InfoVeg: Issueshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/https://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/ecoinfo/favicon.ico?14691340362011-04-29T16:00:04ZEcoinformatics Redmine
Redmine Bug #5388 (New): Migrate CF projects to Archive DBhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53882011-04-29T16:00:04ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>CF projects need to be QC'd and migrated.</p> Bug #5387 (New): Update CF classification based on numerical (distance) analysishttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53872011-04-29T15:58:52ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>Our classification was analyzed in an attempt to find outliers and possible candidate replacement communities, as described in Bug 4378.</p>
<p>The results need to be checked by hand (Forbes, RKP, Tom, and John Benning).</p>
<p>Once their decisions are complete, the classification in the archive DB needs to updated.</p> Bug #5386 (New): Identify maritime fringe unknown specimenshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53862011-04-29T15:54:31ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>There are 5-10 projects with unknown specimens left to ID and triage. These will be needed in Fall 2011 CF analysis.</p> Bug #5385 (New): Project 58 (Syngenta)https://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53852011-04-29T15:46:35ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>Part 1: split plots into a) field, b) field-edge, and c) woods (DONE)<br />Part 2: arrange field and field edge module-corners to reflect Level 5<br />Part 3: deal with Woody Stems.</p> Bug #5384 (New): Collections spreadsheets verificationhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53842011-04-29T15:40:29ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>We want to be able to browse for a collection spreadsheet and determine what percentage of the updated specimens are integrated into the Analysis DB.</p> Bug #5383 (New): Updating GUIDs for taxon observationshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53832011-04-29T15:38:56ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>This will allow better annotation and updating of our taxa, says MLee. Will also help upgrade to Weakley 2010.</p> Bug #5382 (New): Incorporate Wiser's Classification into the Archive DBhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53822011-04-29T15:35:00ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>Mike, Mike, Forbes, Alan, Milo & Tom,</p>
<p>Ah, plot 14-89. I fear we may be looking at the tip of the proverbial iceberg. At the risk of alienating just about everyone, I think I shall describe this as I see it, as we do need to confront these issues some time. What I do here we will adopt for the CVS website, but we can always change it that proves important. There are two intertwined issues here: the NVC/NCNH types recognized and the assignment of plots to NVC types. In short, given the scientific rigor and published status of Wiser’s work, why are we not accepting either her community types or her assignment of plots to community types?</p>
<p>To start with the context of the email that got this going , Wiser classified 14-89 as "Calamagrostis cainii-Rhododendron carolinianum outcrop community" along with 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, & 86. All are from Mt. Le Conte, except 89 from Charlie’s Bunion on the Swain/Sevier line. On the NatureServe site this type is synonymized with 7278 = Saxifraga michauxii - Carex misera - Calamagrostis cainii Herbaceous Vegetation, a Le Conte endemic with probably one occurrence on the NC line (if we trust Wiser, which I do). Forbes assigned most of the above plots to 7279 (except 83=7877 and 89=3948), whereas I think they should all be assigned to 7278 as per Wiser’s earlier decision.</p>
<p>Looking more broadly at Wiser's plots (see attached spreadsheet), there is remarkably little correspondence between Wiser's types and where they are currently assigned. I worry about this as Wiser put considerable effort into her work, it is published in a mainline journal (JVS 7:703-722), and no one has in any systematic fashion challenged it. By this logic, Susan's work has priority and we should all accept it until someone demonstrates in a public way why this would not be desirable.....see attached doc</p> Bug #5159 (New): auto filter for sensitive specieshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/51592010-08-21T21:36:13ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Today (Sept 3, 2009), Alan and I [Michael] had a productive conversation about how and for<br />which species we should fuzz plot locations. I described our current<br />approach, which rounds plot locations to the nearest 0.01 degree for<br />Lat and Long to approximate a 1km fuzzing, 0.1 degree for 10km fuzzing<br />and 1 degree for 100km fuzzing. Alan asked a great question as to<br />what radius this resulted in. It yields the centroid of a 0.01, 0.1,<br />or 1 degree box, which amounts to a DIAMETER of a little less than the<br />1km, 10km, and 100km.</p>
