Have a personal or library account? Click to login
A Critical Literature Review of Historic Scientific Analog Data: Uses, Successes, and Challenges Cover

A Critical Literature Review of Historic Scientific Analog Data: Uses, Successes, and Challenges

Data Science Journal
Volume 21 (2022): Issue 1
By: Julia A. Kelly,  Shannon L. Farrell,  Lois G. Hendrickson,  James Luby and  Kristen L. Mastel  
Open Access
|Jul 2022

References

  1. 1Azeria, ET, et al. 2006. Temporal dynamics and nestedness of an oceanic island bird fauna. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15(4): 328–338. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00227.x
    Back to article
  2. 2Beans, C. 2018. Journal entries, maps, and photos help ecologists reconstruct ecosystems of the past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(52): 13138–13141. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1819526115
    Back to article
  3. 3Berman, JJ. 2015. Repurposing legacy data: Innovative case studies. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128028827/repurposing-legacy-data.
    Back to article
  4. 4Bowser, CJ. 1986. Historic data sets: Lessons from the past, lessons for the future. In Michener, WK (ed.), Research Data Management in the Ecological Sciences, 155–179. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
    Back to article
  5. 5Brazdil, R., et al. 2016. Damaging hailstorms in South Moravia, Czech Republic, in the seventeenth to twentieth centuries as derived from taxation records. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 123(1–2): 185–198. DOI: 10.1007/s00704-014-1338-1
    Back to article
  6. 6Brodman, R, Cortwright, S and Resetar, A. 2002. Historical changes of reptiles and amphibians of northwest Indiana fish and wildlife properties. The American Midland Naturalist, 147(1): 135–144. DOI: 10.1674/0003-0031(2002)147[0135:HCORAA]2.0.CO;2
    Back to article
  7. 7Brönnimann, S, et al. 2018. A roadmap to climate data rescue services. Geoscience Data Journal, 5(1): 28–39. DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.56
    Back to article
  8. 8Buma, B. 2018. The hidden value of paper records. Science, 360(6389): 613. DOI: 10.1126/science.aat5382
    Back to article
  9. 9Buma, B, et al. 2019. 100 yr of primary succession highlights stochasticity and competition driving community establishment and stability. Ecology, 100(12): e02885. DOI: 10.1002/ecy.2885
    Back to article
  10. 10Cardinale, M, et al. 2015. A centurial development of the North Sea fish megafauna as reflected by the historical Swedish longlining fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 16(3): 522–533. DOI: 10.1111/faf.12074
    Back to article
  11. 11Chauvel, B, et al. 2012. History of chemical weeding from 1944 to 2011 in France: Changes and evolution of herbicide molecules. Crop Protection, 42: 320–326. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2012.07.011
    Back to article
  12. 12Chuine, I, et al. 2004. Grape ripening as a past climate indicator. Nature, 432(7015): 289–290. DOI: 10.1038/432289a
    Back to article
  13. 13Clavero, M, et al. 2017. Historical citizen science to understand and predict climate-driven trout decline. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1846): 20161979. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.1979
    Back to article
  14. 14Clavero, M and Revilla, E. 2014. Biodiversity data: Mine centuries-old citizen science. Nature, 510(7503): 35. DOI: 10.1038/510035c
    Back to article
  15. 15Craig, JR and Reese, SC. 1973. Retention of raw data: A problem revisited. American Psychologist, 28(8): 723–723. DOI: 10.1037/h0035667
    Back to article
  16. 16Curry, A. 2011. Rescue of old data offers lesson for particle physicists. Science, 331(6018): 694–695. DOI: 10.1126/science.331.6018.694
    Back to article
  17. 17Curty, RG, et al. 2017. Attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data reuse. In Sugimoto, CR (ed.), ONE, 12(12): e0189288. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189288
    Back to article
  18. 18Delisle, F, et al. 2003. Reconstructing the spread of invasive plants: Taking into account biases associated with herbarium specimens: Invasive plants and herbarium specimens. Journal of Biogeography, 30(7): 1033–1042. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00897.x
    Back to article
  19. 19Diviacco, P, et al. 2015. Data rescue to extend the value of vintage seismic data: The OGS-SNAP experience. GeoResJ, 6: 44–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.grj.2015.01.006
    Back to article
  20. 20Downs, RR and Chen, RS. 2017. Curation of scientific data at risk of loss: Data rescue and dissemination. In Johnston, L (ed.), Curating Research Data: Volume One: Practical Strategies for Your Digital Repository, 275–294. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
    Back to article
  21. 21Duckworth, S, Grayce, M and Thornhill, K. 2018. The trouble with legacy public health data. Research Data Access & Preservation Summit, Chicago, IL. Available at: https://osf.io/ujhn2/ (Accessed: 5 July 2019).
