A DATA SET is a series of observations collected by the same methodology. Each data set should have documentation sufficient for someone unfamiliar with the research to replicate the study. Data sets may be broken into subsets (data files) that are discrete in space and time, in that order. The documentation for a data set should include all spatial and temporal subdivisions of the data.

(Data, Abstract, Methods, Variables)

NOTES:

• Add rows to tables or lines to paraghaphs as you need them for entering your data.
• Contact emelendez@lternet.edu, if you have any question.

PERSON(S) COMPLETING THIS FORM: E-MAIL ADDRESS:

DATA SET IDENTIFIER: Phenologies for the Tabonuco Forest trees and shrubs
 
PROJECT TITLE: Phenology

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Flowering phenology was added to LUQ site monitoring program after the occurrence of Hurricane Hugo in 1989, which provided an immediate test of the monitoring prgram developed under the initial proposal. Seasonal rhythms of flowering and fruiting are an important component of the community dynamics of tropical forest and can be a critical determinant of the dynamics of consumer populations.

LTER CORE AREAS: (Annotate all that apply)

populations

primary productivity

organic mattter

LEF LTER 1 RESEARCH TOPIC: (Annotate all that apply)

environmental monitoring

biodiversity

We define a data file as a component of a data set. A data set can have only one data file or more. Basically, different data files have different data structures or format.
DATA SET FILES (SUBSETS):

Data File No.	Data File Identifier	On-Line Filename	Starting Date	Periodicity of sample	End Period
1	Phenology for the Tabonuco Forest at El Verde Field Station along trails in the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP) of data collected from .50 m2 baskets	Lfdp2-ElVerdePhenology.txt	August 24, 2006	bi-weekly	December 22, 2010
2	Phenology for the Tabonuco Forest at El Verde Field Station along trails in the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP) of data collected from .16 m2 baskets.	Lfdp1-ElVerdePhenology.txt	April 1, 1992	weekly / bi-weekly	August 9, 2007
3	Phenology for the Tabonuco Forest in the Bisley Experimental Watersheds	Lfdp1-BisleyPhenology.txt	July 7, 1992	weekly	June 28, 1994

RESEARCH LOCATION: Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP) at El Verde Station past the Sonadora River. The Southwest corner of the FDP is 54394.1 N and 217503.6 E in the Puerto Rican Planar coordinate system.

INVESTIGATORS:

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS E-MAIL address

Jess Zimmerman

jzimmerman@lternet.edu

OTHER RESEARCHERS E-MAIL address

Chris Nytch

chris.nytch@ites.upr.edu

CONTACT PERSONS E-MAIL address Phone Number (Include area code)

Jess Zimmerman	jzimmerman@lternet.edu	(787)764-0000 Ext.2864
Christopher Nytch	chris.nytch@ites.upr.edu	(787)764-0000 Ext.6740

SOURCE OF FUNDING (SPONSOR): NSF

DATA SET ABSTRACT:These data are being used to, among other things, (1) determine the seasonality of flowering and fruiting in Tabonuco forest and test hypotheses concerning the causation of seasonality (or lack thereof), (2) test the effect of annual variation in rainfall and other climatic variables on seed and fruit production of individual species, and (3) compare the relative dispersal of species on the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot by applying information on the spatial distribution of canopy trees to the data on seed and fruit fall. These data also serve as background information on the flowering and fruiting of individual species.

DATA SET METHODS: Seasonal rhythms of flowering and fruiting are an important component of the community dynamics of tropical forest and can be a critical determinant of the dynamics of consumer populations.
At El Verde Field Station we placed numbered baskets, 0.16 m2 in area, along trails in the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (baskets 1-120) and Bisley (baskets 121-180) to measure flower and seed rain.  We sampled the weekly production of fern and angiosperm flowers and fruits between July 1, 1992 and June 29, 1994.  Data collection was terminated at Bisley at the end of the period, but sampling continues on a biweekly basis in the LFDP.  Each reproductive part collected from Bisley and the LFDP was counted and identified to species (in the dataset using a six letter code; see Variables description) and type (identified using a number code; see Variables description).