<p>I ran a quick algorithm for all plots in our database and found that<br />if we say we are fuzzing 100 km (1 degree), the average distance from<br />those points to our plots is 34.7km. If we are trying for 10km (0.1<br />deg), we get 3.7km. If we try to 1km (0.01 deg), we get 380m. We<br />would expect a smaller number than what we are aiming for, but clearly<br />these are a bit low.</p>
<p>So we probably should either round to the nearest 0.02, 0.2, and 2<br />degree boxes, or actually write an algorithm that will pick a point at<br />random within the specified radius. I don't think that should be too<br />hard.</p>
<p>Next, and the key item, Alan said that he didn't think all rare<br />species should be fuzzed. There are plenty that have no economical<br />value, are not of interest to poachers, and are difficult to get to in<br />any case. He said that the key ones to block are Panax, some orchids,<br />some lillies, carniverous species except Utricularia. I'm probably<br />missing some. Also we need to fuzz locations for all bogs plots given<br />the possible existence of bog turtles there, though those don't turn<br />up in our data. I have fuzzed all of Brenda's bog plots in project 73<br />already in the community summary pages. Alan said he could come up<br />with a list of species for us without taking too much effort, as well<br />as an appropriate fuzzing. He expressed a desire to fuzz more than<br />10km but less than 100km, which we might want to consider, as well.</p> Bug #5105 (In Progress): have x- specimens maphttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/51052010-07-28T17:36:55ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>example X-UNCC, X-WNC, etc.</p>
<p>reported by Carol Ann</p> Bug #4427 (New): Need taxonomic standardization rules when importing new datahttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/44272009-09-30T17:35:46ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>There are many rules which need to be incorporated to update taxonomy based on plot location. For example, <br />Juncus effusus > Juncus effusus ssp. solutus</p>
<p>There is a list of rules in<br />CVS_Taxonomy\CVS-Convert-Rules5.xlsx</p>
<p>but it is not complete.</p>
<p>First, rules need to be generated and/or finished. Then the migration tool needs to apply updates as it adds data to the archive, or the viewer could update archive plots so that as rules change, the rules can be reapplied. This is perhaps better.</p> Bug #4423 (New): Check Taxon occurrences where otherwise not know from statehttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/44232009-09-29T15:28:12ZRobert Peetpeet@unc.edu
<p>Look at spreadsheet ...CVS\CVS_Occurrences\SpeciesToCheck.xlsx<br />which contains a page each for SC and NC. All these occurrences need to be checked and where needed corrected.</p> Bug #2970 (New): LA Atlashttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/29702007-09-23T23:57:20ZRobert Peetpeet@unc.edu
<p>The LA atlas data have been delivered for possible inclusion. However, it is not obvious how to handle these data. We need to work out which concepts to attach to each identification, and we need to decide whether to handle these as specimen data or as publication data. Alan needs to suggest a plan of action before we proceed. Meanwhile, the data are stored on bioark.</p> Bug #2749 (New): Soil errors in legacy data: Mg truncatedhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/27492007-01-26T19:34:00ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Email from Bob 1/25/2007:</p>
<p>Elizabeth Marx discovered that soils for plot 20-7-340-8 have mg ppm as 2,<br />which is inconsistent with the nature of the soils, to say nothing of the<br />high percent bases associated with mg. I checked old files and this seems<br />to have been there all along. Puzzled, I found the old printouts and<br />discovered that throughout, the data contain only the rightmost 3 digits<br />for Mg. A fourth digit is rare but does sometimes occur. In Elizabeth's<br />case the value had been 2002 and just 002.</p>
<p>It should be possible to back calculate based on base saturation % to<br />identify which records contain this left truncation error. I have no idea<br />how many projects this is a problem for, so once we have the test, we<br />should run it on all soils data in CVS.</p>
<p>Would you all please work this out for me.</p> Bug #2715 (New): Clean up relationship mapping to remove ?shttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/27152007-01-08T00:35:20ZRobert Peetpeet@unc.edu
<p>Currently the relationship table has <br /> 555 ? relationships<br /> 128 <= relationships<br />1044 >= relationships.</p>
<p>We need to work through the inference rules, fix those we can fix, and pass on to Alan the relationship problems that stem from his flora.</p> Bug #2679 (New): Port static NCSU records into SPECIFYhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/26792006-11-25T15:21:22ZRobert Peetpeet@unc.edu
<p>Migrate the static NCSU collection records into SPECIFY. This may require consultation with the SPECIFY staff at KU, and coordination with NCSU.</p>