    Back to article
  22. 22Easterday, K, et al. 2018. From the field to the cloud: A review of three approaches to sharing historical data from field stations using principles from data science. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6: 88. DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2018.00088
    Back to article
  23. 23Edwards, RJ and Contreras-Balderas, S. 1991. Historical changes in the ichthyofauna of the Lower Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte), Texas and Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist, 36(2): 201. DOI: 10.2307/3671922
    Back to article
  24. 24Engelhard, GH, Righton, DA and Pinnegar, JK. 2014. Climate change and fishing: A century of shifting distribution in North Sea cod. Global Change Biology, 20(8): 2473–2483. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12513
    Back to article
  25. 25Faniel, IM, Frank, RD and Yakel, E. 2019. Context from the data reuser’s point of view. Journal of Documentation, 75(6): 1274–1297. DOI: 10.1108/JD-08-2018-0133
    Back to article
  26. 26Farrell, S, et al. 2019. Resurfacing historical scientific data: A case study involving fruit breeding data. Journal of eScience Librarianship, 8(2). DOI: 10.7191/jeslib.2019.1171
    Back to article
  27. 27Farrell, SL, et al. 2020. Historical scientific analog data: Life dciences faculty’s perspectives on management, reuse and preservation. Data Science Journal, 19(1): 51. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2020-051
    Back to article
  28. 28Fellers, GM and Drost, CA. 1993. Disappearance of the cascades frog rana cascadae at the southern end of its range, California, USA. Biological Conservation, 65(2): 177–181. DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(93)90447-9
    Back to article
  29. 29Gabelica, R, Bojčić, M and Puljak, L. 2022. Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: Mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, in press. Accepted 24 May, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019
    Back to article
  30. 30Gent, ML and Morgan, JW. 2007. Changes in the stand structure (1975—2000) of coastal Banksia Forest in the long absence of fire. Austral Ecology, 32(3): 239–244. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2007.01667.x
    Back to article
  31. 31Griffin, ER. 2015. When are old data new data? GeoResJ, 6: 92–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.grj.2015.02.004
    Back to article
  32. 32Gross, KL and Pake, CE. 1995. Final report of the ecological society of America committee on the future of long-term ecological data (FLED). Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America, p. 122.
    Back to article
  33. 33Hédl, R, Petřík, P and Boublík, K. 2011. Long-term patterns in soil acidification due to pollution in forests of the eastern Sudetes mountains. Environmental Pollution, 159(10): 2586–2593. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.014
    Back to article
  34. 34Hof, AR and Bright, PW. 2016. Quantifying the long-term decline of the west European hedgehog in England by subsampling citizen-science datasets. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 62(4): 407–413. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-016-1013-1
    Back to article
  35. 35Huisman, JM and Millar, AJK. 2013. Australian seaweed collections: Use and misuse. Phycologia, 52(1): 2–5. DOI: 10.2216/12-089.1
    Back to article
  36. 36Johnson, RW. 1964. Retain the original data! comment. American Psychologist, 19(5): 350–351. DOI: 10.1037/h0039238
    Back to article
  37. 37Kelso, C and Vogel, C. 2007. The climate of Namaqualand in the nineteenth century. Climatic Change, 83(3): 357–380. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-007-9264-1
    Back to article
  38. 38Kery, M, et al. 2006. How biased are estimates of extinction probability in revisitation studies? Journal of Ecology, 94(5): 980–986. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01151.x
    Back to article
  39. 39Khan, N, Thelwall, M and Kousha, K. 2021. Measuring the impact of biodiversity datasets: Data reuse, citations and altmetrics. Scientometrics, 126(4): 3621–3639. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03890-6
    Back to article
  40. 40Knapp, KR, Bates, JJ and Barkstrom, B. 2007. Scientific data stewardship: Lessons learned from a satellite-data rescue effort. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88(9): 1359–1362. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-88-9-1359
    Back to article
  41. 41Kullman, L. 2010. Alpine flora dynamics—A critical review of responses to climate change in the Swedish Scandes since the early 1950s. Nordic Journal of Botany, 28(4): 398–408. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-1051.2010.00812.x
    Back to article
  42. 42Kwok, R. 2017. Historical data: Hidden in the past. Nature, 549(7672): 419–421. DOI: 10.1038/nj7672-419
    Back to article
  43. 43Lannoo, MJ, et al. 1994. An altered amphibian assemblage: Dickinson County, Iowa, 70 years after Frank Blanchard’s survey. American Midland Naturalist, 131(2): 311. DOI: 10.2307/2426257
    Back to article
  44. 44Ledneva, A, et al. 2004. Climate change as reflected in a naturalist’s diary, middleborough, massachusetts. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 116(3): 224–231. DOI: 10.1676/04-016
    Back to article
  45. 45Lescrauwaet, A-K. 2013. Belgian fisheries: Ten decades, seven seas, forty species. PhD. Ghent University.
