Dataset Open Access
Dupont Yoko L; Capela Nuno; Kryger Per; Alves Joana; Axelsen Jørgen A; Balslev Mette G; Bruus Marianne; Castro Silvia; Frederiksen Julie; Groom Geoff B; Jeppesen Annika S; Lichtenberg-Kraag Birgit; Lopes Sara; Pinto M. Alice; Alves da Silva Antonio; Strandberg Beate; Sørensen Peter Borgen; Sousa José Paulo
A new version with coordinates has been added.
Please download the datasets uploaded under the new version using this link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4953761
Description of the datasets
The file 00_MUSTB_field_data_model.docx contains the data model according to which the data collected in the context of the MUSTB field data collection were reported to EFSA. The current data model description includes some modifications with respect to the specifications published before the beginning of the project (EFSA, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1234). All the tables included in the data model are published here in csv format. The underlying schemas are also published in xsd format.
Sites: General information about the sites where the data collection took place;
Polygons: General information about the polygons where the botanical survey took place.
Table I: Pesticide application, reporting data on experimental spraying events;
Table II: Resource providing unit and landscape fitness, reporting data on abundance of flowering plants in polygons mostly within 1.5 km, but in some cases up to 3 km of the experimental colony;
Table III: Master list of all hives included in the study;
Table IV: Colony management, reporting the log of the beekeeper regarding input (if material was added to the hive: e.g. empty frames, chemicals for varroa treatment, sugar), output (if material was removed from the hive, e.g. honey combs, supers), queen loss, swarming, or clinical signs observed in the experimental hives;
Table V: Hive inspection, reporting data on in-hive measurements in the experimental colonies. This table contained several types of data, including:
Table VI: SSD2, reporting data on results of laboratory analyses of pollen, pesticide residues and parasites/pathogens. These four types of laboratory analyses involved different methods, and were reported according to different standards. Therefore, a number of the fields in the technical specifications for the SSD2 table (EFSA, 2017) were not applicable for records reporting results of some analyses, in particular palynological, parasite and pathogen analyses. These fields were left empty;
Table VII: Colony observation, reporting observations of honey bee waggle dances from observation hives. Orientation denotes the angle of the waggling phase relative to the vertical axis on the comb. Direction denotes the actual direction in the landscape, as calculated from the orientation of the waggle dance.
In all the csv files, columns with the suffix "_desc" have been included, where relevant, to include the name corresponding to the EFSA controlled terminology used in the previous column (e.g. resUnit contains EFSA term codes while resUnit_desc contains the term names).
All data collected during the project was stored in a relational database. The database was developed in .NET Entity Framework Core, ran on a PostgreSQL, and was hosted by Amazon Web Service during the whole duration of the project development. Data could be imported or entered manually in the database through a web form. Administrators could create new users and administrators, new sites, and new colonies, i.e., administrators were allowed to enter or change data of all tables. Users were allowed to enter data, and could view, retrieve, and modify their own data of all tables, except for Table III (description of experimental colonies). Administrators could view and retrieve all data. Data was retrieved in CSV and XML formats, and were structured to secure a smooth transmission of data to the Data Collection Framework of EFSA. Furthermore, data flow from the field data collection to the development of ApisRAM was secured by direct communication between the field and modelling teams.