"Aggrading" versus "mature" and inconsistent disturbance ages

[teixeirak]

@bpbond (and @ValentineHerr),

Here's a running list of questions/ bugs encountered in the SRDB data during import to ForC

• ForC issue #180
• Record_n 6616 should be aggrading, not mature.
• there are a large number of sites labeled "mature" in SRDB but with stand.age<100 (ranging down to 0). This may be reasonable in some cases, but definitely not all.
• there are four sites labeled "aggrading" in SRDB but with stand.age≥100 (this may be reasonable).

[bpbond]

6616

😕 Record numbers don't go this high currently–can you check?

there are a large number of sites labeled "mature" in SRDB but with stand.age<100 (ranging down to 0)

Wow, there are a lot. Note that "mature" here just means "not immediately aggrading post-disturbance", not mature in a forestry or ecosystem sense; it's meant to be a broad categorization only.

Given the number of records involved, I'm going to open a repo issue–this will need some time to explore. haha never mind, we already are in srdb.

[teixeirak]

6616: site = R-SF (not sure where I got the 6616).

[bpbond]

No no you were absolutely right. Bah. Need ☕️ , sorry.

[teixeirak]

Perhaps we should drop the "mature" designation in the ForC import? In ForC, the current convention is that "mature" would indicate stands ≥100 years, and that stands described as "mature" in publications could be coded as "999" (always grouped with old stands in analyses).

[bpbond]

Yes, agreed.

[teixeirak]

@ValentineHerr, I think we missed this one. Please drop "mature" designation from plot names.