-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ignore mode of introduction (M/I) #17
Comments
yes, that's fine |
Please discuss with Filip if it's actually worth keeping |
We will ignore this column and rely on |
we need to cross check first whether there are any non-release/escape pathways listed as accidental and vice versa |
I quickly inspected the mapped data, and I think that we should include the information included in
The CBD category |
This is the agreed framework of Harrower et al. on deliberate versus accidental introductions linked to the CBD pathway classification, which we also use for the TrIAS pathway indicators: Of course, this is very crude and so MAP has more detailed information. I suggest we keep this in the checklist but not for the unified (there, we base entirely on |
My preference on this would be to get Filip to adopt the CBD pathway categories, but I don't know if he would be up for it. |
Indeed, or he can keep working like he's used to but include a mapped field himself. Also, it would be good if he could keep the regional information on introduction dates etc. We might have a jobber this summer who could do that for the current MAP version so that we can provide him with that. |
Does not seem to contain more useful information (Deliberate / Accidental) than V/I, so we'll ignore this in the mapping.
@qgroom is that correct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: