039id:knb-lter-hfr.127.9knb-lter-hfr.127.9knb-lter-hfr.127.9eml://ecoinformatics.org/eml-2.1.0METADATA171851c516f30ba194bbf7ab434dedd295f7cauid=HFR,o=LTER,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=orgMD5uid=HFR,o=LTER,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=orgfalseknb-lter-hfr.127.8knb-lter-hfr.127.102009-04-29T23:00:00Z2009-04-29T23:00:00Z2013-12-09T17:57:12.596Zurn:node:LTERurn:node:LTERurn:node:CNurn:node:LTER2017-02-25T11:50:52.743Z2017-10-04T13:27:45.427Zpublicuid=HFR,o=lter,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=orguid=HFR,o=lter,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=orguid=HFR,o=lter,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=orgtruehttps://cn.dataone.org/cn/v2/resolve/knb-lter-hfr.127.9Forest harvesting is one of the most significant disturbances affecting forest plant composition and structure in Western Massachusetts, yet few studies have quantified the effects of harvesting in this region. Massachusetts requires all commercial harvest operations above 87 m3 to file a Forest Cutting Plan (FCP) with the state. We have digitized these FCPs (see McDonald et al. 2006), covering all harvests from 1984 to 2003. Our study area is Massachusetts west of the coastal basin, as defined by Motts and O’Brian (1981). We selected 126 sites for sampling. Two-thirds of the sites (89) were harvested once between 1984 and 2003, and these were selected randomly from the larger FCP database. The remaining one-third of the sites (37) were control sites selected randomly from all unharvested forest in the study area. The boundaries for our field surveys were those filed with the FCP for harvested sites, and were circular for control sites, proportional in size to the mean FCP in the physiographic region (Motts and O'Brien 1981): Connecticut River Valley (10.7 ha), Central Upland (11.3 ha), Berkshire Valley and Taconic Mountains (12.6 ha), and the Western Upland (15.9 ha). Note that our sampled sites were well-dispersed over the study area, and encompassed the variety of past agricultural land-use.geographic information systemsmanagementregiontimber harvestvegetation dynamicsdisturbanceHarvard ForestHFRLTERUSATimber Harvesting Field Study in Western Massachusetts 2004-200541.742.8-73.5-71.1Western Massachusetts2004-06-01T00:00:00Z2005-09-15T00:00:00Z2009-01-01T00:00:00Z2009-01-01T00:00:00ZDavid KittredgeDavidKittredgeKittredgeKittredgeFosterMcDonaldKittredgeFosterMcDonaldDavid KittredgeDavid FosterRobert McDonaldFILE_IDObserversDateStandTypeSearchTimeNumbObserversMoosePercentPolyHarvestCommentsRecFILE_IDLANDUSEXutmYutmELEVATIONREGIONSURFICIALTCIPRECIPGDDFOREST1830BEDROCKFILE_IDFIS_YEARDATE_RECTOWN_1TOWN_2ACRES_REPVOLU_MBFVOLU_CDSVOL_OTHOWN_TYPEPUBLIC_WETLND_CRFORTYPE1PRIMOBJ1TYPEREG1FORTYPE2PRIMOBJ2TYPEREG2FORTYPE3PRIMOBJ3TYPEREG3FORTYPE4PRIMOBJ4TYPEREG4SpeciesUnitVolumeTOT_MBFTOT_CDSTOT_TONTOT_CCFAPPROVEDN_POLYSNOTES_FILE_IDAREA_HAFIS_YEARACRES_REPSpeciesVolumeESTIMATED_TOT_M3BEST_M3SpeciesIntesityESTIMATED_.1TOT_HABEST_HAFILE_IDSpeciesPresenceRecFILE_IDPQ_NUMASPECTPOSITIONROCKSLOPESLOPEUNITRecPolyIDPtQuartnumbSizeClassTreespsDBHDistRecPoly IDPt quart numbSpeciesOriginSapl numbRecPoly IDPt Quart numbspeciesSeedl numbRecPolyIDPtqtnumbstump spsDiameterRecFILE_IDPQ_NUMSpeciesPresenceFILE_IDUtmZoneUTM-NUTM-EAspectElevationCanopy1Canopy2Canopy3Canopy4LandPostPerRockslopeslopeunitcommentsFILE_IDTIPUPFIREOLDFIELDWALLSSTONESAPNEW_AAP_DEPTHA_DEPTHEHORIZONDISTINCTORGDEP1ORGDEP2ORGDEP3ORGDEP4ORGDEP5NOTESPolyIDSpeciesDBHdeadcloneIDRecPolyIDSpeciesSaplNumRecPolyIDSpeciesSeedNumRecfile_IDGenusSpeciesCoverSample .Scientific NameRecfile_IDGenusSpeciesCoverSample .Scientific NameRecPolyIDSpeciesDiametera unique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredthe crew that worked on the polygonthe date at which the polygon was sampledthe dominant stand-type, as determined from field recon. (Deciduous, Mixed, or Evergreen)the amount of time spent searching the polygon for exoticsthe number of people searching the polygon for invasivesnotes on whether there is evidence of moose from the polygon, like scat and bent saplingsthe percent of the polygon that has stumps in it. Often much less than a 100%.any comments the observers made about the polygonunique identifier of the recordunique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredlanduse. A soil pit was dug to 50cm depth, and we examined the soil probe for evidence of a plow layer. Using this information, as well as other evidence of land-use such as the presence of stone walls, barbed wire, old field white pines, and chestnut sprouts (present only in sites that were forested before the 1910s chestnut blight), we classified the site into one of three categories of local land-use: woodlot, if the site has remained forested; pasture, if the site was