Reorganize Yellow-Bellied Toad sites in Lower Saxony, add new sites

What Wildbook should this feature be in?

Amphibian Wildbook, Yellow-Bellied Toads

What would you like to see?

Hi there,
I want to set up new and reorganize locations to analyze mark-recapture-data from our conservation project of yellow-bellied toads in Lower Saxony. Currently all our locations are nested under “Northern Weser Hills”, but this is geographically not useful for plausibly matching captures between adjacent sites. I therefore want to split the current site into three more suitable ones, and I can’t find a way to do so myself and was advised to ask here.

I would request to reorganize the existing site “Northern Weser Hills” into the following three sites with the following hierarchy. Marked in bold are sites that need to be added yet, the rest already exists in “Northern Weser Hills” and some might need to be moved.

Special case “Bückeberg”:
Is it possible to have a multi-layered hierarchy, i.e. “Bückeberg” being a subsite of “Northern Weser Hills”, yet containing subsites (see below) itself? And is this advisable, i.e. will it fuck up currently existing data in the project “Norhern Weser Hills” if we replace “Bückeberg” by 10 subsites with new location IDs? If not advisable, we should keep “Bückeberg” at the same hierarchy level as the other sites within “Northern Weser Hills” and add the ones contained in “Bückeberg” on the same higher hierarchy level as well, to account for both old data on a broader geographic scale as well as new data that divides between the sites nested within “Bückeberg”.

The hierarchy would be as follows:

1. Northern Weser Hills

  • “Bernsen”; Location ID: BER
  • „Brinkmeier/Edler“; Location ID: BRE
  • „Bokshorn”; Location ID: BOK
  • “Tongrube Borstel”; Location ID: BSL
  • “Eisberger Werder“; Location ID: EIW
  • “Hehler Feld“; Location ID: HEF
  • „Holzhauser Mark“; Location ID: HOL
  • Langenfeld“; Location ID: LAN
  • “Messingberg”; Location ID: MES
  • “Pötzen”; Location ID: POT
  • “Rohden”; Location ID: ROD
  • “Segelhorst”; Location ID: SEG
  • “Wuelpker Egge”; Location ID: WUE
  • “Bückeberg“; Location ID: BKB, containing the subsites:
  1. „Liekwegen“; Location ID: LIE
  2. „Alter Steinbruch Liekwegen“; Location ID: ASB
  3. „Promilleweg“; Location ID: PRW
  4. „Feuchte Waldwiese“; Location ID: FWW
  5. „Höhenweg“; Location ID: HOW
  6. „JBF-Wiese“; Location ID: JBF
  7. „Nullfläche“; Location ID: NFL
  8. „Holzlagerplatz“; Location ID: HLP
  9. “NATO-Station Reinsdorf”; Location ID: NAT
  10. “Obernkirchener SSB”; Location ID: OSB

2. Central Weser Hills

  • “Coppengrave”; Location ID: COP
  • “Doberg”; Location ID: DOB
  • “Himmelsthür”; Location ID: HIM
  • “Hils-Klinkerwerk”; Location ID: HKW
  • “Hohenbüchen”, Location ID: HOH
  • “Ochtersum”; Location ID: OCH
  • “Weenzer Bruch”; Location ID: WEE
  • “Tongrube Otavi”; Location ID: OTA

3. Southern Weser Hills and Harz

  • “Ballertasche”; Location ID: BAL
  • “Lohoffscher Bruch”; Location ID: LOH
  • “Mehholz”; Location ID: MEH
  • „Pfaffenholz“; Location ID: PFA

How would this functionality help you?

If requesting a new location ID, include

  • Is this is nested beneath another location in the hierarchy?
  • Is there a prefix for region-based naming? (optional)
  • GPS coordinates (optional)

Note: Not all feature requests can be accepted, but all of them are reviewed by our product team. We’re unable to provide implementation timelines for accepted requests. We are a small team with many competing priorities. Thanks for your understanding!

Thanks in advance!

Related to LOCATIONS in Australia amendment

Hi @LennartHudel

I can add new locations and sub-regions, but I’m not able to move existing sub-locations to a new one without impacting existing Encounters associated with that data. Re-arranging locations would have to be done separately as its own project.

Does that work for you?

Hey Anastasia,

Thanks for the super quick response. I was expecting something like this. Thankfully, not too many of the existing sites have been worked on already, i.e. contain encounters that could be impacted. Those sites are Liekwegen, Doberg, Messingsberg, Bernsen. Apart from Doberg, all of them lie within the Northern Weser Hills and could be reorganized without a problem, correct?

And concerning Doberg: Could a new site “Doberg” be erected in the new project “Central Weser Hills” and the encounters then moved from the old site to the new one? So we could delete the old one afterwards?

Sorry for making this such a mess, but these toad populations are a mess too :smiley:


Are you referring to moving Encounters within one project to another project or are you asking about moving Encounters from the Doberg location ID Central Weser Hills?

Following up to let you know that moving existing Location IDs as sub-regions shouldn’t create any issues. It’s when we re-name existing location IDs where problems can arise if existing encounters aren’t updated to the new Location ID names. I can start working on this again this week.

Hi @LennartHudel

I’ve added the new locations you asked for in the bold text. I’ve also sorted the Location IDs so that they are now sorted by Northern Weser Hills, Central Weser Hills, and Southern Weser Hills and Harz. I also added sub-regions to Bückeberg within Northern Weser Hills.

Hey @Anastasia. Thanks for putting in the work and sorry for not replying, I was on vacation. To me it looks all sorted now, thank you so much. I have asked my colleagues who also will have to work with the data to check if everything about it is right or if anything is missing. I hope you’ll not hear from me about this again but I cannot guarantee it. Thanks again! Cheers!

1 Like