In 2006 we increased the size of the LFDP traps used to monitor phenology from 0.16 m2 to 0.5 m2 to have our methods conform to those used in similar projects in central Panama, Amazonian Ecuador, and Malaysia.  To calibrate the two different trap sizes, between August 24, 2006 and August 9, 2007 flower and seed/fruit fall was monitored in the two sets of traps placed alongside one another.  On August 9, 2007 the small traps (LFDP1) were eliminated from the LFDP and data have been collected using the large traps (LFDP2) thereafter.  The LFDP2 collection is ongoing and will be continually updated with more recent data as it becomes available.

The Bisley, LFDP1 and LFDP2 data have been separated into 3 distinct files for publication on the LUQ LTER web site.
Additional notes about the Bisley, LFDP1 and LFDP2 datasets:

• The numbers of fruiting bodies per species per basket were counted per sampling date for all angiosperms and ferns.
• Only presence/absence of flowers was recorded per angiosperm species per basket per sampling date (i.e., the number is not counted)
• Exception: Flowers were counted for LFDP1 from 4 April 1992 through 5 May 1993.  These counts were removed from the “Lfdp1-ElVerdePhenology.txt” data file, so as to provide internal consistency, but the data have been stored in another file which can be accessed by contacting the LFDP Research Manager (chris.nytch@ites.upr.edu).
• Unknown species have been removed from dataset.
• Regularity of phenology collections varied between 1992 and 2007 for the following reasons:
• We sampled the weekly production of flowers, fruits, and fern sori between July 1, 1992 and June 29, 1994, and subsequently on a biweekly basis up through August 9, 2007.
• Phenology was not collected after Hurricane George (1998) until the beginning of January 1999.
• From 2005-2007 there were occasional sampling weeks that were missed, due to the absence of Jess Zimmerman (who was on leave at NSF), and a focus on another research project at El Verde Field Station that drew personnel resources away from the phenology collection.

REFERENCES:
Brown, S., A. E. Lugo, S. Silander, and L. Liegel. 1983. Research history and opportunities in
            the Luquillo Experimental Forest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SO-
            44, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
 
Condit, R. 1998. Tropical Forest census Plots. Springer, Berlin
 
Soil Survey Staff. 1995. Order 1 Soil Survey of the Luquillo Long-Term Ecological Research
            Grid, Puerto Rico. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
            Conservation Service, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
 
Zimmerman, J. K., E. M. Everham, III, R. B. Waide, D. J. Lodge, C. M. Taylor, and N. V. L.
            Brokaw. 1994. Responses of tree species to hurricane winds in subtropical wet forest in
            Puerto Rico: Implications for tropical tree life histories. Journal of Ecology 82:911-922.
 
Zimmerman, J.K., L.S. Comita, J. Thompson, M. Uriarte, and N. Brokaw. 2010. Patch dynamics
           and community metastability of a subtropical forest: compound effects of natural
           disturbance and human land use. Landscape Ecology 25:1099–1111.
 
Zimmerman, J.K., J. Thompson, and N. Brokaw. 2008. Large tropical forest dynamics plots:
           Testing explanations for the maintenance of species diversity. Pages 98-117 in Carson, W.
           and S. Schnitzer, editors, Tropical Forest Community Ecology. Blackwell Publications,
           Blackwell, Oxford.

CROSS-REFERENCES (other data sets related to this one): LTERDB47: Physical environment of the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP), Puerto Rico; LTERDB57: Tree damage by Hurricane Hugo at the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP), Puerto Rico; LTERDB60: Tree Map for Census at the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP), Puerto Rico; LTERDB62: Canopy height profile starting 1992, 1994 and 1996 of the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP), Puerto Rico; LTERDB118: Species names and codes of the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP), Puerto Rico; LTERDB119: Census of species, diameter and location at the Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP), Puerto Rico; LTERDB129: Temperature and humidity in the LFDP (40 points);

SAMPLE LOCATION: N/A

STORAGE SITES: Data Manager's File Cabinet DM-002, Drawer #1; Computer files at ITES; paper and computer files at El Verde Field Station
INVESTIGATOR'S ASSIGNED KEYWORDS: phenology, tropical forest, Luquillo, Puerto Rico, Caribbean, trees, shrubs, seasonality, flowers, fruits, seeds, dispersal

