Category:Trees Working Group - Revision history

Jeg at 22:03, 25 April 2017

2017-04-25T22:03:26Z

Khider: /* Scope */ poll warning

2017-04-25T20:18:58Z

‎Scope: poll warning

Acsank: /* Stable isotopes */

2016-11-03T21:41:35Z

‎Stable isotopes

Acsank: /* Recommendations for legacy datasets */

2016-11-03T21:38:34Z

‎Recommendations for legacy datasets

Acsank: /* Stable isotopes */

2016-11-03T21:33:09Z

‎Stable isotopes

Acsank: /* Measurement variables */

2016-11-03T21:32:00Z

‎Measurement variables

Acsank: /* Stable isotopes */

2016-11-03T21:14:18Z

‎Stable isotopes

Acsank: /* Stable isotopes */

2016-11-03T21:09:22Z

‎Stable isotopes

Petebrew: /* Recommendations of legacy datasets */

2016-10-18T23:35:51Z

‎Recommendations of legacy datasets

Petebrew: Taxonomic information

2016-10-18T17:37:49Z

Taxonomic information

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Tree rings are used by many different researchers, for many different reasons.  The LinkedEarth community is well rooted in the paleoclimate community and while the ontology and data standard has great potential for use outside this community, we need to decide how to address the overlap in our discussions.  Should be concentrate on the needs of the paleoclimate community exclusively to begin with, and intend to go back and revise at a later date?  Or should we attempt to accommodate all potential users of tree-ring data from day 1?
-The discussion within this group can build upon the work done by the Tree Ring Data Standard (TRiDaS) consortium <ref>Jansma, E., Brewer, P. W. & Zandhuis, I. (2010) TRiDaS 1.1: The tree ring data standard. Dendrochronologia 28, 99-130. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2009.06.009 DOI]</ref>.  While the contributors were weighted towards dendroarchaeologists, the standard was intended to be universal for all uses of tree-ring data.  The requirements laid out be the TRiDaS contributors are therefore going to largely be relevant to discussions here.
+The discussion within this group can build upon the work done by the Tree Ring Data Standard (TRiDaS) consortium <ref>Jansma, E., Brewer, P. W. & Zandhuis, I. (2010) TRiDaS 1.1: The tree ring data standard. Dendrochronologia 28, 99-130. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2009.06.009 DOI]</ref>.  While the contributors were weighted towards dendroarchaeologists, the standard was intended to be universal for all uses of tree-ring data.  The requirements laid out by the TRiDaS contributors are therefore going to largely be relevant to discussions here.
 '''Note''': Do not edit the polls (even for typos) once voting has started as it will reset the vote counts to zero. If a change needs to be made, make an annotation above the old poll (i.e., above the poll tags) and place the new poll below the first one.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 The discussion within this group can build upon the work done by the Tree Ring Data Standard (TRiDaS) consortium <ref>Jansma, E., Brewer, P. W. & Zandhuis, I. (2010) TRiDaS 1.1: The tree ring data standard. Dendrochronologia 28, 99-130. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2009.06.009 DOI]</ref>.  While the contributors were weighted towards dendroarchaeologists, the standard was intended to be universal for all uses of tree-ring data.  The requirements laid out be the TRiDaS contributors are therefore going to largely be relevant to discussions here.
 <poll>
@@ Line 32: / Line 33: @@
 Handle the needs of as many communities as possible
 </poll>
 == Sensors ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 3 November 2016
Line 81:		Line 81:

	With tree-ring isotopes workers recognized that in addition to the information provided with a ring width dataset there is a need to provide several extra pieces of information as metadata . In addition the usual information on site name, investigator, publication information, genus/species, latitude/longitude, etc. the information that was deemed important to include with any tree-ring isotope submission is listed below.		With tree-ring isotopes workers recognized that in addition to the information provided with a ring width dataset there is a need to provide several extra pieces of information as metadata . In addition the usual information on site name, investigator, publication information, genus/species, latitude/longitude, etc. the information that was deemed important to include with any tree-ring isotope submission is listed below.
−

	* Whether or not a chronology was established		* Whether or not a chronology was established

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 # Location
 # Location type
 ==References==
 <references \>

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 3 November 2016
Line 80:		Line 80:
	Some recommendations were made for an 'International Tree Ring Isotope Databank' ITRIDB by Csank<ref>Csank, A.Z. (2009) An International Tree-Ring Isotope Data Bank– A Proposed Repository for Tree-Ring Isotopic Data. Tree-Ring Research 65(2):163-164. [http://dx.doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-65.2.163 DOI]</ref>		Some recommendations were made for an 'International Tree Ring Isotope Databank' ITRIDB by Csank<ref>Csank, A.Z. (2009) An International Tree-Ring Isotope Data Bank– A Proposed Repository for Tree-Ring Isotopic Data. Tree-Ring Research 65(2):163-164. [http://dx.doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-65.2.163 DOI]</ref>

