assessment, i.e. between 1981 and 2006. In each year, the size of the management unit is given which, in some cases, changed slightly across years.Mowing, grazing and fertilisation were systematically surveyed: Mowing is characterised by mowing frequency (i.e. number of cuts per year), dates of cutting and different technical variables, such as type of machine used or usage of conditioner.For grazing , the livestock species and age (e.g. cattle, horse, sheep), the number of animals, stocking density per hectare and total duration of grazing were recorded. As a derived variable, the mean grazing intensity was then calculated by multiplying the livestock units with the duration of grazing per hectare [LSU days/ha]. Different grazing periods during a year, partly involving different herds, were summed up to an annual grazing intensity for each grassland.For fertilisation , information on the type and amount of different types of fertilisers was recorded separately for mineral and organic fertilisers, such as solid farmland manure, slurry and mash from a bioethanol factory. Our fertilisation measures neglect dung dropped by livestock during grazing. For each type of fertiliser, we calculated its total nitrogen content, derived from chemical analyses by the producer or agricultural guidelines (Table 3).All three management types, mowing, fertilisation and grazing, were used to calculate a combined land use intensity index (LUI) which is frequently used to define a measure for the land use intensity. Here, fertilisation is expressed as total nitrogen per hectare [kg N/ha], but does not consider potassium and phosphorus.Information on additional management practices in grasslands was also recorded including levelling, to tear-up matted grass covers, rolling, to remove surface irregularities, seed addition, to close gaps in the sward. NEW INFORMATION: Investigating the relationship between human land use and biodiversity is important to understand if and how humans affect it through the way they manage the land and to develop sustainable land use strategies. Quantifying land use (the 'X' in such graphs) can be difficult as humans manage land using a multitude of actions, all of which may affect biodiversity, yet most studies use rather simple measures of land use, for example, by creating land use categories such as conventional vs. organic agriculture. Here, we provide detailed data on grassland management to allow for detailed analyses and the development of land use theory. The raw data have already been used for > 100 papers on the effect of management on biodiversity (e.g. Manning et al. 2015).
