Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T07:26:05.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality indicators for passport data in ex situ genebanks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2011

Theo van Hintum ,
Frank Menting  and
Elisabeth van Strien
Theo van Hintum*
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 16, NL-6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Frank Menting
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 16, NL-6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Elisabeth van Strien
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 16, NL-6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: theo.vanhintum@wur.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Given the increasing importance of data quality for the ex situ conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources (PGR), an indicator was created that quantifies the level of completeness of passport data. This passport data completeness index (PDCI) uses the presence or absence of data points in the documentation of a genebank accession, taking into account the presence or value of other data points. For example, a wild accession should have a well-defined collection site but no variety name. Any type of accession, wild, landrace, breeding material or modern variety, can attain a maximal score of ten for this index. The applicability of this index was tested on the complete contents of EURISCO, the European catalogue of ex situ maintained PGR containing over one million records. Analysis of the PDCI of the material in EURISCO provided valuable insight in the data quality of European collections. The PDCI can be used to identify datasets that might need additional attention and improvement or datasets that need more careful interpretation than others.

Keywords

EURISCOgenebankspassport data qualityPDCI
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 478 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arts, DGT, de Keizer, NF and Scheffer, G-J (2002) Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 9: 600–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, AD (2005a) Principles of Data Quality, Version 1.0. Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, p. 58.Google Scholar
Chapman, AD (2005b) Principles and Methods of Data Cleaning – Primary Species and Species-Occurrence Data, Version 1.0. Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, p. 72.Google Scholar
Chapman, AD and Wieczorek, J (eds) (2006) Guide to Best Practices for Georeferencing. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, p. 80.Google Scholar
EURISCO(2011a) Web catalogue providing access to all ex situ PGR information in Europe. Available at http://eurisco.ecpgr.org (content received on request January 6th 2011).Google Scholar
EURISCO(2011b) EURISCO Descriptors for Uploading Information from National Inventories to EURISCO. Rome: ECPGR, p. 7.Google Scholar
FAO(2002) International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, p. 45. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0510e/i0510e.pdf.Google Scholar
GBIF(2011a) Global Biodiversity Information Facility Annual Report 2010. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, p. 52. Available at http://links.gbif.org/ar2010.pdf.Google Scholar
GBIF(2011b) Global biodiversity information facility data portal. Available at http://data.gbif.org (consulted January 4th, 2011).Google Scholar
GRINTax(2010) USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database. Beltsville, MD: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. Available at http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs (consulted January 27th 2010).Google Scholar
ISO(1994) ISO 8402:1994 Quality Management and Quality Assurance – Vocabulary. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Redman, TC (2004) Data: an unfolding quality disaster. Information management magazine, August 2004. Available at: www.information-management.com/issues/20040801/1007211-1.html.Google Scholar
van de Wouw, M, van Treuren, R and van Hintum, TJL (2011) Authenticity of old cultivars in genebank collections: a case study on lettuce. Crop Science 51: 736–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dooijeweert, W and Menting, F (2008) Improving the quality of passport data of a genebank collection: approaches at CGN. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 153: 20–27.Google Scholar
van Hintum, TJL (2000) Duplication within and between germplasm collections. III. A quantitative model. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 47: 507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hintum, TJL and Knüpffer, H (2010) Current taxonomic composition of European genebank material documented in EURISCO. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterisation and Utilisation 8: 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieczorek, J, Guo, Q and Hijmans, RJ (2004) The point-radius method for georeferencing locality descriptions and calculating associated uncertainty. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 18: 745–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar