[931]两栖动物（Amphibians）

两栖动物（Amphibians）
免责声明：本数据由极风数据团队整理，仅用于学术研究，请勿恶意复制或用于其他用途。

0、数据编号：931
1、数据名称：两栖动物（Amphibians）
2、数据来源： N/A
3、时间跨度：截至7/16/2020
4、区域范围：
5、数据大小：11KB
6、数据格式：CSV
7、数据简介：每数据集是一个多标签分类问题。目标是根据从GIS系统和卫星图像中获得的特征来预测水库附近两栖动物物种的存在。所使用的数据来自地理信息系统和卫星信息，以及从为波兰两个计划的道路项目（A路和B路）的环境影响评估报告编写的自然清单中收集的信息。这些报告主要用于收集有关189个发生地点中每个地点两栖动物种群规模的信息。
道路A项目涉及皮尔佐维采计划中的A1高速公路路段的一部分;该路段位于西里西亚省北部边界，长约75公里。实地研究涉及拟议项目区两侧宽500米的地带。现场清单于2010年[1]和2011年进行[2，3]。这些清单的结果得到了Marek SoÅ’tysiak观察的补充，这些观察是在2014年至2016年间进行的[4]。最后，第一个项目包括80个两栖动物繁殖地。
B路清单是在S52高速公路别尔斯科比亚奥-瓦多维采-加奥戈茨-加奥戈茨路段计划中的贝斯基迪整合路的两个变体附近准备的。这段路的长度约为60公里。在2010年进行的盘查中，[125]描述了5个真实和潜在的两栖动物发生地点。爬虫学清单的方法包括地图分析、文献和档案数据分析，然后是实地观察。与第一种情况一样，清单是在春季进行的，包括观察水库中两栖动物的出现。研究区域包括一条 500 米宽的皮带，用于规划道路的每个考虑变体。为了进行最终实验，考虑了109个两栖动物发生地点。提供有关数据集中每个属性的信息。
属性和类型列表：
ID ->整数
MV -> 分类
SR -> 数值
NR -> 数值
TR -> 分类
VR -> 分类
SUR1 -> 分类
SUR2 -> 分类
SUR3 -> 分类
UR -> 分类
FR -> 分类
OR -> 数字
RR -> 序数;
BR ->序数;
MR -> 分类
CR -> 分类
绿蛙 – >分类;标签 1
棕色青蛙 – >分类;标签 2
普通蟾蜍 ->分类;标签 3
火腹蟾蜍->分类;标签 4
树蛙 ->分类;标签 5
普通蝾螈->分类;标签 6
大凤头蝾螈->分类;标签 7

名称和符号类型说明：
1） ID – 向量 ID（未在计算中使用）
2） MV – 高速公路（未用于计算）
3） SR -> 水库面积数值 [m2]
4） NR -> 栖息地的水库数量 – 评论：水库数量越多，其中一些水库就越有可能适合两栖动物繁殖。
5） TR -> 储水器类型：
a. 具有自然特征的水库，这些水库是天然或人为水库（例如，开发后的沉降水库），未归化
B. 最近形成的水库，不受归化约束
C. 沉淀池
D. 房屋附近的水库
E. 技术水库
F. 分配花园的水库
G. 战壕
H. 湿草甸、洪泛平原、沼泽
I. 河谷
J. 溪流和非常小的水道
6） VR – 水库中植被的存在：
A. 无植被
B. 边缘狭窄的斑块
C. 杂草丛生的地区
D. 水库内植被茂密，部分植被缺失
E. 水库完全杂草丛生，地下水位消失
评论：水库中的植被有利于两栖动物，便于繁殖，并允许幼虫觅食和庇护。然而，过多的植被会导致池塘过度生长和缺水。
7） SUR1 – 周围环境1 – 水库周围的主要土地覆盖类型
8） SUR2 – 环境2 – 水库周围第二大主要的土地覆被类型
9） SUR3 – 环境 3 – 水库周围第三大主要的土地覆盖类型
评论：“周围环境”功能分为三个阶段。首先，选择主导环境。然后，选择了两种次要类型。
A. 森林地区（有草地）和茂密的林区
B. 荒地和草地面积
C. 分配花园
D. 公园和绿地
E. 密集建筑开发、工业区
F. 分散的居住地、果园、花园
G. 河谷
H. 道路、街道
一、农业用地
两栖动物最有价值的水库环境是人类压力最小和湿度适当的地区。
10） UR – 使用水库：
A.未被人类使用（对两栖动物非常有吸引力）
b. 娱乐和风景（进行护理工作）
c. 经济地使用（通常是养鱼）
D. 技术
11） FR – 钓鱼的存在：
A. 缺乏或偶尔捕鱼
B. 密集捕鱼
C. 繁殖水库
解说：大量捕捞的存在，特别是掠食性和密集性捕捞，不利于两栖动物的存在。
12） 或 – 来自 ed 的访问百分比水库到未开发地区的GES（建议的百分比范围是以下短语的数字反映：缺乏通道，低访问，中等访问，大量自由空间）：
a. 0-25%-缺乏访问或访问不良
b. 25-50%-低访问
c. 50-75%-中等访问，
d. 75-100%-海岸线陆地栖息地的大量通道与两栖动物的陆地栖息地接触。
13） RR 从水库到道路的最小距离：
A. <50 米
b. 50-100米
约100-200米
d. 200-500米
e. 500-1000米
F. >1000 m
点评：水库与道路的距离越大，两栖动物就越安全。
14） BR – 建筑开发 – 到建筑物的最小距离：
A. <50 米
b. 50-100米
约100-200米
d. 200-500米
e. 500-1000米
F. >1000 m
点评：建筑物越远，两栖动物出现的条件越有利。
15） MR – 储层的维护状态：
a. 清洁
B. 略带乱扔垃圾
C. 水库大量或非常严重地乱扔垃圾
评论：垃圾对水库生态系统造成破坏。还应考虑用地面和平整水库进行回填和平整。
16） CR – 岸上类型
a. 天然
b. 混凝土
评论：水库的混凝土岸边对两栖动物没有吸引力。垂直的混凝土海岸通常是两栖动物试图离开水面时的障碍。
17）标签1 – 绿蛙的存在
18）标签2 – 棕色青蛙的存在
19）标签3 – 普通蟾蜍的存在
20）标签4 – 火腹蟾蜍的存在
21）标签5 – 树蛙的存在
22）标签6 – 普通蝾螈的存在
23）标签7 – 大凤头蝾螈的存在

数据集在以下文件中进行了详细说明：
马尔钦·布拉赫尼克， 马雷克·索奥蒂西亚克， 多米尼卡·达…browska使用从GIS和卫星图像获得的特征预测两栖动物物种的存在。ISPRS国际地理信息杂志8（3），第123页。MDPI。2019
英文原文：The dataset is a multilabel classification problem. The goal is to predict the presence of amphibians species near the water reservoirs based on features obtained from GIS systems and satellite images。Additional Information

The data used was derived from GIS and satellite information, as well as from information gathered from the natural inventories that were prepared for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports for two planned road projects (Road A and Road B) in Poland. These reports were mostly used to gather information on the size of the amphibian population in each of the 189 occurrence sites.
Road A project concerned part of the planned A1 motorway section in Pyrzowice; the section is located along the northern border of the Silesian Voivodship and is about 75 km long. The field research involved a strip of land with a width of 500 m on both sides of the proposed project area. The field inventory was carried out in 2010 [1] and 2011 [2,3]. The results of these inventories were complemented by Marek Sołtysiak observations, which were conducted between 2014 and 2016 [4]. Finally, the first project included 80 amphibian breeding sites.
Road B inventory was prepared in the vicinity of two variants of the planned Beskidy Integration Way on the Bielsko Biała-Wadowice-Głogoczów section of the S52 motorway. The length of this section of road is approximately 60 km. During the inventory, which was taken in 2010, 125 real and potential amphibian occurrence sites were described in [5]. The methodology of the herpetological inventory included map analysis, literature and archive data analysis, and, then, field observations. As in the first case, the inventory was made in the spring time and consisted of the observation of the occurrence of amphibians in water reservoirs. The research area included a 500 m wide belt for each of the considered variants of the planned road. In order to conduct the final experiments, 109 amphibian occurrence sites were taken into account.
Additional Information

Provide information about each attribute in your data set.
List of attributes and types:
ID -> Integer
MV -> Categorical
SR -> Numerical
NR -> Numerical
TR -> Categorical
VR -> Categorical
SUR1 -> Categorical
SUR2 -> Categorical
SUR3 -> Categorical
UR -> Categorical
FR -> Categorical
OR -> Numerical
RR -> Ordinal;
BR -> Ordinal;
MR -> Categorical
CR -> Categorical
Green frogs -> Categorical; Label 1
Brown frogs -> Categorical; Label 2
Common toad -> Categorical; Label 3
Fire-bellied toad -> Categorical; Label 4
Tree frog -> Categorical; Label 5
Common newt -> Categorical; Label 6
Great crested newt -> Categorical; Label 7

