  |
 |
 |
 |
Soils Home
About Us
Soil Survey
Soil Use
Soil Education
Photo Gallery
Technical References
Partnerships
Contact Us |
   |
|
|
Component Potential Ecosystem Conversion Guidelines and DiagnosticsOn February 6th, 2001, the ecological site diagnostics were updated to account for the following:
When data is extracted for diagnostic analysis, it is split into one of two groups:
Four different diagnostics are now generated. The first three have always been generated. The fourth is new.
The first three diagnostics are only generated for records in Group 1. The last diagnostic is generated for records in Group 1 and Group 2, combined. The new diagnostic was added because null ecosystem types and ID’s are going to be a problem during conversion. If ecosystem type, ecosystem ID and ecosystem name are all null, then there is no reason to attempt to convert such a record. However, if any of those three fields are not null, such a record will be converted in order to preserve all information that existed prior to conversion. The problem is what to do with null ecosystem types and ID’s. Records where either ecosystem type or ecosystem ID is null, will be converted into a new Other Vegetative Classification Type and Other Vegetative Classification ID. Ecosystem type converts to Other Vegetative Classification Type and ecosystem ID converts to Other Vegetative Classification ID. Both of these fields are required. When we encounter a null in either of these fields, for a record that needs to be converted, the conversion process will have to substitute something in place of the null. It may be advantageous to clean up the null data in the Component Potential Ecosystem table prior to conversion, rather than having to clean up a bunch of new Other Vegetative Classification Types and Other Vegetative Classification ID’s subsequent to conversion. A cleanup after conversion may require extensive relinking between components and Other Vegetative Classification records. OverviewTo accommodate the introduction of Ecological Site Descriptions, as detailed in the new National Range and Pasture Handbook and the National Forestry Manual, personnel at the National Soil Survey Center are in the process of changing the way we model and record ecological site data in NASIS. The current NASIS model of an Ecosystem ID and Ecosystem Name, identified as one of five possible ecosystem types (Grazable Forest, Hayland, Native Pasture, Pasture, and Rangeland) does not accommodate the new Ecological Site Description format and does not accurately reflect other vegetative classification systems in current use by several states. To address these issues, the NASIS data model will be updated to accommodate these new requirements. A new Component Ecological Site table will be used to record data relative to NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. A new Component Other Vegetative Classification table will be used to record data relative to vegetative classification systems other than NRCS Ecological Sites. These two new tables will replace the existing Component Potential Ecosystem table. To accommodate the move to these two new tables, the existing data in the current Component Potential Ecosystem table will be transferred to these two new tables, where appropriate. Eventually, a NASIS conversion will need to be done to reflect these changes. Prior to that conversion, a number of issues with the existing data in the Component Potential Ecosystem table will need to be addressed. Some ecological site data that currently exists in the your NASIS Component Potential Ecosystem table will have to be edited prior to this conversion. To assist you in this effort, we have provided a number of diagnostic reports that identify potential problems in your existing data. We have provided these diagnostics as reports in an MS Access 97 database. We would have preferred to provide these diagnostics as NASIS reports. Unfortunately, these reports, which are fairly complicated, would not complete in a reasonable time as NASIS reports. Therefore, we have developed diagnostic reports in MS Access 97 that will run against a download of your NASIS data. These diagnostic databases obviously represent a snapshot in time. Each database will need to be refreshed after a certain amount of editing has taken place. When you have done some editing and want to have your diagnostic database refreshed, please contact one of the people listed at the bottom of this page. To download your diagnostic database, click on the appropriate data set at the bottom of this page. After downloading the diagnostic database for your MLRA office, open the database in MS Access 97. To run a diagnostic report, select the report tab, select a particular report and then hit the “Preview” button at the top right of the database window. Diagnostic Report DescriptionsComponents with More Than One Ecological SiteThis diagnostic reports all map unit components that are associated with more than one record in the Component Potential Ecosystem table, but only for Component Potential Ecosystem records where ecosystem type is either “Rangeland”, “Forestland” or “Grazable Forest”. All components described at the series level (series, taxadjunct, variant) should be associated with one and only one NRCS Ecological Site. Components described at the family level, or at some level of soil taxonomy above the family level, may be associated with more than one NRCS Ecological Site. Notice that this report includes a column that indicates the level at which a component was mapped (component_kind). Improperly Formatted Ecological Site ID’sThis diagnostic reports all records in the Component Potential Ecosystem table where ecosystem type is either “Rangeland”, “Forestland” or “Grazable Forest”, and one or more of the four components of the ecological site ID is invalid. All valid ecosystem ID’s are composed of the following four parts: a 4 character MLRA Code, a 1 character LRU Code, a 3 digit integer number and a 2 character state FIPS alpha code. (Full NRCS ecological site codes are composed of five parts. See the National Range and Pasture Handbook or the National Forestry Manual for a complete description of Ecological Site ID’s.) Most of the problems identified by this report appear to be disagreements as to whether or not a particular MLRA designation is considered “official”. Ecological Sites with Inconsistent Names - SummaryThis diagnostic reports all records in the Component Potential Ecosystem table where ecosystem type is either “Rangeland”, “Forestland” or “Grazable Forest”, where the same ecological site ID is associated with more than one different name. In other words, for a particular ecosystem type and ecological site ID combination, the corresponding name is not consistent. For each ecological site ID in this report, the tally of the number of occurrences of each different name is shown, as well as all of the soil survey areas in which that ecological site ID is referenced. Ecological Sites with Inconsistent Names - DetailsThis report is similar to the previous report, with the exception that every map unit that references a particular ecological site ID is shown. In general, this is probably more information than you need to resolve an inconsistent name, but some situations may require this level of detail in order to assess the problem. Other Vegetative System DataThis diagnostic reports all records in the Component Potential Ecosystem table where ecosystem type is not “Rangeland” and is not “Forestland”. Most of these records are candidates for inclusion in the new Component Other Vegetative Classification table. Records in this report where ecosystem type is “Grazable Forest” that also have a valid NRCS ecological site ID, will be translated to “Forestland” ecological sites in the new Component Ecological Site table. Also keep in mind that Component Potential Ecosystem records where ecosystem type is either “Rangeland” or “Forestland”, will be written to the new Component Other Vegetative Classification table when they do not meet certain criteria. Please see the detailed conversion logic below for more on this. Conversion RulesAs far as these rules are concerned, a valid ecosystem ID* is any ID in the form mmmmldddss where
*Full NRCS ecological site ID’s, as opposed to ecosystem ID’s in the Component Potential Ecosystem table, are composed of five parts. See the National Range and Pasture Handbook or the National Forestry Manual for a complete description of Ecological Site ID’s. Prior to conversion, new ecosystem type codes will be added to the existing ecosystem type domain. A user may edit data in the Component Potential Ecosystem table prior to conversion, and assign a record any of these new codes. Some of the new codes are likely to be:
The conversion rules are as follows: All Component Potential Ecosystem records where ecosystem type is “Rangeland”, ecosystem ID is a valid NRCS ecological site ID, and the name associated with that ecosystem ID is consistent**, will be converted into a new Ecological Site table record, as a NRCS range ecosystem site, and a reference to this new record will be recorded in the new Component Ecological Site table. All Component Potential Ecosystem records where ecosystem type is either “Forestland” or “Grazable Forest”, ecosystem ID is a valid NRCS ecological site ID, and the name assoicated with that ecosystem ID is consistent**, will be converted into a new Ecological Site table record, as an NRCS forest ecosystem site, and a reference to this new record will be recorded in the new Component Ecological Site table. Any Component Potential Ecosystem record that fails to meet either of the two preceding criteria will be converted, as is, into a an entry in the Other Vegetative Classification Type and Other Vegetative Classification tables, and a reference to this new record will be recorded in the Component Other Vegetative Classification table. **If we are still not centralized when we ultimately perform this conversion, ecological site names only need to be consistent within the context of the local MO database. If we are centralized when we ultimately perform this conversion, ecological site names will need to be consistent across the entire scope of the centralized NASIS database. Editing RecommendationsThe proposed conversion logic is designed to preserve all records that currently exist in the Component Potential Ecosystem table at the time of conversion, regardless of whether or not any editing has taken place. Records that meet certain criteria will be converted into records in the new Component Ecological Site table. Records that do not meet certain criteria will be converted into records in the new Component Other Vegetative Classification table. This is, however, an opportunity to clean up some of the problems that exist in the current Component Potential Ecosystem table. If the existing problems are not addressed prior to this conversion, they will have to be addressed later. If you are hot to get your data cleaned up prior to this conversion, what should you do? Any record in the Component Potential Ecosystem table that represents either an NRCS range or forest ecological site needs to have an ecosystem type of either “Rangeland”, “Forestland” or “Grazable Forest”, a valid ecosystem ID and a consistent ecosystem name. Use the report titled “Improperly Formatted Ecological Site ID’s” to address problems with invalid ecosystem ID’s. Use the reports titled “Ecological Sites with Inconsistent Names - Summary” and “Ecological Sites with Inconsistent Names - Details” to address problems with inconsistent names. Keep in mind that ALL records for an ecosystem ID with an inconsistent name will be converted into Component Other Vegetative Classification records and have to be cleaned up later. If you have records in the Component Potential Ecosystem table that do not represent an NRCS ecological site, and those records represent an important vegetative classification that you wish to maintain, make sure that you forward the name of what these records represent (Forest Habitat Type, Other Habitat Type, etc.) to one of the two contacts listed at the bottom of this page. That name will then be added to the existing ecosystem type domain, and you can then edit those records to reflect their proper vegetative classification. Use the report titled “Other Vegetative System Data” to see the list of candidate Component Potential Ecosystem records that may be destined for the new Component Other Vegetative Classification table. What about map unit components associated with more than one ecological site? As long as the criteria for becoming an NRCS ecological site is met, all such records will be converted into the new Component Ecological Site table. An NRCS business rule states that any component mapped at the series level (series, taxadjunct, variant) should be associated with one and only one NRCS ecological site. You can either reduce such components to one and only one associated ecological site prior to or after conversion. Use the report titled “Components with More Than One Ecological Site” to examine such components. Notice that this report includes a column that indicates the level at which a component was mapped (component_kind). Whenever you want an update of your diagnostic database to see what problems might still exist, please contact either of the two people listed at the bottom of this page. Proposed Other Vegetative Classification Related TablesMike Hansen has proposed that we establish an Other Vegetative Classification lookup table, similar to how the new Ecological Site lookup table will work, with the exception that this table would be editable by a NASIS user. The advantage of this would be in consistency of other vegetative classification references. Upon further reflection, we have speculated that there may be an advantage into separating such a table in Other Vegetative Classification Type and Other Vegetative Classification, similar to how Area Type and Area work together. The new Other Vegetative Classification Type table would contain the following columns: Other Vegetative Classification Type Name - A text field which records the name of a particular vegetative classification system. All of the ecosystem type codes from the existing Component Potential Ecosystem table will be converted to Other Vegetative Classification Type Names in this table, in order to accommodate data that currently resides in the Component Potential Ecosystem table. New Other Vegetative Classification Type Names would probably include “Forest Habitat Type” and “Other Habitat Type”. Please let us know what other categories that might be required for such a table. Other Vegetative Classification Type Reference - A text field for recording the origin or source document describing a particular vegetative classification system. The new Other Vegetative Classification table would contain the following columns: Other Vegetative Classification ID - A text field to record an ID that, in combination with either Other Vegetative Classification Type or Other Vegetative Classification Type and Other Vegetative Classification Reference, uniquely*** identifies a member of a particular vegetative classification system. Other Vegetative Classification Name - The name of a particular vegetative classification. ***In the initial implementation of the Other Vegetative Classification Type and Other Vegetative Classification tables, we may not be able to enforce any business oriented uniqueness constraints because existing data may violate such a proposed constraint. We felt that it was not feasible to require the that existing Component Potential Ecosystem table be completely cleaned up prior to this conversion. The database structure resulting from the proposals presented on this page are shown below. Diagnostic Report DatabasesAlabama MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics
Alaska MLRA
Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 5.6 MB)
Arizona MLRA
Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 7.9 MB)
Arkansas
MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 5.7 MB)
California
MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 7.3 MB)
Colorado
MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 8.3 MB) Indiana MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics
Kansas MLRA
Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 14.7 MB)
Massachusettes MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 5.5 MB)
Minnesota
MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 7.1 MB)
Montana MLRA
Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 14.3 MB)
Nevada MLRA
Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 12.2 MB) North Carolina MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics
North Dakota
MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 18.5 MB)
Oregon MLRA
Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 9.5 MB)
Texas MLRA
Office Ecological Site Diagnostics (ZIP; 4 MB) West Virginia MLRA Office Ecological Site Diagnostics ContactsIf you have any questions about these diagnostics, or anything else presented here, please contact: Curtis Talbot |
|
|
|
Back to Top