used as rough, unimproved pasture, and plowed, if there was clear evidence the soil had been disturbed. We checked this classification with land-use data from the 1830s (Hall et al. 2002) and from the 1930s maps of the Works Progress Administration, where available. (Woodlot, Pasture, Plowed)the easting of the UTM coordinatesthe Northing of the UTM coordinateselevationthe physiographic region in which the polygon was located, based on Motts' physiographic regions (degree). Central Upland, CRV, Western Upland, Berkshire Valley/Taconic Mountains.the surficial geology type (till, sand, or alluvial)the calculated topographic convergence index, derived from a DEMestimated annual precipitation. Contact Brian Hall for info.estimated growing degree days. Contact Brian Hall for info. (degree-days)whether the site was forested or not in 1830. Some sites have no data. Derived from 1830 land-use maps.the bedrock-type of the polygon, as derived from MassGIS data layers. (Either Granitic, Mafic, Calcareous)unique ID code assigned by the state to the cutyear the cut was reported. Note that landowners had two years to cut the site, and need not do so. Estimated ~5% of the time an FCP is not executed.date a cut was recordedprincipal town of the cutsecondary town of the cut, used when the cut crossed town boundariesreported number of acres of the plan. Inaccurate, use GIS-calculate hectares.total reported timber removed in thousand board feettotal reported firewood removed in cordstotal reported wood taken for other purposes. Units often unclear.ownership type. The coding here is from the state.whether the land is publicwetland presence or absencethe primary type of forestthe goal of the cut in type 1the type of regeneration that is the goal for type 1. Multiple forest types, objectives, and regenerative cuts were sometimes listed for each stand (i.e. WPINSW).the secondary type of forest. See codes above.the goal of the cut in type 2. See codes above.the type of regeneration that is the goal for type 2. Multiple forest types, objectives, and regenerative cuts were sometimes listed for each stand (i.e. WPINSW). See codes above.the tertiary type of forest. See codes above.the goal of the cut in type 3. See codes above.the type of regeneration that is the goal for type 3. Multiple forest types, objectives, and regenerative cuts were sometimes listed for each stand (i.e. WPINSW). See codes above.the quartiary type of forest. See codes above.the goal of the cut in type 4. See codes above.the type of regeneration that is the goal for type 4. Multiple forest types, objectives, and regenerative cuts were sometimes listed for each stand (i.e. WPINSW). See codes above.species code, each species is abbreviated by 6-8 lettersunits the volumn is measured inspecies-specific volume (various units)sum of the MBF measurements. Sometimes, the landowner did the math wrong.sum of the cords measurements. Sometimes, the landowner did the math wrong.sum of the tons measurements. Sometimes, the landowner did the math wrong.sum of the Cubic cord feet measurements. Sometimes, the landowner did the math wrong.sometimes explictly coded as "y" for yes, but all these plans were approvednumber of polygons in the FCPnotesunique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredarea in hectares as defined by the GIS boundariesyear the cut was reported. Note that landowners had two years to cut the site, and need not do so. Estimated ~5% of the time an FCP is not executed.acres the landowner reported. Often wrong.species code for species-specific volumes, each species is abbreviated by 6-8 letters and M3 to denote units usedspecie- specific volumesum of the landowners itemized removalslandowners stated total removalbest guess of what was removed based on the above. See HF080 Methods.species code for species-specific intensity, each species is abbreviated by 6-8 letters and HA to denote units usedspecies-specific intensitysum of the landowners itemized removalslandowners stated total removalbest guess of the intensity of harvesting based on the above. See HF080 Methods.unique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredinvasive species, abbreviated by the first three letters of the genus and speciespresence of invasive speciesunique identifier for the recordunique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursthe identifying number of the record within the polygon. Most polygons have ten total.the aspect of the slope on which the record occursthe landscape position of the record (Upslope, midslope, or downslope)the percent rock within an 11.3 m radius of the sample pointthe slope of the record. See next attribute for units used.the units the slope was recorded with (percent or degree)unique identifier for the recordunique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursidentifying