Project

General

Profile

Bug #2664

5 errs remain: Project 74 (Cape Fear Riparian): 62 plots

Added by Michael Lee over 13 years ago. Updated about 9 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
DataPrep
Target version:
Start date:
11/13/2006
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Bugzilla-Id:
2664

Description

this data needs to be processed and added to the (v2006) central archive


Related issues

Blocked by InfoVeg - Bug #2867: Reverse Migrate New archive data into old archiveResolved06/07/2007

History

#1 Updated by Michael Lee about 13 years ago

imported into version 2.1.0 database, grabbing custom Lat/Long fields into realLat and realLong

#2 Updated by Michael Lee about 13 years ago

A) 59 plots had no taxonomic reference filled in. 3 plots did (all 3 had Weakley Jan 1, 2006). Add Weakly '06 for all plots?

B) 7-38 had no location accuracy. I set to 10 which was the max accuracy estimate for any plot in the project. Could double check to see if anything was filled in or just leave at 10, or could even downgrade accuracy a bit.

C) 074-07-0039, mod 7, Liriodendron "big stem" of 21, but should be at least 40: is it 41? Should be double-checked if possible.

D) 074-07-0002 cover data: Pinus taeda has RR value of 15 though it also has presence elsewhere (and cover of 1). Probably is to explain cover difference b/t strata (5) and module (1) so that full plot cover would match strata. should probably leave as is. I will double check to make sure this migrates properly after migration.

E) 11 rows in stem data have no info about them. No obvious solution to any of these. I can leave them there, but no info about them will unfold, though they will still sit here in the original data.

#3 Updated by Michael Lee about 13 years ago

There are 32 duplicate species on plots and 2238 duplicate stems, mostly in the R module. Looks like they didn't lump the Residuals together, but tallied individually. The program can lump the R's together for us. After R's are ignored, there are still 28 duplicates in stems.

#4 Updated by Forbes Boyle about 13 years ago

(In reply to comment #2)

A) 59 plots had no taxonomic reference filled in. 3 plots did (all 3 had
Weakley Jan 1, 2006). Add Weakly '06 for all plots?

YES "FB"

B) 7-38 had no location accuracy. I set to 10 which was the max accuracy
estimate for any plot in the project. Could double check to see if anything
was filled in or just leave at 10, or could even downgrade accuracy a bit.

NOTHING FILLED IN ON DATASHEET; I CHECKED TOPOZONE AND LOCATION SEEMS RIGHT. SET MAX ACCURACY TO 10 METERS. "FB"

C) 074-07-0039, mod 7, Liriodendron "big stem" of 21, but should be at least
40: is it 41? Should be double-checked if possible.

D) 074-07-0002 cover data: Pinus taeda has RR value of 15 though it also has
presence elsewhere (and cover of 1). Probably is to explain cover difference
b/t strata (5) and module (1) so that full plot cover would match strata.
should probably leave as is. I will double check to make sure this migrates
properly after migration.

E) 11 rows in stem data have no info about them. No obvious solution to any of
these. I can leave them there, but no info about them will unfold, though they
will still sit here in the original data.

#5 Updated by Forbes Boyle about 13 years ago

(In reply to comment #2)

A) 59 plots had no taxonomic reference filled in. 3 plots did (all 3 had
Weakley Jan 1, 2006). Add Weakly '06 for all plots?

YES "FB"

B) 7-38 had no location accuracy. I set to 10 which was the max accuracy
estimate for any plot in the project. Could double check to see if anything
was filled in or just leave at 10, or could even downgrade accuracy a bit.

NOTHING FILLED IN ON DATASHEET; I CHECKED TOPOZONE AND LOCATION SEEMS RIGHT. SET MAX ACCURACY TO 10 METERS. "FB"

C) 074-07-0039, mod 7, Liriodendron "big stem" of 21, but should be at least
40: is it 41? Should be double-checked if possible.

DIAMETER ACTUALLY IS 64 CM. IT WAS MISREAD DURING DATA ENTRY! "FB"

D) 074-07-0002 cover data: Pinus taeda has RR value of 15 though it also has
presence elsewhere (and cover of 1). Probably is to explain cover difference
b/t strata (5) and module (1) so that full plot cover would match strata.
should probably leave as is. I will double check to make sure this migrates
properly after migration.

I WOULD REMOVE THE 15 FROM RESIDUAL COLUMNS. P. TAEDA WAS ACTUALLY RECORDED TWICE IN THE FIELD ON THE SPECIES COVER DATA SHEET. SPECIES COUNT WAS HIGH ON THIS PLOT TOO. "FB"

E) 11 rows in stem data have no info about them. No obvious solution to any of
these. I can leave them there, but no info about them will unfold, though they
will still sit here in the original data.

HI MICHAEL, CAN YOU SHOW ME WHICH SPECIES AND PLOTS THESE ARE?? "FB"

#6 Updated by Michael Lee about 13 years ago

I have resolved the errors here (ignoring for the moment the duplicates), except for the species with no info. Those are here if you (Forbes) want to check them:

authorObsCode Module SCIENTIFIC_NAME
074-07-0007 R Liquidambar styraciflua
074-07-0013 R Toxicodendron radicans var. radicans
074-07-0015 R Parthenocissus quinquefolia
074-07-0015 R Liquidambar styraciflua
074-07-0015 R Asimina triloba
074-07-0019 R Cornus florida
074-07-0022 3 Acer floridanum
074-07-0029 9 Quercus lyrata
074-07-0037 R Liriodendron tulipifera var. tulipifera
074-07-0037 2 Carya cordiformis
074-07-0052 9 Ulmus rubra

#7 Updated by Michael Lee over 11 years ago

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

#8 Updated by Michael Lee over 11 years ago

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.

#9 Updated by Forbes Boyle about 9 years ago

added to archive!

#10 Updated by Redmine Admin over 7 years ago

Original Bugzilla ID was 2664

Also available in: Atom PDF