1. Home
  2. Forums
  3. Data flow
  4. Species-specific survey forms - data sharing with LERCs

Species-specific survey forms - data sharing with LERCs

Submitted by SWSEIC on

Whilst use of species-specific survey forms is still relatively limited, it does appear to be growing slowly and more forms are being created and promoted. I would like to draw attention to loss of detail that occurs when data entered using these forms are shared with LERCs. For example, for records entered via the dragonfly form all abundances are omitted as these are custom fields on the form and the data are not parsed into the standard fields in the download. For Bats, important and useful fields such as the presence of a roost are omitted from the downloads. And it is the same for data entered other forms too. This seems far from ideal.

If I have to tell a local recorder who has submitted a detailed record that details on abundance etc. are missing when the data arrives at the LERC it doesn't reflect well on us or indeed on BRC. Could this issue at least be put on the list of things to look at?

[And then there is the issue of sharing 'sensitive' records at full resolution, but that is a separate issue which remains unresolved...]

Mark

 

 

Comments

Submitted by iRecord support on Fri, 10/12/2021 - 18:17

Permalink

Thanks Mark. I have logged those points, and agree that it would be good to find solutions if we can.

Martin

Submitted by Mike Averill on Sat, 16/12/2023 - 09:43

Permalink

Has there been any development with the problem of LBRC's not having access to specific fields such as the species survey forms used by the British Dragonfly Society?

Submitted by Nik Knight on Tue, 20/02/2024 - 09:32

Permalink

The absence of roost information and similar deficiencies in downloads are the reasons why I advise bat recorders not to use iRecord.

Data reaching iRecord from the BCT Sunset Sunrise survey is so deficient in essential information that I have to reject all such records.

I reported these issues in emails dated 7/2/23 and 4/1/22 but received no response.

Submitted by JonahWills on Tue, 16/04/2024 - 01:17

Permalink

The issue you've highlighted about the loss of detail in species-specific survey forms when shared with LERCs is significant and warrants attention. Just like how the Hotstar mod APK enhances the streaming experience by unlocking premium features, we need to ensure that all relevant data, including abundances and specific fields like roost presence for bats, are accurately captured and shared. Addressing this discrepancy is essential to improve the overall quality and usefulness of the shared biodiversity data, much like how the mod APK enhances the entertainment experience. Additionally, resolving the concern around sharing 'sensitive' records at full resolution is crucial and should also be addressed promptly.

Submitted by Natalie Harmsworth on Tue, 16/04/2024 - 16:54

Permalink

Thanks for drawing this to my attention, Mark. I was not aware important data such as information on whether a bat record relates to a roost is lost in downloads. That's very unhelpful (to put it mildly)! This and the issue of sensitive species records not being supplied at full resolution to LERCs, means critical information is not being supplied to Local Authority Planners and Ecological consultants when they access iRecord data via LERCs. This is not helping local decision makers make informed decisions for the benefit of wildlife.

Submitted by philljones22 on Tue, 21/05/2024 - 21:16

Permalink

The use of species-specific survey forms, although still relatively limited, is gradually increasing with more forms being created and promoted. However, there is a notable issue with the loss of detail when data entered using these forms are shared with Local Environmental Record Centres (LERCs). For example, records entered via the dragonfly form have all abundance data omitted, as these are custom fields that are not parsed into the standard fields in the download. Similarly, for bat records, crucial fields such as the presence of a roost are missing from the downloads. This problem is not limited to these forms but affects data from other forms as well, which is far from ideal.

 

Submitted by Sun Flower on Thu, 23/05/2024 - 07:27

Permalink

I agree that the loss of important details when using species-specific survey forms is a significant issue that needs to be addressed to ensure accurate data sharing with LERCs.

Submitted by snailyumyum on Wed, 14/08/2024 - 12:27

Permalink

I have started to download some surveys individually to add the missing data (particularly breeding bird data, glowworm and dragonfly stages) back to the dataset before I upload to the LERC county database. This is time consuming!

More recently I have also discovered that not all recorder names are coming through in the main LERC download. I think the issue might be limited to the App Moth and Plant surveys which require recorders to be added separately. The main App Survey has only one field and these names are coming through. Only the top name is in the LERC download, this is unlikely to be the main recorder. Even when I download the individual moth data I get one additional recorder but not all the recorders listed on the record so I can't find a way to get all the recorders without looking at the individual record page but this is not practical. Please could all recorders be listed in one field in the LERC download?