    Back to article
  46. 46Llasat, M-C, et al. 2005. Floods in Catalonia (NE Spain) since the 14th century. Climatological and meteorological aspects from historical documentary sources and old instrumental records. Journal of Hydrology, 313(1–2): 32–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.02.004
    Back to article
  47. 47Loehle, C and Weatherford, P. 2017. Detecting population trends with historical data: Contributions of volatility, low detectability, and metapopulation turnover to potential sampling bias. Ecological Modelling, 362: 13–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.08.021
    Back to article
  48. 48Löffler, F, et al. 2021. Dataset search in biodiversity research: Do metadata in data repositories reflect scholarly information needs? In Suleman, H (ed.), ONE, 16(3): e0246099. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246099
    Back to article
  49. 49Lorenz, DC, Boise National Forest and United States Forest Service Intermountain Region. 1993. Snapshot in time: Repeat photography on the Boise National Forest, 1870–1992. US Dept of Agriculture, Boise National Forest, Intermountain Region.
    Back to article
  50. 50Magurran, AE, et al. 2010. Long-term datasets in biodiversity research and monitoring: Assessing change in ecological communities through time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(10): 574–582. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.06.016
    Back to article
  51. 51Martin, K, Brown, GA and Young, JR. 2004. The historic and current distribution of the Vancouver Island White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus saxatilis). Journal of Field Ornithology, 75(3): 239–256. DOI: 10.1648/0273-8570-75.3.239
    Back to article
  52. 52McClenachan, L. 2009. Documenting loss of large trophy fish from the Florida Keys with historical photographs. Conservation Biology, 23(3): 636–643. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01152.x
    Back to article
  53. 53McClenachan, L, et al. 2017. Ghost reefs: Nautical charts document large spatial scale of coral reef loss over 240 years. Science Advances, 3(9): e1603155. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1603155
    Back to article
  54. 54McClenachan, L, Ferretti, F and Baum, JK. 2012. From archives to conservation: Why historical data are needed to set baselines for marine animals and ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 5(5): 349–359. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00253.x
    Back to article
  55. 55Michener, WK, et al. 2009. Biological field stations: Research legacies and sites for serendipity. BioScience, 59(4): 300–310. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.4.8
    Back to article
  56. 56National Research Council. 1995a. Finding the forest in the trees: The challenge of combining diverse environmental data. DOI: 10.17226/4896
    Back to article
  57. 57National Research Council (U S) Steering committee for the study on the long-term retention of selected scientific and technical records of the federal government. (1995b). Preserving scientific data on our physical universe: a new strategy for archiving the nation’s scientific information resources. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    Back to article
  58. 58Nelson, G and Ellis, S. 2019. The history and impact of digitization and digital data mobilization on biodiversity research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 374(1763): 20170391. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0391
    Back to article
  59. 59Olson, RJ and McCord, RA. 1998. Data Archival. In: Michener, WK, Porter, JH and Stafford, SG (eds.), Data and Information Management in the Ecological Sciences: A Resource Guide, 53–58. LTER Network Office, University of New Mexico.
    Back to article
  60. 60Olson, RJ and McCord, RA. 2000. Archiving ecological data and information. In: Michener, WK and Brunt, JW (eds.), Ecological Data—Design, Management and Processing, 117–141. Blackwell Science.
    Back to article
  61. 61Patil, C and Siegel, V. 2009. Shining a light on dark data. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 2(11–12): 521–525. DOI: 10.1242/dmm.004630
    Back to article
  62. 62Patton, B, et al. 2022. 27 years of livestock production data under different stocking rate levels at the Central Grasslands Research Extension Center near Streeter, North Dakota. Ag Data Commons. DOI: 10.15482/USDA.ADC/1524719 [Last accessed 2022 06 27].
    Back to article
  63. 63Pollock, JF, 2006. Detecting population declines over large areas with presence-absence, time-to-encounter, and count survey methods. Conservation Biology, 20(3): 882–892. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00342.x
    Back to article
  64. 64Primack, RB and Miller-Rushing, AJ. 2012. Uncovering, collecting, and analyzing records to investigate the ecological impacts of climate change: A template from Thoreau’s Concord. BioScience, 62(2): 170–181. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.10
    Back to article
  65. 65Pullin, AS and Salafsky, N. 2010. Save the whales? Save the rainforest? Save the sata!: Editorial. Conservation Biology, 24(4): 915–917. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01537.x
    Back to article
  66. 66Reznick, D, Baxter, RJ and Endler, J. 1994. Long-term studies of tropical stream fish communities: The use of field notes and museum collections to reconstruct communities of the past. American Zoologist, 34(3): 452–462. DOI: 10.1093/icb/34.3.452
    Back to article
  67. 67Riddell, EA, et al. 2021. Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science, 371(6529): 633–636. DOI: 10.1126/science.abd4605
    Back to article
  68. 68Rivadeneira, MM, Hunt, G and Roy, K. 2009. The use of sighting records to infer species extinctions: An evaluation of different methods. Ecology, 90(5): 1291–1300. DOI: 10.1890/08-0316.1
    Back to article
  69. 69Rogers, GF. 1984. Bibliography of repeat photography for evaluating landscape change. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
    Back to article
  70. 70Schulte, LA and Mladenoff, DJ. 2001. The original US public survey land use reconds: Their use and limitations in reconstructing presettlement vegetation. Journal of Forestry, 99(10): 5–10.
