Table Of Content

document Historic, archived Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. F7(eYU cy United States Managing Data from Department of Agriculture Remeasured Forest Service Plots: Intermountain Research Station An Evaluation of Research Paper INT-451 Systems Existing p February 1992 j PI X' ''to ,;id John C. Byrne lAL OJ - Michael D. Sweet in Or= : « CP CD CO 23 ; > > 23 -< r. PermanentPlot RemeasurementForm Installation 279 Plot 1 PermanentPlotRemeasurementForm Installation 278 Plot1 | PermanentPlotRemeasurement Form Installation 277 Plot 1 Tree Spp. DE»H HT CC 703 PP 8 1 64.3 1 704 DF 42 34.3 2 705 PP 1.9 20.6 4 706 PP 4.5 33.0 2 707 PP 4.6 35.0 2 708 PP 3.8 32.1 3 709 DF 3.0 29.1 3 710 PP 4.2 34.6 2 711 PP 3.3 29.2 3 712 PP 7.5 55.4 1 p=z 4 " LL3QQPPPW | ? 2 1 THE AUTHORS DBMS features, which respondents of the survey noted as desirable, are summarized. JOHN C. BYRNE is a research foresterwith the Inter- Information from this report can provide guidance mountain Research Station's Forestry Sciences Labora- to those wishing to improve their management of tory in Moscow, ID. remeasured plot data. MICHAEL D. SWEET is a research specialist with the Mission-Oriented Research Program, School of For- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS estry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Major support forthis study was provided by the U.S. RESEARCH SUMMARY Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Timber Man- agement Staff, based in Fort Collins, CO, through a Data from remeasured (or permanent) forest growth contract with the Inland Northwest Growth and Yield plots are a valuable resource to forestry organizations. (INGY) Cooperative. We are indebted to the Forest To fully utilize these data, systems for managing the Resources Systems Institute (FORS) for allowing us to data are necessary. In 1988, a survey of forestry orga- use their mailing list to obtain names and addresses of nizations was conducted to evaluate existing systems individuals and organizations. We are especially thank- for managing remeasured plot data. ful for all those persons who took the time to diligently For evaluation purposes, 12 desired features of a data fill out questionnaires and return them to us. Without base management system (DBMS) for remeasured plot their input this study would not have been possible. data are described, including: CONTENTS • import/export large amounts of data Page • edit data already in the data base • error-check data Introduction 1 • store large amounts of data Desirable System Features 1 • store remeasurement data Survey of Existing Systems 2 • safeguard the data and their integrity First Questionnaire 2 • provide for recording commonly measured plot and Second Questionnaire 2 tree characteristics Evaluation of Data Base Management Systems 2 • abilityto add new data fields System for Rating DBMS Criteria 2 • selective retrieval of data from the data base Criteria for Rating DBMS Features 2 • accessibility ofthe data base software at a System Ratings 5 reasonable cost Results and Discussion 9 • adequate documentation and help facilities Desirable Features 9 Additional Features 10 • analysis/reporting capabilities. Conclusions 10 Atotal of 36 systems were found. Each of these 36 References 10 dsmeyessnittreeemddsfbweyaetaruerseyrssa.tteeWdm,haesdnetsocfrehiaopttwuirocenlssowsoeefrtmehiesnysoitmnefgutleltylheiemmpe1lnet-s AAppMppaeennnddaiigxxemABe——ntQFuoSelslytosiwto-enumpnsaQifuroeerstR1ie:omDnaentaaaisruBer:aesDdeatPalotBsas..e..1 were given. This evaluation indicated that most of the Management Systems for Remeasured Plots ....15 systems had some positive characteristics, but none fully implemented all of the desired features. Additional Intermountain Research Station 324 25th Street Ogden, UT84401 Managing Data from Remeasured An Plots: Evaluation of Existing Systems John C. Byrne Michael D. Sweet INTRODUCTION experiences in managing datafrom remeasured plots within our own organizations and with cooperators. Remeasured (or permanent) forestgrowth plots are These features are briefly described below. usedfor avariety ofpurposes. By a