Ecoinformatics Redmine: Issueshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/https://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/ecoinfo/favicon.ico?14691340362011-04-29T15:58:52ZEcoinformatics Redmine
Redmine InfoVeg - Bug #5387 (New): Update CF classification based on numerical (distance) analysishttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53872011-04-29T15:58:52ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>Our classification was analyzed in an attempt to find outliers and possible candidate replacement communities, as described in Bug 4378.</p>
<p>The results need to be checked by hand (Forbes, RKP, Tom, and John Benning).</p>
<p>Once their decisions are complete, the classification in the archive DB needs to updated.</p> InfoVeg - Bug #5386 (New): Identify maritime fringe unknown specimenshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53862011-04-29T15:54:31ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>There are 5-10 projects with unknown specimens left to ID and triage. These will be needed in Fall 2011 CF analysis.</p> InfoVeg - Bug #5385 (New): Project 58 (Syngenta)https://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53852011-04-29T15:46:35ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>Part 1: split plots into a) field, b) field-edge, and c) woods (DONE)<br />Part 2: arrange field and field edge module-corners to reflect Level 5<br />Part 3: deal with Woody Stems.</p> InfoVeg - Bug #5382 (New): Incorporate Wiser's Classification into the Archive DBhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53822011-04-29T15:35:00ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>Mike, Mike, Forbes, Alan, Milo & Tom,</p>
<p>Ah, plot 14-89. I fear we may be looking at the tip of the proverbial iceberg. At the risk of alienating just about everyone, I think I shall describe this as I see it, as we do need to confront these issues some time. What I do here we will adopt for the CVS website, but we can always change it that proves important. There are two intertwined issues here: the NVC/NCNH types recognized and the assignment of plots to NVC types. In short, given the scientific rigor and published status of Wiser’s work, why are we not accepting either her community types or her assignment of plots to community types?</p>
<p>To start with the context of the email that got this going , Wiser classified 14-89 as "Calamagrostis cainii-Rhododendron carolinianum outcrop community" along with 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, & 86. All are from Mt. Le Conte, except 89 from Charlie’s Bunion on the Swain/Sevier line. On the NatureServe site this type is synonymized with 7278 = Saxifraga michauxii - Carex misera - Calamagrostis cainii Herbaceous Vegetation, a Le Conte endemic with probably one occurrence on the NC line (if we trust Wiser, which I do). Forbes assigned most of the above plots to 7279 (except 83=7877 and 89=3948), whereas I think they should all be assigned to 7278 as per Wiser’s earlier decision.</p>
<p>Looking more broadly at Wiser's plots (see attached spreadsheet), there is remarkably little correspondence between Wiser's types and where they are currently assigned. I worry about this as Wiser put considerable effort into her work, it is published in a mainline journal (JVS 7:703-722), and no one has in any systematic fashion challenged it. By this logic, Susan's work has priority and we should all accept it until someone demonstrates in a public way why this would not be desirable.....see attached doc</p> InfoVeg - Bug #4423 (New): Check Taxon occurrences where otherwise not know from statehttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/44232009-09-29T15:28:12ZRobert Peetpeet@unc.edu
<p>Look at spreadsheet ...CVS\CVS_Occurrences\SpeciesToCheck.xlsx<br />which contains a page each for SC and NC. All these occurrences need to be checked and where needed corrected.</p> InfoVeg - Bug #2749 (New): Soil errors in legacy data: Mg truncatedhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/27492007-01-26T19:34:00ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Email from Bob 1/25/2007:</p>
<p>Elizabeth Marx discovered that soils for plot 20-7-340-8 have mg ppm as 2,<br />which is inconsistent with the nature of the soils, to say nothing of the<br />high percent bases associated with mg. I checked old files and this seems<br />to have been there all along. Puzzled, I found the old printouts and<br />discovered that throughout, the data contain only the rightmost 3 digits<br />for Mg. A fourth digit is rare but does sometimes occur. In Elizabeth's<br />case the value had been 2002 and just 002.</p>
<p>It should be possible to back calculate based on base saturation % to<br />identify which records contain this left truncation error. I have no idea<br />how many projects this is a problem for, so once we have the test, we<br />should run it on all soils data in CVS.</p>
<p>Would you all please work this out for me.</p>