InfoVeg

Forbes and Michael looked through this data on June 7, 2007 and determined that there were still errors awaiting fixing.

Data have been imported into entry db version 2.1.0

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)

above excel file can be found here:
\\bioark\peetlab\cvs

fixed new species that were in the database.

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."
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchCommunityUid=ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.684509

So this seems to be the same creature. I updated the annotation to CEGL007429. Please let me know if this seems incorrect.

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.

Plot 63-2-932 has only 5 records populated with strata (out of 48 species). We might consider removing this scant and incomplete set of strata to make the plot record a bit more cohesive?

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.

Regards comment #7.
63-4-933 has fit of "1" when assigning to CEGL3525.

This is correct; the fit is 1.

Recall 1 is not just poor, but absolutely wrong.
2 is incorrect but understandable.

I fixed comment #10 (fit of "wrong" for a community).

I fixed comment #9, too, and pointed the plot at CEGL 4484.

milestone revamping requires moving bugs to milestones that are in the future

the data prep bugs are waiting on taxonomic IDs before we can migrate, so I am marking these as things I'm not currently working on.

Original Bugzilla ID was 2661