LEF LTER OFFICIAL KEYWORDS (See table): BISLEY WATERSHEDS, LFDP (EV Big Grid), TABONUCO, LITTER FALL, HIGHER PLANTS, PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL

PUBLICATIONS:
Zimmerman, J. K., S. J. Wright, O. Calderon, M. Aponte Pagan, and S. Paton.  2007. Flowering
            and fruiting phenologies of seasonal and aseasonal neotropical forests: the role of annual
            changes in irradiance. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23:231–251.

DISSEMINATION: UNRESTRICTED

REASONS TO RESTRICT DATA IN THIS DATA SET BEYOND ITS TWO YEAR POLICY PERIOD*:

*WILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY LTER PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: N. BROKAW, A. LUGO

SITES DESCRIPTIONS: Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot site: North of El Verde Field Station past the Sonadora River. The outwest corner of the grid is 54394.1 N and 217503.6 E in the Puerto Rican Planar coordinate system.

Bisley Watersheds: A series of adjacent drainages in the northeast section of the Luquillo Mountains, situated in the northeastern corner of Puerto Rico

Geographical positional system (GPS) Coordinates for each location:

location	latitude	longitude
Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP)	18° 19' 26" N	65° 49' 3" W
Bisley Watersheds	18° 18' N	65° 50' W

VARIABLES (ATTRIBUTES):

FILE NAME OR #ABOVE (all in which the variable appears)	all	all	all	all	all	all
ABBREVIATION (as it appears on the data file)	DATE	BASKET	SPECIES	CODE	NUMBER	COMMENTS
NAME OF VARIABLE	Date of phenology collection	Phenology collection basket	Species code	Flowering or fruiting code	Number of flowering and fruiting individuals	Comments
DEFINITION OF VARIABLE	Date of collection  of phenology sample	Number that identifies phenology collection basket	Six letter species code (First 3 from Genus and last 3 from the species)	Type of flowering or fruiting part per species	Numerical count of each type of flowering and fruiting part per species	Notes (English and Spanish) about Date, basket, species, code, or number variables, or lack thereof
UNIT	Month/day/ year	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
PRECISION	mm/dd/yyyy	NA	6 letters	NA	NA	NA
RANGE OR LIST OF VALUES	Bisley = 07/07/1992 to 06/28/1994   LFDP1  = 04/01/1992 to 08/09/2007   LFDP2 = 08/24/2006 to 1/19/2011 (ongoing)	Bisley = 121-180   LFDP1 & LFDP2= 1-120	The species list can be downloaded at http://luq.lternet.edu/data/treecode.html	0 = empty basket 1 = flower 2= aborted fruit 3 = immature fruit 4 = mature fruit 5 = seed 6 = pedicel of fruit		NA
DATA TYPE	Date	Integer	Alphabetic	Integer	Integer	Alphabetic
MISSING DATA CODES	None	None	Blank – see additional notes	Blank – see additional notes	Blank – see additional notes	None

OBSERVATIONS (ADDITIONAL DATA VARIABLE NOTES):