remeasured plot we mean a plotwhere tagged trees are measured at 1. Import/export large amounts ofdata. The sys- successive time intervals for monitoringgrowth and tem must allow the input ofplot datafrom existing development. Many activities that are integral parts files (thatis, import). For exchange ofdata, the sys- offorestmanagement rely on data from such plots, tem must allow the exporting ofdata to a common includingthe development andvalidation offorest formatthat is acceptable to other computer systems. growth andyieldmodels, the documentation ofchanges 2. Edit data already in the data base. Datamay notbe complete or correct when entered into the data inforestinventory, andthe monitoringofforesthealth. A system for properly managingthe data from these base, so the changing ofexisting data or the addition ofmore data mustbe easily done. plots is essential to their eventual use. Remeasured plots are typically expensive to install 3. Error-check data. The quality ofdatais im- and maintain. Therefore, in recentyears, organizations proved if, before itis entered, it is checkedfor proper coding, reasonableness ofvalues, proper data types, havebeen formedfor sharingexistingremeasured plot data orfor combiningresources to install new plots. and the uniqueness ofvariables used as keys. One such organization, the Inland Northwest Growth 4. Store large amounts ofdata. Data accumulate andYield (INGY) Cooperative, consists ofa group of rapidly after several measurements ofa set ofplots, universities, Federal and State forestry agencies, and and the system shouldbe capable ofhandlingit. forest industries in the Northern Rocky Mountains. 5. Store remeasurement data. All measurements Amajor thrust ofINGYin recentyears has been the taken on a plot over time should be stored such that consolidation ofexistingplot data from member orga- successive measurements can be compared. nizations into a common database for use in growth 6. Safeguard the data and their integrity. Data and yield modelvalidation. Utilizing data from these are safeguarded by providingfor safe, long-term diverse sources has been cumbersome, time consum- backup, the control ofindividuals allowed to change ing, inconsistent, and very costly, because oftwo ma- data, and the documenting ofchanges made to the jorfactors: (1) the use ofdifferentformats and codes data base. by organizations to store information and (2) the lack 7. Providefor recordingcommonly measuredplot ofcapabilities within organizations to adequately and tree characteristics. Datafields should be pro- manage the data. We addressed the firstfactorby vided for recordingboth common plot-level measure- designing a data structure thatprovides a standard- ments (for example, sampling design, location, site ized formatfor the exchange ofremeasured plot data characteristics, etc.) as well as tree-level measure- (Sweet and Byrne 1990). The second factor, the man- ments (for example, tree number, species, diameter, agement ofdata, is the focus ofthis report. This pa- height, etc.) for more than one measurement. per reports on the results ofa 1988 survey oforgani- 8. Ability to add new datafields. Datarequire- zations thatmanage data from remeasured plots. In ments change over time, so the database should have order to evaluate these data base management sys- the flexibility to allow new data fields withoutmajor tems (DBMS), we defined a set ofdesirable system reprogramming ofthe software. features. 9. Selective retrieval ofdatafrom the data base. The ability to query the data base permits the user DESIRABLE SYSTEM FEATURES to retrieve data to address a specific question. 