Representation of multiple taxonomic concepts in relational database

by

A.M. Lyakh

Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas of RAS,

RF, Sevastopol, Nakhimov Av., 2

E-mail: me@antonlyakh.ru

DOI: 10.33075/2220-5861-2025-2-90-95

UDC 004.6:57.06:573.6

EDN: https://elibrary.ru/tilqpj

Abstract:     

The growth of biodiversity data makes it impossible to perform large-scale generalizations without specialized computer tools. A taxonomic database (TDB) is one of such tools that helps to synthesize our knowledge. A TBD stores data about a specific taxonomic concept represented by a static taxon tree. However, modern taxonomy is constantly changing due to the discovery of new species and the reclassification of existing ones. Consequently, a modern TBD must consider the mobility of taxonomic concepts and allow preservation of the history of taxonomic classification changes in a series of linked trees. There are four data models that enable storing trees in a relational database: adjacency list, nested sets, materialized path, and closure table. Among them, only the closure table allows for optimal storage of multiple hierarchies. The closure model provides a richer typology of relationships between taxa than a simple parent- child relationship. It allows describing not only taxonomic relationships between organisms, but also any other hierarchical relationships identified in biological studies. Therefore, a closure table should be used for representing multiple taxonomic concepts in a relational database.

Keywords: hierarchical links, adjacency list, materialized path, nested sets, closure table

Full text in PDF(RUS)

REFERENCES

  1. Guiry M.D. Databases. Juggling nomenclature and taxonomy. The new taxonomy. A science reimaged, Chapter 5, 7 p. https://doi.org/10.1201/b22822-5/databases-michael-guiry
  2. Blair J., Gwiazdowski R., Borrelli A., Hotchkiss M., Park C., Perrett G., and Hanner R. Towards a catalogue of biodiversity databases: An ontological case study. Biodiversity data journal, 2020, Vol. 8, e32765. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e32765
  3. Feng X., Brian J., Park D.S., Boyle B., Gallagher B.R.V., Lien A., Newman E.A., Burger J.R., Maitner B.S., Merow C., Li Y., Huynh K.M., Ernst K., Baldwin E., Foden W., Hannah L., Jorgensen P.M., et al. A review of the heterogeneous landscape of biodiversity databases: Opportunities and challenges for a synthesized biodiversity knowledge base. Global ecology and biogeography, 2022, Vol. 31, Iss. 7, pp. 1242–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13497
  4. Smith D.L. and Hawks G.F. Stability of scientific plant names – an attainable goal? South African journal of science, 1994, Vol. 90, No. 2, pp. 313. https:/doir.org/10.10520/AJA00382353_9530
  5. Burki F., Roger A.J., Brown M.W., and Simpson A.G.B. The new tree of Eukaryotes. Trends in ecology & evolution, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.008
  6. Morard R., Escarguel G., Weiner A.K.M., Andre A., Douady C.J., Wade C.M., Darling K.F., Ujiie Y., Seears H.A., Quillevere F., Garidel-Thoron T., Vargas C., and Kucera M. Nomenclature for the nameless: a proposal for an integrative molecular taxonomy of cryptic diversity exemplified by planktonic foraminifera. Systematic biology, 2016, Vol. 65, Iss. 5, pp. 925–940. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw031
  7. Torruella G., Galindo L.J., Moreira D., and Lopez-Garcia P. Phylogenomics of neglected flagellated protists supports a revised eukaryotic Tree of life. Current biology, 2024, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.10.075
  8. Guiry M.D. How many species of algae are there? A reprise. Four kingdoms, 14 phyla, 63 classes and still growing. Journal of phycology, 2024, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13431
  9. Moestrup O. Algal taxonomy: historical overview. Encyclopedia of life science, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0000328.pub2
  10. Guiry M.D. How many species of algae are there? Journal of phycology, 2012, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2012.01222.x
  11. McNeill J. Naming the groups: developing a stable and efficient nomenclature. Taxon, Vol. 49, pp. 705–720. https://doi.org/10.2307/1223972
  12. Novotny P. and Wild J. The relational modeling of hierarchical data in biodiversity databases. Database, 2024, Vol. 2924, baae107. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baae107
  13. Lyakh A.M. and Lelekov S.G. The modular structure of a taxonomic database. Electronic information systems, 2018, No. 2 (17), pp. 59–70.
  14. Angles R. and Gutierrez C. Survey of graph database model. ACM Computing Survey, 2008, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/1322432.1322433
  15. Angles R., Arenas M., Barcelo P., Hogan A., Reutter J., and Vrgoc D. Foundations of modern query languages for graph databases. ACM Computing Survey, 2017, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3104031

Loading