comments in XLS resolve: Project 63 (Francis Marion NF): 54 plots
this data needs to be processed and added to the (v2006) central archive
#3 Updated by Michael Lee about 12 years ago
19 errors initially.
ignoring 9 errors of no species on stem entry form - plots had no trees
ignoring 3 errors of no X-axis supplied
ignoring 5 plots have partially stratum definitions (lacking height or cover)
8-931 had no stratum definitions at all, so I filled in tree, herb, shrub, but without heights or cover
ignored 063-07-0927 which lacks location accuracy.
There are still some cryptic comments about 63 in DataSheetERrors_63_64_75_76.xls that I'm not sure what to do about. I've annoted this in my own column (J)
#6 Updated by Michael Lee about 12 years ago
063-04-0925 was originally classified as CEGL004646: Nyssa aquatica - Nyssa biflora Saturated Forest, but this value of CEGL4646 isn't in the database. NatureServe Explorer has "Nyssa aquatica - Nyssa biflora Forest" which is CEGL007429 and states "It occurs in Zone II (Wharton et al. 1982), and therefore probability of annual flooding is 100% and duration of flooding is approximately 100% of the growing season with soils nearly permanently saturated."
So this seems to be the same creature. I updated the annotation to CEGL007429. Please let me know if this seems incorrect.
#7 Updated by Michael Lee about 12 years ago
63-4-933 has fit of "1" when assigning to CEGL3525. Is this excellent or poor fit? I think by context it must be poor fit, as there is another classification assignment (to CEGL 7813) that is also a poor fit, both with medium confidence. I have added a note but not recorded this guess.
#9 Updated by Robert Peet about 12 years ago
Regards comment #6 on CEGL004646:
In EcoArt this is listed as historic with the following comment. "REE 7-02: Made historic after input from both Fleming and Schafale about this type. Fleming's comments were as follows, "I have no idea why I am a concept author of this. What little info there is seems to indicate that this would be a nonriverine, Dismal Swamp type. We do have Nyssa aquatica in the Virginia portion of GDSNWR, but I would call all of the big stands seasonally flooded, not saturated. Elsewhere, it is just a scattered associate in the main nonriverine forests (CEGL004429 and CEGL007445). Since I don't have any data or evidence that something like this is in VA, I guess I would recommend removing the VA? Attribution" Schafale's comments were: "I don't know why I am concept author on this either. I guess it probably is supposed to be the Nyssa aquatica-containing swamp at Great Dismal Swamp. From what I've seen on the NC side, I would interpret it as nonriverine, which the saturated qualifier implies, with only shallow standing water and that from seepage rather than river flooding. I would prefer to put it in with 4429 and not have a new association for it though. I can't think of any other place where we get Nyssa aquatica in a nonriverine swamp at all." KP 4-02: VA changed to VA?."
Reading this, the initial choice seems poor in that no NYAQ occurs at the site. The key thing is that it is a tidal gum swamp, which at this time suggests to me that we replace 4646 with 4484. Perhaps Forbes can do this on the various posted documents.