10. Accessibility ofthe data base software at a We defined 12 major features that a DBMS for reasonable cost. The database software shouldbe remeasured plot data shouldhave, based on our nonproprietary and reasonably priced and thus en- hance availability and use. 1 11. Adequate documentation andassistance. The Second Questionnaire DBMS, for ease ofuse, mustbe well documented and provide assistance for common userproblems. A second questionnaire (appendix B) was developed 12. Analysis!reportingcapabilities. Linkage to for those respondents ofthefirst questionnaire who analysis and reporting software enhances the useful- indicated the existence ofa system formanagingper- ness ofthe data. The abilityto calculate commonly manentplotdata. This second questionnaire was far used stand and plot-level attributes, such asbasal more detailed and addressed more specificallythe de- area or trees per acre, from the tree datais another sirable system features that were only touched upon important capability. Reports that show incremental in thefirst questionnaire. Ofthe 47 individuals who changes through time are especially useful. were mailed this second questionnaire, 36 returned completed questionnaires. The responses received SURVEY OF EXISTING SYSTEMS from the second questionnaire were then summarized in tabularform. Aratingprocedure was developed to First Questionnaire evaluate each system's capabilities in regard to the 12 DBMS desired features. Asurvey ofexisting systemsformanagingremeas- ured plotdatawas conductedusingtwo separate ques- EVALUATION OF DATA BASE tionnaires. Thefirstquestionnaire was sentto as large MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS an audience offorestrypeople as possible withthe purpose ofidentifyingexistingsystems andtheirfeatures. Criteriawere developedforevaluatingthe strengths The first questionnaire (appendixA) was designed and weaknesses ofeach ofthe 36 systems (those with to take only a short time to complete. Itconsisted responses from both the first and second question- mainly ofquestions needingonly ayes/no response naires). The evaluation wasbased strictly on answers A alongwith afew short written answers. coverlet- providedbythe organizationsrespondingto the ques- ter describingthe purpose ofthe survey was sent with tionnaires. No specific testshavebeen done tovalidate each questionnaire. Astamped, self-addressed enve- actual system components and theiradequacy. Never- lope was enclosed to encourage a response. theless, we believe that this evaluation provides the The first questionnaire asked ifa DBMS was used necessaryinformation to determine anygeneraltrends for remeasured plotdata. Ifthe answer was no, the amongthe systems asto attributesthat are adequately questionnaire was tobe returned withoutproceeding. (or inadequately) addressed. Ourintention in doing Otherwise, several questions were asked about the this evaluation was notto passjudgment, either posi- computerhardware and software in use. The next tive ornegative, on any ofthe systems for we realize few questions inquired about the amountofdata (in that organizations have limits on the resources they terms ofplots andtrees)presentlystored in the system. can expend to implement all ofthese desired features. The next section asked ifthe system could perform the majortaskspreviouslydescribed. Andfinally, the System for Rating DBMS Criteria respondent was askedto write down othercapabilities a DBMS for remeasured plots should include. For each ofthe desirable DBMS features described Several sourceswere usedin developingthe mailing previously, a simple ratingof+, 0, 0+, 0—, or-was listfor the first questionnaire. First, all member or- determinedforeach system,based onhowmanyofthe ganizations ofthe INGYCooperative were included. criteriafor thatfeature were met. Each ofthe DBMS Second, all Regions ofthe Forest Service were in- features had one to three criteria. Ifthere was one cluded, as were workingunits ofForest Service Re- criterion, a ratingof+ was given ifthe criterion was search Stations that dealt with growth andyield or met or —ifthe criterion was notmet. Ifthere were silviculture. Andfinally, members from the Forest two criteria, a rating of+ was given ifboth criteria Resources Systems Institute (FORS), an international were met, ifonly one ofthe criteria were met, or- nonprofit association that supports and promotes the ifneither ofthe criteria were met. Forthose features use ofcomputers in forestry, were contacted. In addi- with three criteria, a ratingof+ was given ifall three tion, othermembers ofthe forestry profession known criteria were met, 0+ iftwo ofthe three criteria were to have at least