−	With tree-ring isotopes workers recognized that in addition to the information provided with a ring width dataset there is a need to provide several extra pieces of information as metadata . In addition the usual information on site name, investigator, publication information, genus/species, latitude/longitude, ~~'''see above'''~~ the information that was deemed important to include with any tree-ring isotope submission is listed below.	+	With tree-ring isotopes workers recognized that in addition to the information provided with a ring width dataset there is a need to provide several extra pieces of information as metadata . In addition the usual information on site name, investigator, publication information, genus/species, latitude/longitude, etc. the information that was deemed important to include with any tree-ring isotope submission is listed below.

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 * Vessel size
 * Blue intensity (density proxy)
 === Event information ===

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 With tree-ring isotopes workers recognized that in addition to the information provided with a ring width dataset there is a need to provide several extra pieces of information as metadata . In addition the usual information on site name, investigator, publication information, genus/species, latitude/longitude, '''see above''' the information that was deemed important to include with any tree-ring isotope submission is listed below.
--If there is no chronology (or it is floating in the case of sub fossil material) how was age established.
+* Whether or not a chronology was established
--If it is tropical tree data how was the age model established and what are the uncertainties associated with that age model.
+* If there is no chronology (or it is floating in the case of sub fossil material) how was age established.
--Were samples pooled (either single year/single tree) or are samples single ring/single tree measurements that have been averaged
+* If it is tropical tree data how was the age model established and what are the uncertainties associated with that age model.
--What portion of the ring was analyzed (e.g. was it whole ring, earlywood, latewood middle ring)
+* Were samples pooled (either single year/single tree) or are samples single ring/single tree measurements that have been averaged
--Were were samples pre-treated by conversion to alpha cellulose, holo cellulose or in the case of <sup>2</sup>H nitrated cellulose or was unprocessed wood analyzed
+* What portion of the ring was analyzed (e.g. was it whole ring, earlywood, latewood middle ring)
--If pre-treated, what method of pre-treatment was used (e.g. Leavitt and Danzer, 1993; Loader et al. 1997;  Brendel et al. 2000; modified Brendel (Anchukaitis et al. 2008); Rinne et 2005; Li et al. 2011; Weiloch et al. 2011; Kagawa et al. 2015)
+* Were were samples pre-treated by conversion to alpha cellulose, holo cellulose or in the case of <sup>2</sup>H nitrated cellulose or was unprocessed wood analyzed
--What was the analysis date
+* If pre-treated, what method of pre-treatment was used (e.g. Leavitt and Danzer, 1993; Loader et al. 1997;  Brendel et al. 2000; modified Brendel (Anchukaitis et al. 2008); Rinne et 2005; Li et al. 2011; Weiloch et al. 2011; Kagawa et al. 2015)
--Which isotope(s) was(were) measured (e.g. <sup>2</sup>H, <sup>13</sup>C, <sup>18</sup>O, <sup>15</sup>N, <sup>34</sup>S)
+* What was the analysis date
--analytical precision for each isotope analyzed
+* Which isotope(s) was(were) measured (e.g. <sup>2</sup>H, <sup>13</sup>C, <sup>18</sup>O, <sup>15</sup>N, <sup>34</sup>S)
--If ẟ<sup>13</sup>C data is presented was it corrected for the Suess effect or not and if so which correction was used (e.g. McCarrol et al. 2009) (''one suggestion is that only uncorrected data should be presented and users can correct their own data as is done for <sup>14</sup>C data'')
+* Analytical precision for each isotope analyzed
--Which stable isotope laboratory performed the analyses.
+* If ẟ<sup>13</sup>C data is presented was it corrected for the Suess effect or not and if so which correction was used (e.g. McCarrol et al. 2009) (''one suggestion is that only uncorrected data should be presented and users can correct their own data as is done for <sup>14</sup>C data'')
 == Location information ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 3 November 2016
Line 78:		Line 78:

	Some recommendations were made for an 'International Tree Ring Isotope Databank' ITRIDB by Csank<ref>Csank, A.Z. (2009) An International Tree-Ring Isotope Data Bank– A Proposed Repository for Tree-Ring Isotopic Data. Tree-Ring Research 65(2):163-164. [http://dx.doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-65.2.163 DOI]</ref>		Some recommendations were made for an 'International Tree Ring Isotope Databank' ITRIDB by Csank<ref>Csank, A.Z. (2009) An International Tree-Ring Isotope Data Bank– A Proposed Repository for Tree-Ring Isotopic Data. Tree-Ring Research 65(2):163-164. [http://dx.doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-65.2.163 DOI]</ref>
		+
		+	With tree-ring isotopes workers recognized that in addition to the information provided with a ring width dataset there is a need to provide several extra pieces of information as metadata . In addition the usual information on site name, investigator, publication information, genus/species, latitude/longitude, '''see above''' the information that was deemed important to include with any tree-ring isotope submission is listed below.
		+
		+	-Whether or not a chronology was established
		+
		+	-If there is no chronology (or it is floating in the case of sub fossil material) how was age established.
		+
		+	-If it is tropical tree data how was the age model established and what are the uncertainties associated with that age model.
		+
		+	-Were samples pooled (either single year/single tree) or are samples single ring/single tree measurements that have been averaged
		+
		+	-What portion of the ring was analyzed (e.g. was it whole ring, earlywood, latewood middle ring)
		+
		+	-Were were samples pre-treated by conversion to alpha cellulose, holo cellulose or in the case of <sup>2</sup>H nitrated cellulose or was unprocessed wood analyzed
		+
		+	-If pre-treated, what method of pre-treatment was used (e.g. Leavitt and Danzer, 1993; Loader et al. 1997; Brendel et al. 2000; modified Brendel (Anchukaitis et al. 2008); Rinne et 2005; Li et al. 2011; Weiloch et al. 2011; Kagawa et al. 2015)
		+
		+	-What was the analysis date
		+
		+	-Which isotope(s) was(were) measured (e.g. <sup>2</sup>H, <sup>13</sup>C, <sup>18</sup>O, <sup>15</sup>N, <sup>34</sup>S)
		+
		+	-analytical precision for each isotope analyzed
		+
		+	-If ẟ<sup>13</sup>C data is presented was it corrected for the Suess effect or not and if so which correction was used (e.g. McCarrol et al. 2009) (''one suggestion is that only uncorrected data should be presented and users can correct their own data as is done for <sup>14</sup>C data'')
		+
		+	-Which stable isotope laboratory performed the analyses.

	== Location information ==		== Location information ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 18 October 2016
Line 99:		Line 99:


−	== Recommendations of legacy datasets ==	+	== Recommendations for legacy datasets ==
	The task of standardizing and upgrading legacy datasets cannot be underestimated. Recommendations for how to handle datasets will likely vary depending on the context. For instance, if a dataset owner wants to upgrade their own legacy data they should have access to the vast majority of data/metadata. Given the time/money they should be able to upgrade to a similar quality as new datasets. In contrast, upgrading the existing NOAA/ITRDB holdings of others will be far more challenging as the majority of datasets are missing key information or key information is stored ambiguously. For orphaned datasets it's very likely that a substantial amount of information is already lost with no hope of recovery.		The task of standardizing and upgrading legacy datasets cannot be underestimated. Recommendations for how to handle datasets will likely vary depending on the context. For instance, if a dataset owner wants to upgrade their own legacy data they should have access to the vast majority of data/metadata. Given the time/money they should be able to upgrade to a similar quality as new datasets. In contrast, upgrading the existing NOAA/ITRDB holdings of others will be far more challenging as the majority of datasets are missing key information or key information is stored ambiguously. For orphaned datasets it's very likely that a substantial amount of information is already lost with no hope of recovery.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 18 October 2016
Line 86:		Line 86:

	Further complications arise when handling tree-ring data collected from non-living trees. Sample from snags can be reasonably expected to be at least close to where the tree grew, but archaeological and other cultural samples can be found miles from their initial growth location. Very long range transport/trade of wood has taken place for millenia. Some studies have successfully determined the provenance of transported/traded samples through dendrochronological analyses and/or isotopic work. In these cases it would be good to also be able to store this sort of information. Regardless though, the type of location must be clearly stored with all locality data.		Further complications arise when handling tree-ring data collected from non-living trees. Sample from snags can be reasonably expected to be at least close to where the tree grew, but archaeological and other cultural samples can be found miles from their initial growth location. Very long range transport/trade of wood has taken place for millenia. Some studies have successfully determined the provenance of transported/traded samples through dendrochronological analyses and/or isotopic work. In these cases it would be good to also be able to store this sort of information. Regardless though, the type of location must be clearly stored with all locality data.
		+
		+
		+	== Taxonomic information ==
		+
		+	Taxonomic information is clearly essential for tree ring (and other biological proxies). The current most comprehensive database of authoritative taxonomic information is the [http://catalogueoflife.org Catalogue of Life]. As of 2016 it contains over 1.6m species from 158 contributing databases covering plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms. This is an estimated 84% of all known species. From the perspective of LinkedEarth, unfortunately this data is not currently available as linked data, although the organization does have plans to provide linked data as part of future funding applications (P. Schalk pers. comm. Nov 2015).
		+

	== Recommendations for new datasets ==		== Recommendations for new datasets ==