number of the record within the polygon. Most polygons have ten total.whether in the understory (5-20cm DBH) and the overstory (20cm DBH +)species of the recorddiameter of the stemdistance to the stem from the pointunique identifier for the recordunique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursidentifying number of the record within the polygon. Most polygons have ten total.species of the recordwhether the sapling seems to have come from seedling or from sproutingnumber of saplings associated with the recordunique identifier for the recordunique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursidentifying number of the record within the polygon. Most polygons have ten total.species of the recordnumber of seedlings associated with the recordunique identifier for the recordunique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursnumber of the record within the polygonspecies of the recorddiameter of the stump at ground levelunique identifier of the recordunique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurrednumber of the record within the polygoninvasive species code, abbreviated by the first three letters of the genus and speciespresence of invasive speciesunique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredzone in which UTM coordinates were recordedthe Northing of the UTM coordinatesthe Easting of the UTM coordinatesthe aspect of the slope with zero being northelevationpercent canopy closure, facing one edge of the plotpercent canopy closure, facing one edge of the plotpercent canopy closure, facing one edge of the plotpercent canopy closure, facing one edge of the plotthe landscape position of the plot (upslope, midslope, or downslope)percent surface rock in the plotslope of the plot, see next attribute for units usedunits used to record the slope (either "degree", or "percent".)any comments on the plotthe polygon in which the record occursnotes on whether tip-up mounds are present in the plot (Present/Absent)notes on whether there is evidence of fire in a plot (Present/Absent)notes on whether there are white pines that clearly grew up in an old-field, due to their branching canopy (Present/Absent)notes on whether there are stone walls in or near the plot (Present/Absent)notes on whether there are stones in or near the plot (Present/Absent)notes on whether there is a plow layer in the soil (Present/Absent)notes on whether there is a new A layer forming above the plow layer (Present/Absent)if there is an AP, its depththe depth of the A layer (only recorded if there was no Ap layer)notes on whether there is an eluviation layer in the soil (Present/Absent)how distinct the boundary is between the A and B layer (See protocol for details.)the depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plotthe depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plotthe depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plotthe depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plotthe depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plotnotes on the soil interpretation, and possible land-usepolygon in which the record occursspecies of the recorddiameter at breast height of the treea dummy variable, recording if the tree is deadrecords whether the tree is part of a clone or not. The other trees in the clone will always be in the record above or below the current one, and will also have the appropriate code in this field.unique identifier for each record. If sorted in ascending order, this places trees that are in the same clone next to one another.unique identifier number for each recordpolygon in which the record occursspecies of the recordthe number of saplings of that species in a given plotunique identifier number for each recordpolygon in which the record occursspecies of the recordnumber of seedlings of that species in a given plotunique identifier number for each recordpolygon in which the record occursGenus of the recordspecies of the record. When unknown, just recorded as "sp."cover-class of the recorda dummy variable that records if a sample of the record was taken in the field, to double-check ID.Genus + Speciesunique identifier number for each recordpolygon in which the record occursGenus of the record. These plants have been lumped, to facilitate analysis: species in the genera Actaea, Arisaema, Aronia, Circaea, Corylus, Galium, Glyceria, Oxalis, Panicum (Dichanthelium), Polypodium, Prenanthes, Rhododendron, Ribes, Sambucus, Spiraea, Tiarella, Ulmus, Veronica, and Viola were lumped to genus. For Aster, we created three groups: Aster divaricatus, Aster acuminatus, and other. Similarly, for Carex we recognized four groups: Carex debilis, Carex laxiflora, Carex pensylvanica, and other; for Solidago, we recognized two groups: Solidago rugosa and other.species of the