1. Regarding the CODE variable:
   1. CODE=0 only signifies that a basket was empty.  An accompanying comment typically provides additional explanation.
   2. CODE=blank is associated with baskets that were missing or fell over, or had a tree fall on top and cover or break it completely (not just partially covered by a tree or a partial tear in the screen).
   3. CODE=blank can also indicate that a sample was lost, or for some reason was not collected, as explained in the accompanying
   4. COMMENTS column (e.g., “no se pudo recoger,” “no hay datos,” “falta,” “no hay canasta,” “no apareció la bolsa”.
2. Regarding the SPECIES variable:
   1. Values of SPECIES include several six-letter codes that represent identification to levels above species.  Examples include “FICSPP” and PIPSPP for the genera Ficus and Piper, respectively, and ORCSPP for the family Orchidaceae.  A key to these codes is included in the species file that can be downloaded at http://luq.lternet.edu/data/treecode.html
   2. SPECIES=blank is associated with baskets that were empty (i.e., CODE=0), or baskets that were missing or fell over, or samples that were lost or for some reason not collected (i.e., CODE=blank).
3. Regarding the NUMBER variable:
   1. NUMBER=blank most commonly is associated with flower parts (i.e., CODE=1), because only presence/absence of flowers is recorded; they are not counted.
   2. In rare instances NUMBER=blank is associated with CODE values > 1 (i.e., fruit or seed).  In these cases the number of individuals was not recorded for some reason, and a note indicating this is included in the
4. COMMENTS column.
   1. For most records, the NUMBER value is simply tallied by counting individuals of a particular fruit or seed category.  However, there are some species that receive special treatment:
      1. When Cecropia shreberiana (CECSCH) seeds are very abundant (more than 100) they are very difficult to count.  In this case the total quantity of CECSCH seeds is weighed and the weight is converted to number of seeds (using an average weight of 0.0007g per seed).
      2. Marcgravia rectiflora (MARREC) seeds are visually estimated because they are tiny and very difficult to count or weigh. To do this a small selection of the seeds are grouped and counted individually (e.g., a group of 100) and the rest of the MARREC seeds are then are organized into similar-sized groupings and the total number is estimated based on the number in the first group.
      3. Fruits of Ficus trigonata (FICTRI) brake very easily when they are mature.  To determine the total number of mature fruits that are present in the sample, the sepals are separated and counted instead of the actual fruit, because this is typically the only part of the fruit that remains as a unit.  For FICTRI seeds, which are very small and typically abundant, the number is estimated in the same manner as is done for MARREC.
      4. In all other cases when seeds, fruits, aborting fruits, or immature fruits are very abundant and difficult to count, the NUMBER value must be determined by either counting and weighing as it was explained for CECSHC, or visually estimating  them as described for MARREC and FICTRI.
   2. Regarding the COMMENTS variable:
      1. Notes are written in English and Spanish providing additional explanation regarding the data (or lack thereof) recorded in one of the other variables columns.
      2. Baskets with CODE=0 are accompanied by a comment indicating that the basket was empty.   
      3. For records with blank NUMBER values there is typically a comment indicating that the number was not estimated
      4. Dozens of additional comments are included as well, not following any specific protocol, but generally indicating one or more of the following:
         1. Abundance, usually the number of flowers or ferns spores or leaves, but can be associated with any code value.
         2. NUMBER values that are approximations
         3. Weights of seeds, or something to indicate that seeds were weighed to obtain the number value
         4. Sex of flowers
         5. Descriptive characteristics about the reproductive state or color of flower or fruit used to help in identification
         6. Descriptions about fern leaves or spores
         7. Common names or scientific species names, including guesses about the correct species, and guesses that may not be correct
            
         8. Doubt as to accuracy of identification, usually by means of a question mark
                                                          ix.      The relative state/size of a canopy gap overhead (e.g. S-M GAP)
            
         9. Indications as to whether or not a sample was kept for identification purposes
            
         10. Comparisons of the sample in one basket to another from the same collection date
             
         11. Details about the state of basket (if broken or fallen over, if a tree fallen on top, or if basket moved)
             
         12. Instructions for the subsequent collection date regarding what to do with the basket (e.g., replace, move, fix screen)
             
         13. Growth habit of plant
             
         14. Data management comment

DATE OF LAST REVIEW: December 12, 2011
DATE OF LAST ENTRY: December 23, 2009
STAGE OF DATA SET MANAGEMENT (dates):
RECEIVED 15 Feb 1997
ENTERED: FILED 18 March 1997
ON-LINE 18 March 1997, Mar 1, 2001
REVIEWED BY RESEARCHER 18 March 1997
FILING MEDIA:
NAME OF DOCUMENTATION FILE: lterdb88.htm
NAME OF DATA FILE: Lfdp{1,2}-{ElVerde,Bisley}Phenology.txt
NAME OF ON - LINE CATALOG : LTERDBAS
RECORD #: 88
DOCUMENT TYPE: data entry sheet
PRIORITY TO BE ENTERED: first