Bug #2640: Identify USDA species without county distribution where other spp in genus have distribution - InfoVeg - Ecoinformatics Redmine

Actions

Copy link

Bug #2640

open

Identify USDA species without county distribution where other spp in genus have distribution

Added by Robert Peet almost 18 years ago. Updated about 17 years ago.

Status:

New

Priority:

Normal

Assignee:

Michael Lee

Category:

atlas

Target version:

Postpone

Start date:

11/02/2006

Due date:

% Done:

Estimated time:

Bugzilla-Id:

2640

Description

Look at PERSBOR s.s. with all those records for NC, SC, GA, AL that are
actually P. palustris. We need a solution.

1. Create a list of all the taxa that PLANTS reports for NC&SC with no county records but for which they do report county records for other taxa in the genus. Mike Lee should do this based on USDA data I have in hand. Once this is done, the process should be repeated for each of the states in the region.

2. Once we have the lists, Alan should examine the taxa and the USDA maps, and should create a list of taxa with too many records and a list of taxa with too few records. The final lists should be shared with USDA and BONAP. Highest priority should be to complete the NC&SC list.

3. These lists contain sets of taxa that should be treated as nominals rather than USDA/JK99 concepts. We should break the USDA taxa in our database into two groups with one = USDA concepts, and the second = nominal concepts. We can assign this step to Mike Lee. I will need to explain to Michael now to access the database in which the county occurrence data are stored.

4. As a separate and contingent bug, Xianhua should split USDA in the legend into into two labels and make any code changes necessary to support this split

Related issues

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Michael Lee almost 18 years ago

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Robert K. Peet wrote:

Hi,

The attached zip file contains 4 files.

Plants-NC.txt = Results of request for a list of NC plants from PLANTS, done
today. Note that both accepted any synonomized taaxa are included. You could
repeat this search for any other states of interest.
http://plants.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi_bin/topics.cgi?earl=dl_state.html

Plants-Search = Results of an advanced search of PLANTS done today. I
asked for all taxa that occur in NC or SC and asked for all counties of
occurrence. Check to see that the list matches the list generated in
Plants-NC (or as supplemented with an equivalent SC list).

Plants2003-dist.mdb = a preliminaty release of county distribution info sent
me by plants in 2003

Plants2006-dist.txt = a "final" county list for plants sent me this summer by
plants.

I have no idea the degree to which the county distribution info varies among
the three sources here provided. You need to take a peak at that.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Michael Lee almost 18 years ago

(In reply to comment #1)

Plants-NC.txt = Results of request for a list of NC plants from PLANTS, done
today. Note that both accepted any synonomized taaxa are included. You could
repeat this search for any other states of interest.
http://plants.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi_bin/topics.cgi?earl=dl_state.html

Plants-Search = Results of an advanced search of PLANTS done today. I
asked for all taxa that occur in NC or SC and asked for all counties of
occurrence. Check to see that the list matches the list generated in
Plants-NC (or as supplemented with an equivalent SC list).

Plants-NC matches the Plants-Search list (where in NC) exactly, except it contains the additional synonyms (only synonyms are extra).

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Michael Lee almost 18 years ago

(In reply to comment #1)

Plants-NC matches the Plants-Search list (where in NC) exactly, except it
contains the additional synonyms (only synonyms are extra).

I just downloaded new plants to form the Plants-SC file, and it matches the plants-search list exactly, too, except with the additional synonyms, but no non-synonyms. So the information in those lists as far as distribution is the same, just the first file(s) include more taxonomic information.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Michael Lee almost 18 years ago

Note that the other bugs related to this one can be nicely viewed here:
http://bugzilla.ecoinformatics.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=2640

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Michael Lee almost 18 years ago

This PART of the bug is done, but there are still other related bugs that need addressing.
http://www.unc.edu/~mikelee/cvs/eep/atlas/USDA_Distribution_Work.zip
is a zipped database that contains the results of what I've done.
A short summary of how I envisioned that this be used is here:
http://www.unc.edu/~mikelee/cvs/eep/atlas/howToUsePlantsDistDB.txt

How I did what I did can be seen here:
http://www.unc.edu/~mikelee/cvs/eep/atlas/idMissingCountySpp_USDA_MLeeLog.txt

Note that some species were not found in the 2006 distribution, but where found in the 2003 distribution, and I have not worked these into the materials in the zipped database:
Symbol Sciname
CHVIA Chrysogonum virginianum var. australe
ERLI3 Eriocaulon lineare
FIMI Fimbristylis miliacea
GAMO2 Galactia mollis
GAPA5 Galium parisiense
ONMO Onosmodium molle
PRPU3 Prunus pumila
PTVI2 Pterocaulon virgatum
RHAL5 Rhododendron alabamense
RHAM Rhynchosia americana
ROPAP Rorippa palustris ssp. palustris
SAMA11 Salicornia maritima
SPBR Spiranthes brevilabris
SPER Sparganium erectum
SPERS2 Sparganium erectum ssp. stoloniferum