record. When unknown, just recorded as "sp."cover-class of the recorda dummy variable that records if a sample of the record was taken in the field, to double-check ID.Genus + Speciesunique identifier number for each recordpolygon in which the record occursspecies of the recorddiameter at ground level of the stumpsecondnumberdimensionlessnumbernumbermetercentimeternumberacrethousandBoardFootcordnumberthousandBoardFootcordtonfootCubednumberhectareacrecubicMetercubicMetercubicMetercubicMetermeterCubedPerHectaremeterCubedPerHectaremeterCubedPerHectaremeterCubedPerHectaredegreedimensionlessdimensionlesscentimetermeternumbernumbercentimetermetermeterdegreemeterdimensionlessdimensionlessdimensionlessdimensionlessdimensionlessdimensionlesscentimetercentimetercentimetercentimetercentimeterangstromcentimetercentimeternumbernumbercentimeterFILE_ID a unique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredObservers the crew that worked on the polygonDate the date at which the polygon was sampledStandType the dominant stand-type, as determined from field recon. (Deciduous, Mixed, or Evergreen)SearchTime the amount of time spent searching the polygon for exotics secondNumbObservers the number of people searching the polygon for invasives numberMoose notes on whether there is evidence of moose from the polygon, like scat and bent saplingsPercentPolyHarvest the percent of the polygon that has stumps in it. Often much less than a 100%. dimensionlessComments any comments the observers made about the polygonRec unique identifier of the recordFILE_ID unique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredLANDUSE landuse. A soil pit was dug to 50cm depth, and we examined the soil probe for evidence of a plow layer. Using this information, as well as other evidence of land-use such as the presence of stone walls, barbed wire, old field white pines, and chestnut sprouts (present only in sites that were forested before the 1910s chestnut blight), we classified the site into one of three categories of local land-use: woodlot, if the site has remained forested; pasture, if the site was used as rough, unimproved pasture, and plowed, if there was clear evidence the soil had been disturbed. We checked this classification with land-use data from the 1830s (Hall et al. 2002) and from the 1930s maps of the Works Progress Administration, where available. (Woodlot, Pasture, Plowed)Xutm the easting of the UTM coordinates numberYutm the Northing of the UTM coordinates numberELEVATION elevation meterREGION the physiographic region in which the polygon was located, based on Motts' physiographic regions (degree). Central Upland, CRV, Western Upland, Berkshire Valley/Taconic Mountains.SURFICIAL the surficial geology type (till, sand, or alluvial)TCI the calculated topographic convergence index, derived from a DEMPRECIP estimated annual precipitation. Contact Brian Hall for info. centimeterGDD estimated growing degree days. Contact Brian Hall for info. (degree-days) numberFOREST1830 whether the site was forested or not in 1830. Some sites have no data. Derived from 1830 land-use maps.BEDROCK the bedrock-type of the polygon, as derived from MassGIS data layers. (Either Granitic, Mafic, Calcareous)FILE_ID unique ID code assigned by the state to the cutFIS_YEAR year the cut was reported. Note that landowners had two years to cut the site, and need not do so. Estimated ~5% of the time an FCP is not executed.DATE_REC date a cut was recordedTOWN_1 principal town of the cutTOWN_2 secondary town of the cut, used when the cut crossed town boundariesACRES_REP reported number of acres of the plan. Inaccurate, use GIS-calculate hectares. acreVOLU_MBF total reported timber removed in thousand board feet thousandBoardFootVOLU_CDS total reported firewood removed in cords cordVOL_OTH total reported wood taken for other purposes. Units often unclear. numberOWN_TYPE ownership type. The coding here is from the state.PUBLIC_ whether the land is publicWETLND_CR wetland presence or absenceFORTYPE1 the primary type of forestPRIMOBJ1 the goal of the cut in type 1TYPEREG1 the type of regeneration that is the goal for type 1. Multiple forest types, objectives, and regenerative cuts were sometimes listed for each stand (i.e. WPINSW).FORTYPE2 the secondary type of forest. See codes above.PRIMOBJ2 the goal of the cut in type 2. See codes above.TYPEREG2 the type of regeneration that is the goal for type 2. Multiple forest types, objectives, and regenerative cuts were sometimes listed for each stand (i.e. WPINSW). See codes above.FORTYPE3 the tertiary type of forest. See codes above.PRIMOBJ3 the goal of the cut in type 3. See codes above.TYPEREG3 the type of regeneration that is the goal for type 3. Multiple forest types, objectives, and regenerative cuts were sometimes listed for each stand (i.e. WPINSW). See