InfoVeg

Email pertaining to this thread:

I have updated the spreadsheet that shows each taxon with plot counts
in NC and SC (yellow columns). It can be found here:
\\bioark\PeetLab\users\Lab_Group\CVS_AnalysisDatabase\plants_withPlotCount_NC_SC_withWeakleyExpected.xls
or here:
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/data/analysisdb/plants_withPlotCount_NC_SC_withWeakleyExpected.zip
Now it contains the vastly useful values of Alan's expectation of a
plant occurring in NC and SC values (blue columns), where 0 is not
expected in a state and 1 is expected. It also has values of 0.01
which I assume is uncertain to be present. Is that right, Alan?

The updated spreadsheet also contains columns to compare the plot
counts against expectation within each state. These are green columns
(blue + yellow = green). There are two interesting cases in these
columns: "not on plots, not expected" where we have no plots with
these taxa, but Alan expects them in the state. If the species in
this set are on expected on the coastal fringe, we probably want the
lacunist to try to hit areas with these species. There are some plots
in the entry tool that may have these species, but not be properly
linked to NC or SC.

The other interesting case is "on plots, not expected" showing taxa we
found but that Alan doesn't expect. The major cases here are listed
below:

taxa in 2+ plots in NC, but not expected (plot count in parentheses):
Asclepias incarnata var. incarnata (4)
Atriplex patula (3)
*Carex grisea (37)
Carex striata var. striata (7)
Crataegus margaretta (7)
Eupatorium petaloideum (2)
Lechea pulchella var. pulchella (2)
Liriope muscari (2)
Physalis viscosa (4)
Prunus nigra (2)
Rubus setosus (3)
Scutellaria ovata ssp. bracteata (2)
Solanum americanum (2)
Symphyotrichum divaricatum (15)

SC taxa on 2+ plot, but not expected:
Blephilia hirsuta (4)
Cardamine diphylla (17)
Carex glaucodea (5)
*Carex grisea (35)
Celtis occidentalis (5)
Dichanthelium caerulescens (2)
Dichanthelium oligosanthes var. scribnerianum (2)
Eupatorium anomalum (4)
Halesia tetraptera var. monticola (32)
Lemna minor (3)
Lilium canadense var. canadense (2)
Lindera benzoin var. benzoin (4)
Matelea caroliniensis (32)
Oclemena acuminata (4)
Polymnia canadensis (3)
Prunus pensylvanica (2)
Rubus allegheniensis (15)
Sisyrinchium xerophyllum (2)
Smilax ecirrata (2)
Solidago sphacelata (4)
Solidago uliginosa var. uliginosa (2)
Trillium flexipes (2)
Vaccinium hirsutum (2)
Veratrum woodii (2)
Viburnum rafinesquianum (2)

*Carex grisea is the only species to show up on both NC and SC lists.

The spreadsheet also shows 220 species that are in our database and
listed as Weakley taxa but that are not part of Alan's most recent
list he sent me. There are a lot of "species 1" type situations where
name changes may have occurred (e.g. Xyris species 1). These are
listed as "check" in the last column (out of date taxon?). There is a
key code number in the spreadsheet that may better track species
identify that I could embed in our database if it is more static than
species names.

It would not be too terribly challenging to create a species-centric
page that mirrors the community-centric pages showing a summary of
plots containing a particular species. (e.g.
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/data/comm/CEGL007100.xml) This would probably
only require a very good set of rules to fuzz the exact locations of
plots with T&E species. This would be very useful for this sort of
activity as you could embed links in a spreadsheet like this one to
give you 1-click access to species distributions in our database. So
someone could see the plot code for the species above in NC or SC that
aren't expected to assess its accuracy.

Original Bugzilla ID was 4423