Name and symbol type description:
1) ID – vector ID (not used in the calculations)
2) MV – motorway (not used in the calculations)
3) SR -> Surface of water reservoir numeric [m2]
4) NR -> Number of water reservoirs in habitat – Comment: The larger the number of reservoirs, the more likely it is that some of them will be suitable for amphibian breeding.
5) TR -> Type of water reservoirs:
a. reservoirs with natural features that are natural or anthropogenic water reservoirs (e.g., subsidence post-exploited water reservoirs), not subjected to naturalization
b. recently formed reservoirs, not subjected to naturalization
c. settling ponds
d. water reservoirs located near houses
e. technological water reservoirs
f. water reservoirs in allotment gardens
g. trenches
h. wet meadows, flood plains, marshes
i. river valleys
j. streams and very small watercourses
6) VR – Presence of vegetation within the reservoirs:
a. no vegetation
b. narrow patches at the edges
c. areas heavily overgrown
d. lush vegetation within the reservoir with some part devoid of vegetation
e. reservoirs completely overgrown with a disappearing water table
Comment: The vegetation in the reservoir favors amphibians, facilitates breeding, and allows the larvae to feed and give shelter. However, excess vegetation can lead to the overgrowth of the pond and water shortages.
7) SUR1 – Surroundings 1—the dominant types of land cover surrounding the water reservoir
8) SUR2 – Surroundings 2—the second most dominant types of land cover surrounding the water reservoir
9) SUR3 – Surroundings 3—the third most dominant types of land cover surrounding the water reservoir
Comment: The “surroundings” feature was designated in three stages. First, the dominant surroundings were selected. Then, two secondary types were chosen.
a. forest areas (with meadows) and densely wooded areas
b. areas of wasteland and meadows
c. allotment gardens
d. parks and green areas
e. dense building development, industrial areas
f. dispersed habitation, orchards, gardens
g. river valleys
h. roads, streets
i. agricultural land
The most valuable surroundings of water reservoirs for amphibians are areas with the least anthropopressure and proper moisture.
10) UR – Use of water reservoirs:
a. unused by man (very attractive for amphibians)
b. recreational and scenic (care work is performed)
c. used economically (often fish farming)
d. technological
11) FR – The presence of fishing:
a. lack of or occasional fishing
b. intense fishing
c. breeding reservoirs
Comment: The presence of a large amount of fishing, in particular predatory and intense fishing, is not conducive to the presence of amphibians.
12) OR – Percentage access from the edges of the reservoir to undeveloped areas (the proposed percentage ranges are a numerical reflection of the phrases: lack of access, low access, medium access, large access to free space):
a. 0–25%—lack of access or poor access
b. 25–50%—low access
c. 50–75%—medium access,
d. 75–100%—large access to terrestrial habitats of the shoreline is in contact with the terrestrial habitat of amphibians.
13) RR Minimum distance from the water reservoir to roads:
a. <50 m
b. 50–100 m
c. 100–200 m
d. 200–500 m
e. 500–1000 m
f. >1000 m
Comment: The greater the distance between the reservoir and the road, the more safety for amphibians.
14) BR – Building development – Minimum distance to buildings:
a. <50 m
b. 50–100 m
c. 100–200 m
d. 200–500 m
e. 500–1000 m
f. >1000 m
Comment: The more distant the buildings, the more favorable the conditions for the occurrence of amphibians.
15) MR – Maintenance status of the reservoir:
a. Clean
b. slightly littered
c. reservoirs heavily or very heavily littered
Comment: Trash causes devastation of the reservoir ecosystem. Backfilling and leveling of water reservoirs with ground and debris should also be considered.
16) CR – Type of shore
a. Natural
b. Concrete
Comment: A concrete shore of a reservoir is not attractive for amphibians. A vertical concrete shore is usually a barrier for amphibians when they try to leave the water.
17) Label 1 – the presence of Green frogs
18) Label 2 – the presence of Brown frogs
19) Label 3 – the presence of Common toad
20) Label 4 – the presence of Fire-bellied toad
21) Label 5 – the presence of Tree frog
22) Label 6 – the presence of Common newt
23) Label 7 – the presence of Great crested newt

The dataset is described in details in:
Marcin Blachnik, Marek Sołtysiak, Dominika Dąbrowska Predicting presence of amphibian species using features obtained from GIS and satellite images.. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8 (3) pp. 123. MDPI. 2019
参考文献：[1] StruzyÅ„ski, W. Ë™ Inventory of Occurrence of Amphibians and Reptiles, Including Their Migratory Routes in the Vicinity of the Planned Highway A-1, Section: The Northern Boundary of the Silesian Voivodeship—Pyrzowice; Warsaw Univ. of Life Sci.: Warsaw, Poland, 2010.
[2] Kiczyńska, A.; Falkowski, M.; Jaskuła, R.; Kaczkowski, Z.; Hejduk, J.; Horbacz, A. Natural Inventory for the A1 Motorway Tuszyn–Pyrzowice Section Zawodzie–Pyrzowice; National Foundation for Environmental Protection, Warszawa: Katowice, Poland, 2011.
[3] Łukaszek, M.; Cabała, S.; Zygmunt, J.; Wojtas, P. Report from the Field Research and Natural Inventory for Documentation: “Construction of the A1 Motorway Tuszyn—Pyrzowice Part II, Section 2 the Northern Boundary of the Silesian Voivodeship–Zawodzie; Environmental Protection Company EKOSOUND: Sosnowiec, Poland, 2011.
[4] Sołtysiak, M.; Dąbrowska, D. Inventory of Occurrence of Amphibians in the Vicinity of the Planned Highway A-1, Section: The Northern Boundary of the Silesian Voivodeship–Pyrzowice; The Upper Silesian Nature Society: Katowice, Poland, 2016.
[5] Guzik, M.; Baś, G.; Kurek, K.; Połczyńska–Konior, G.; Potoczek, M.; Smółka, M.; Snieżko, S.; Zyśk, B.; Najberek, K.; Gał, A,. Inventory of Reptiles, Amphibians and Their Habitats in the Vicinity of the Beskidy Integration Way, Section Bielsko Biala—Głogoczów with Protection Proposals; Institute of Nature Conservation: Kraków, Poland, 2011V