InfoVeg

Project 75 is squeaky clean!

The only minor issue is 2 stems that are smaller than 40cm DBH that are listed individually. Generally only stems larger than 40cm are listed in this area.

I'll bet Forbes has confirmed that they are OK.

Details:
075-02-1001, Nyssa biflora in R has 2 stems (36, 38) that are <40 cm DBH but are written into the big stems columns.

Ready for DBA checking and unfolding otherwise.

(In reply to comment #1)

Project 75 is squeaky clean!

The only minor issue is 2 stems that are smaller than 40cm DBH that are listed
individually. Generally only stems larger than 40cm are listed in this area.

I'll bet Forbes has confirmed that they are OK.

Details:
075-02-1001, Nyssa biflora in R has 2 stems (36, 38) that are <40 cm DBH but
are written into the big stems columns.

THESE TWO NYSSA'S NEED NEED TO BE TALLIED INTO THE 35-40 CM COLUMN. "FB"

Ready for DBA checking and unfolding otherwise.

Details:
075-02-1001, Nyssa biflora in R has 2 stems (36, 38) that are <40 cm DBH but
are written into the big stems columns.

THESE TWO NYSSA'S NEED NEED TO BE TALLIED INTO THE 35-40 CM COLUMN.
"FB"

ML: Alternately, we could leave them as is, since they measured the diameters. It won't affect the data, except these two stems will have slightly better accuracy than the ones in the regular tallies.

Fixed the above Nyssa stems that were smaller than 40cm in the biglist. Put them in the 35-40 tally.

There are actually 52 plots, not 53.

75-1-1005 differentiates between Woodwardia virginica (live) and Woodwardia virginia (dead).

Cover values are 9's and 8's for dead ones and 4's and 2's for live. We don't really have a way of dealing with cover information split around a species based on whether or not it is alive. We do have a place to note that trees were dead, but that doesn't apply to ferns.

Best option I see is to add to the notes that there is a fair amount of dead Woodwardia in the plot and delete the line, painful though it is to do.

There are a lot of plots that have more strata available and filled in on the datasheets than the data entry tool expects. Specifically, the ECUSH are on datasheets, but only TSH are available in the entry tool. These were flagged (most of the time?) in the notes section and I went through and edited them. Generally, the combinations were made without considering that much cover in one of the original strata would overlap with cover in another stratum. For example, if E was 5%, T was 75% and U was 60%, we wouldn't combine these to say that T was 100%, but instead assume that U would take up at most 60% of the 25% not already covered by trees, leaving at most 90% cover. I'd even consider making it 85% but this is guess work, certainly. I'd err on the small side, as stems tend to be vertical, keeping cover aligned more than randomly scattered.

I'm not sure how these numbers were created. The entry person could have just added up the covers, or perhaps someone else was involved. Anyway, I'm ratcheting back the values that seem to me unrealistic, but making notes of what I did.

For every ecologist there is an equal and opposite methodology:

On plot 75-1-1005, the stems have a note:
"Zenobia heights varied slightly above and below breast height, an alternative measure was used for this species. Stems were tallied at the base in a 10% subsample to the 4 internal modules. This is a more realistic measure of Zenobia."

They actually tallied Zenobia twice, once strictly above breast height at 100% subsample, and once for all stems, using a 10% subsample (4 intensive modules only).

Umm, so we clearly have twice sampled stems here. We could:
a) ignore these spiffy and clever subsampled stems, measured only as present
b) estimate the number of stems in the basal sampled that are already accounted for in full census and remove them, then put the rest in a 0-137m tall height category, which now kind of exists since we have EEP data in the database. The EEP data is 10-50cm, 50-100cm and 100-137cm. This new category would take a bit of fiddling, but not much.
c) something else I haven't thought of.

Example data:
ZEPU mod 2, 10% subsample, 240 stems (basal)
ZEPU mod 2, 100% sample, 33 stems 0-1 DBH, 2 stems 1-2.5 DBH (tall, i.e. taller than BH)

8-1001 has many cases of Smilax rotundifolia. One record shows 340 stems in the R module, but there are other rows in the R module where they stopped at 50, presumably because they ran out of space. So I think the 340 should be either 30 or 40 or 34, but not 340.

I don't have this datasheet because it apparently wasn't scanned. Does anyone have the original team 8 datasheets where we can access them?

STATUS UPDATE for Project 75.

Bob indicated that comment 8 should be resolved by deleting the Zenobia that was sampled in an odd way. Resolved that comment.

Comment 6 still needs dealing with. Delete the dead pseudospecies?
Comment 7 I'd like to hear from Forbes on.
Comment 9 needs to be doubled checked by Forbes.

Regards comment 9
The 340 SMRO was real
The smilax rotundifolia stems for 8-1001 total
Module 2 60
Module 3 47
Module 8 13
Module 9 29
Modules R 455

Regards Comment #6
Just ignore the dead material and add a note to one of the note fields.

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 2665