some interest in this field were in- met, 0-ifone ofthe three criteria were met, or-if cluded on the mailinglist. In total, more than 270 none ofcriteria were met. Table 1 presents a tabular organizations were contacted from both the United summary ofthe rating system. States and Canada. Questionnaires were sentout in December of1987, with requestsfor return by early Criteria for Rating DBMS Features A February 1988. total of133 responses were re- ceivedfrom this initial mailing. The criteria used in determiningthe ratingfor each DBMS feature and the questions usedfrom 2 — Table 1 Summary of rating system by numberof criteria 4. Store large amounts ofdata. Number of Numberofcriteria met •Criteria 1. Storage oflarge amounts ofdata is criteria All Only 2 Only 1 None not limited. Rating •No software categories checkedfor Q2-I11-A3. 1 + 5. Store remeasurement data. 2 + 3 + 0+ 0- •Criteria 1. Experience with storage of remeasurement type data. •Number ofmeasurements listed in Ql-7 is the questionnairesfor evaluatingthe criteria are de- greater than 1. scribed in the following section. The coding system •Criteria 2. Capable ofmergingremeasurement used to reference the questionnaires is as follows: data with existing data. Ql or Q2 for questionnaire 1 or 2; Roman numeral I, •"Yes" response to Ql-11. II, or III for the major part ofquestionnaire 2 where the question isfound (not applicable to questionnaire 6. Safeguard the data and their integrity. 1); the section number, ifapplicable, such asAorH; •Criteria 1. Capable ofsafe, long-term backup the specific question number, such as 3 or 4. For ex- ofdata. ample, Q2-III-H3 designates questionnaire 2, part III, section H, question 3. In developingthe criteria, for •"Yes" response to Ql-15. summary purposes, we used only those questions •Criteria 2. Capable ofsafeguardingthe integ- that addressed the major DBMS features. rity ofthe data. 1. Import/export large amounts ofdata. At least two ofthe three requirements below •Criteria 1. Capable ofimportinglarge amounts are met: ofdata. •"Yes" response to Q2-III-I4 (data base safely •"Yes" response to Ql-9. available to outside programs). •Criteria 2. Capable ofexportinglarge amounts •(a) Data entry into data base via transaction ofdata. file (Q2-III-G3), or (b) data entered directly into data base (Q2-III-G3) and a + ratingfor •"Yes" response to Q2-III-H7. error-checking data (feature 3 above). 2. Edit data already in the data base. •"Yes" response to Q2-III-G4 (designation of •Criteria 1. Capable ofediting data already in read-only users). the database. •Criteria 3. Capable ofautomatically recording •"Yes" response to Ql-10 (or anyresponse to changes made to the data base. Q2-III-C1). •Changes either automatically written to a 3. Error-check data. printer or automatically cataloged (Q2-III-F1). •Criteria 1. Capable ofcheckingfordataerrors. 7. Providefor recordingcommonly measuredplot Meet all ofthe followingrequirements: and tree characteristics. •"Yes" response to either Ql-12 or Ql-13 •Criteria 1. Capable ofhandlingthe datafrom (error-checking procedure available). many measurements on a plot. •"Yes" responses to at leastthree ofthe four •Number ofmeasurements listed in Q2-III-E1 types in Q2-III-D1 (types oferrors procedure is six or greater. checks for). •Criteria 2. Capable ofsufficiently describing •"Yes" response to at least one ofthe two sampling designs. Both ofthe requirements procedures in Q2-III-D3 (definition oferror below are met: limits). •For Q2-II-1 (samplinglevels), plot, subplot, •"Yes" response to Q2-III-D4 (use ofprevious and tree levels checkedand at least one of measurements). the followinglevels checked: stand, installation, study. •"Yes" response to Q2-III-D6 (unique tree numbers). •"No" response for Q2-II-2 (restricted descrip- tion ofsamplingdesigns)or ifa'Yes"response 3 DBMS •"No" response for Q2-II-2 (restricted descrip- •Criteria 2. does not use proprietary tion ofsamplingdesigns)orifa"Yes"re- software. sponse for Q2-II-2, then there ismore than •"No" response to Ql-3. one samplingdesign that can be described (Q2-II-3). 