    Back to article
  71. 71Sharma, S, et al. 2016. Direct observations of ice seasonality reveal changes in climate over the past 320–570 years. Scientific Reports, 6: 25061. DOI: 10.1038/srep25061
    Back to article
  72. 72Sheffield, C, et al. 2011. Merging metadata: Building on existing standards to create a field book registry. LIBREAS. Library Ideas, 18.
    Back to article
  73. 73Singer, RA, Ellis, S and Page, LM. 2020. Awareness and use of biodiversity collections by fish biologists. Journal of Fish Biology, 96(2): 297–306. DOI: 10.1111/jfb.14167
    Back to article
  74. 74Smith, KL and Jones, ML. 2007. When are historical data sufficient for making watershed-level stream fish management and conservation decisions? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 135(1–3): 291–311. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-9650-1
    Back to article
  75. 75Snall, T, et al. 2011. Evaluating citizen-based presence data for bird monitoring. Biological Conservation, 144(2): 804–810. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.010
    Back to article
  76. 76Sprague, LA, Oelsner, GP and Argue, DM. 2017. Challenges with secondary use of multi-source water-quality data in the United States. Water Research, 110: 252–261. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.12.024
    Back to article
  77. 77Thomer, A, et al. 2012. From documents to datasets: A mediawiki-based method of annotating and extracting species observations in century-old field notebooks. ZooKeys, 209: 235–253. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.209.3247
    Back to article
  78. 78Trisurat, Y, et al. 2020. Systematic forest inventory plots and their contribution to plant distribution and climate change impact studies in Thailand. Ecological Research, 35(5): 724–732. DOI: 10.1111/1440-1703.12105
    Back to article
  79. 79van Bavel, BJP, et al. 2019. Climate and society in long-term perspective: Opportunities and pitfalls in the use of historical datasets. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change, 10(6): e611. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.611
    Back to article
  80. 80Van der Veken, S, Verheyen, K and Hermy, M. 2004. Plant species loss in an urban area (turnhout, Belgium) from 1880 to 1999 and its environmental determinants. Flora, 199(6): 516–523. DOI: 10.1078/0367-2530-00180
    Back to article
  81. 81Vearncombe, J, et al. 2017. Data upcycling. Ore Geology Reviews, 89: 887–893. DOI: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2017.07.009
    Back to article
  82. 82Vearncombe, J, Conner, G and Bright, S. 2016. Value from legacy data. Applied Earth Science, 125(4): 231–246. DOI: 10.1080/03717453.2016.1190442
    Back to article
  83. 83Vines, TH, et al. 2014. The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Current Biology, 24(1): 94–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.014
    Back to article
  84. 84Webb, RH, Boyer, DE and Turner, RM. 2010. Repeat photography: Methods and applications in the natural sciences. Washington, DC: Island Press.
    Back to article
  85. 85Wicherts, JM, et al. 2006. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61(7): 726. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726
    Back to article
  86. 86Wiebe, PH and Allison, MD. 2015. Bringing dark data into the light: A case study of the recovery of Northwestern Atlantic zooplankton data collected in the 1970s and 1980s. GeoResJ, 6: 195–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.grj.2015.03.001
    Back to article
  87. 87Wolins, L. 1962. Responsibility for raw data. American Psychologist, 17: 657–658. DOI: 10.1037/h0038819
    Back to article
  88. 88Yoon, A and Kim, Y. 2017. Social scientists’ data reuse behaviors: Exploring the roles of attitudinal beliefs, attitudes, norms, and data repositories. Library & Information Science Research, 39(3): 224–233. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2017.07.008
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2022-014 | Journal eISSN: 1683-1470
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Mar 31, 2022
Accepted on: Jul 5, 2022
Published on: Jul 28, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Analog data,
Historic data,
Data policies,
Risk of loss,
Data rescue,
Dark data

© 2022 Julia A. Kelly, Shannon L. Farrell, Lois G. Hendrickson, James Luby, Kristen L. Mastel, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 21 (2022): Issue 1Next article