Add a Comment

Comment by Alessandro Gimona on November 28, 2016 at 15:50

Dear all,

I have just joined in order to contribute to an investigation in a niche-related study (niche shift of trees) , with Roberto Canullo and one of his PhD students.

Could you please remind me of the procedure to request access to Level 1  data

Comment by Canullo Roberto on March 30, 2016 at 18:50

FROM ICP Forsts Manual part I 2010

The use of the data must always be acknowledged in peer reviewed (scientific journals) or not peer reviewed (reports) publications,as follows:

“The evaluation was based on data that are part of the UNECE ICP Forests PCC Collaborative Database (see www.icp-forests.org). In particular, data from Country1 (responsible institution1), Country2 (responsible institution2), Country3 (responsible institution3), …. were part of the analyses.
Data collection was co-financed by the European Commission under ….(the administrator will indicate the specific projects or regulations if appropriate).”

Comment by Canullo Roberto on November 12, 2014 at 19:49

Let me remind the Acknowledgement RULES for ICP Forests datasets

“The evaluation was based on data that are part of the UNECE ICP Forests PCC Collaborative Database (see www.icp-forests.org). In particular, data from Country1 (responsible institution1), Country2 (responsible institution2), Country3 (responsible institution3), …. were part of the analyses.

Data collection was co-financed by the European Commission under ….(the administrator will indicate the specific projects or regulations if appropriate).”

Comment by Canullo Roberto on November 12, 2014 at 19:43

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP

 

Please, update the state-of-the-art in your "private" working Group.

Then, ask for the related implementation of the pdf table14UPDATEDtopicsIntEvalLIBDEberswalde_1.pdf

bye, RC 

Comment by Canullo Roberto on June 12, 2014 at 13:06

thanks for specification, and best compliments.

Comment by Uwe Klinck on June 10, 2014 at 8:00

Dear all,

I soon will use the option of parental leave (19.06. until the end of August 2014). Beside this, my current project only allows me to participate at a low level (e. g. proofreading, preparing and providing "own" data).

Best regards

Uwe

Comment by Canullo Roberto on June 5, 2014 at 19:41

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP

Please, explore the content in the pdf document.

Find the evaluation project on which you have expressed the willing to contribute, and contact the Responsible to join the private corresponding group (or by direct contact if this is not established).

Eventually update the informations (e.g. present status) or make contributions by using comment function.

If you are one of the Responsible persons, you are expected to build up your "private" discussion group (when editing, choose the option "Group information only (private)" under Privacy Settings) to start the within-partners exchanges and set up the work.

Have a good work!

RC

Comment by Canullo Roberto on June 3, 2014 at 17:46

First answers through the text

1) Is it possible to assign an unique species code from the code list to every species? If not, the species name might be written wrong and/or possibly wasn’t addressed due to Flora Europaea. In some cases even the corresponding species code might be missing (-> update the code list) or there’s more then just one species code available (like for Brachypodium pinnatum, Quercus petraea, Teucrium scorodonia, Veronica hederifolia or others -> it has to be decided, which species code is the right one). Checks routines refers to coded FE list (both for LII and LI cases) presently approved. Updating continuous process follows rules included in the GV manual: few cases are now under processing. Double codes for a single binomial are not accepted: the cases mentioned (and some other cases) have been separated by distinguishing "sensu stricto" and "group" following the standard approach aimed to maintain the same taxonomical rank in terms of geographical sound nomenclature at-the-species-level.
2) If there’s just a list of species without information about in which layer(s) these species occur, every species has to be unique. The other way around the species have to be unique per layer (exception: some countries - like Germany - distinguish between first and second tree layer). Adequate checks discover duplications.
3) If there are ground coverage values, check their levels. Are they greater than zero, 100 % at most and plausible at all? Checks already implemented.
4) If there is information about in which layer(s) the species occur, is the layer assigned the right way (mosses only within the moss layer, tree and shrub layer can only contain woody, climbing or epiphytic species)? We set checks for mosses and lichens, as they have codes >300 for Genus. Other features are not included in the reference species table (coded FE), thus cannot be checked (still is a matter of the users); I think it is possible to integrate functional groups, traits, etc. within further projects.... hopefully. And this could be used as an enriched reference.... Thanks
5) If there is information about in which layer(s) the species occur and what their ground coverage values (layer, species) are, then:
- if there is only one species within a layer, the layer’s and species ground coverage values have to be the same (exception: some countries - like Germany - distinguish between first and second tree layer), Not included as a bit complicate to realize, I guess. nevertheless it's something to keep in mind ....
- the layer’s ground coverage value has to be the highest single species ground coverage value within this layer at least, as above
- the species ground coverage values sum per layer has to be the layer’s ground coverage value at least. Already included as warning.

Comment by Uwe Klinck on June 2, 2014 at 10:58

Dear Roberto,

in Eberswalde I promised you to write down some of my validity checks for level II ground vegetation data. We discussed about wether they are also suitable for similar level I data. Although the checks are very simple, I always wonder how many inconsistences they still reveal:

1) Is it possible to assign an unique species code from the code list to every species? If not, the species name might be written wrong and/or possibly wasn’t addressed due to Flora Europaea. In some cases even the corresponding species code might be missing (-> update the code list) or there’s more then just one species code available (like for Brachypodium pinnatum, Quercus petraea, Teucrium scorodonia, Veronica hederifolia or others -> it has to be decided, which species code is the right one).

2) If there’s just a list of species without information about in which layer(s) these species occur, every species has to be unique. The other way around the species have to be unique per layer (exception: some countries - like Germany - distinguish between first and second tree layer).

3) If there are ground coverage values, check their levels. Are they greater than zero, 100 % at most and plausible at all?

4) If there is information about in which layer(s) the species occur, is the layer assigned the right way (mosses only within the moss layer, tree and shrub layer can only contain woody, climbing or epiphytic species)?

5) If there is information about in which layer(s) the species occur and what their ground coverage values (layer, species) are, then:

- if there is only one species within a layer, the layer’s and species ground coverage values have to be the same (exception: some countries - like Germany - distinguish between first and second tree layer),

- the layer’s ground coverage value has to be the highest single species ground coverage value within this layer at least,

- the species ground coverage values sum per layer has to be the layer’s ground coverage value at least.

I hope, this can be a kind of impluse for level I ground vegetation data validation.

Best regards

Uwe