11. Adequate documentation and help facilities. •Criteria 3. Capable ofstoringcommonly •Criteria 1. Level ofcomputer expertise needed measured plot and tree characteristics. All to use the DBMS. requirements below are met: •"Novice" checkedfor Ql-21. •"Yes" response to Q2-II-4 (plotlocation). •Criteria2. Availablehelp facilities and support. •"Yes" responseto Q2-II-5 (site characteristics). •Both ofthe followingrequirements are met: •"Yes"responseto Q2-II-9 (stand disturbances). (1) "Yes" response to Ql-22 (user's manual), and (2) a"Yes"response to atleast one ofthe •"Yes" response to Q2-II-10 (measurement followingquestions: Q2-III-J2 (helpfacilities), dates). Q2-III-J3 (user-support services), Q2-III-J4 •"Yes" response to Q2-II-11 (individual tree (sample data setfor testing), Q2-III-J5 attributes). (tutorial). •"Yes" response to Ql-20 (comments). •Criteria3. File structures are documented. 8. Ability to add new datafields. •"Yes" response to Q2-III-A2. •Criteria 1. Capable ofaddingnew datafields. 12. Analysis/reporting capabilities. •"Yes" response to Ql-17. •Criteria 1. Capable ofcalculating stand and plot summary attributes. 9. Selective retrieval ofdatafrom the data base. •One ofthe followingtwo requirements are •Criteria 1. Capable ofretrieving data based on user-defined search criteria. met: (1) Stand and plot attributes are initially calculated (Q2-II-7) and "Yes" response to •"Yes" response to Ql-18. Q2-II-8 (automaticupdate when changesmade •Criteria 2. Capable ofusing stand or plot-level in data base), or (2) stand and plot attributes data fields as search criteria. are calculated upon request (Q2-II-8). •"Yes" response to Q2-III-H1. •Criteria 2. Available linkage with statistical software. •Criteria 3. Capable ofusingtree-level data fields as search criteria. •"Yes" response to Q2-III-K1 and a statistical software package is listed for Q2-III-K1. •"Yes" response to Q2-III-H3. •Criteria 3. Capable ofgeneratingreports, espe- 10. Accessibility ofthe data base software ata rea- ciallyfor incremental changes over time. sonable cost. •Both ofthe followingrequirements are met: DBMS •Criteria 1. Reasonable costfor the (1) "Yes" response to Q2-III-K5 (incremental software. change report), and (2) a "Yes" response to at •Cost listed in Q2-I-5 is $1,000 or less. leastone ofthefollowingquestions: Q2-III-K3 (standardizedreports),Q2-III-K4 (user-defined reports), Q2-III-K6 (database summaries). 4 System Ratings The ratingsfor each system reviewed are given in table 2. All organizations are given a numbered code for tabulation purposes. These numeric codes are refer- enced to the organization name in table 3. Some organizations requested anonymity in any publications based on the questionnaires. These organizations have been designated "Organization A," etc., to protect their identity. Whenever a 0, 0+, or 0-ratingis given in the table, a footnote describes the part ofthe criteria that the system did notmeet (see table 4 for the definitions ofthese footnotes). An * in the table indicates that the questionnaire response was insufficient to evaluate the system for that particular DBMS feature. 5 1 — Table 2 Evaluation of data base management systems for remeasured plots by organization number DBMS feature2 Large uiyo11 I11m1In^nWrltl] FCr1r1Unlr uaici zation export Edit check storage remeasured Safeguard No. 1 data(l) data (2) data (3) (4) data (5) data (6) 1 * + + + + 0? 2 + + + + + 3 + + + out f 4 + + + + + ot 5 + * + * . 6 + + + + ot b f 7 + + + + * a 8 + + + + ot 9 + + + + + ot 10 oa + + + owt f 11 obh + + 0^ 0"e,,f 12 + _ + + °da f 13 + + + owt f 14 + + + + + Of 1 15 + + + + 0, + c 16 obh + + 0^ o-e,f, 17 obh + + + + otf 18 + + + + + or, 19 + + + + + ot 20 + + + + + + 21 * + + °du °f 1 22 + + + + + ot f 23 + + + + + 24 + + + + ot f 25 + + + 0", e,f 26 + + + Oh ot d f 27 + + + + + e 28 + + + + ot 29 + + o ot rc 30 hb + + + 0,d * 31 + + * hb 32 + + - + + 33 + + + ot 34 + + + + + 35 + + + e 36 o + * ot b Note: +, -, and codes are described in thetext. See table 4fordefinitions of the subscripts associated with the codes. 1See table 3forthe name and location associated with each ofthe organization numbers. 2DBMS features are defined by number in the text. (con.) 6