codes above.FORTYPE4 the quartiary type of forest. See codes above.PRIMOBJ4 the goal of the cut in type 4. See codes above.TYPEREG4 the type of regeneration that is the goal for type 4. Multiple forest types, objectives, and regenerative cuts were sometimes listed for each stand (i.e. WPINSW). See codes above.Species species code, each species is abbreviated by 6-8 lettersUnit units the volumn is measured inVolume species-specific volume (various units)TOT_MBF sum of the MBF measurements. Sometimes, the landowner did the math wrong. thousandBoardFootTOT_CDS sum of the cords measurements. Sometimes, the landowner did the math wrong. cordTOT_TON sum of the tons measurements. Sometimes, the landowner did the math wrong. tonTOT_CCF sum of the Cubic cord feet measurements. Sometimes, the landowner did the math wrong. footCubedAPPROVED sometimes explictly coded as "y" for yes, but all these plans were approvedN_POLYS number of polygons in the FCP numberNOTES_ notesFILE_ID unique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredAREA_HA area in hectares as defined by the GIS boundaries hectareFIS_YEAR year the cut was reported. Note that landowners had two years to cut the site, and need not do so. Estimated ~5% of the time an FCP is not executed.ACRES_REP acres the landowner reported. Often wrong. acreSpecies species code for species-specific volumes, each species is abbreviated by 6-8 letters and M3 to denote units usedVolume specie- specific volume cubicMeterESTIMATED_ sum of the landowners itemized removals cubicMeterTOT_M3 landowners stated total removal cubicMeterBEST_M3 best guess of what was removed based on the above. See HF080 Methods. cubicMeterSpecies species code for species-specific intensity, each species is abbreviated by 6-8 letters and HA to denote units usedIntesity species-specific intensity meterCubedPerHectareESTIMATED_.1 sum of the landowners itemized removals meterCubedPerHectareTOT_HA landowners stated total removal meterCubedPerHectareBEST_HA best guess of the intensity of harvesting based on the above. See HF080 Methods. meterCubedPerHectareFILE_ID unique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredSpecies invasive species, abbreviated by the first three letters of the genus and speciesPresence presence of invasive speciesRec unique identifier for the recordFILE_ID unique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursPQ_NUM the identifying number of the record within the polygon. Most polygons have ten total.ASPECT the aspect of the slope on which the record occurs degreePOSITION the landscape position of the record (Upslope, midslope, or downslope)ROCK the percent rock within an 11.3 m radius of the sample point dimensionlessSLOPE the slope of the record. See next attribute for units used. dimensionlessSLOPEUNIT the units the slope was recorded with (percent or degree)Rec unique identifier for the recordPolyID unique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursPtQuartnumb identifying number of the record within the polygon. Most polygons have ten total.SizeClass whether in the understory (5-20cm DBH) and the overstory (20cm DBH +)Treesps species of the recordDBH diameter of the stem centimeterDist distance to the stem from the point meterRec unique identifier for the recordPoly ID unique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursPt quart numb identifying number of the record within the polygon. Most polygons have ten total.Species species of the recordOrigin whether the sapling seems to have come from seedling or from sproutingSapl numb number of saplings associated with the record numberRec unique identifier for the recordPoly ID unique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursPt Quart numb identifying number of the record within the polygon. Most polygons have ten total.species species of the recordSeedl numb number of seedlings associated with the record numberRec unique identifier for the recordPolyID unique identifier for the polygon in which the record occursPtqtnumb number of the record within the polygonstump sps species of the recordDiameter diameter of the stump at ground level centimeterRec unique identifier of the recordFILE_ID unique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredPQ_NUM number of the record within the polygonSpecies invasive species code, abbreviated by the first three letters of the genus and speciesPresence presence of invasive speciesFILE_ID unique identifier of the polygon in which the plot occurredUtmZone zone in which UTM coordinates were recordedUTM-N the Northing of the UTM coordinates meterUTM-E the Easting of the UTM coordinates meterAspect the aspect of the slope with zero being north degreeElevation elevation meterCanopy1 percent canopy closure, facing one edge of the plot dimensionlessCanopy2 percent canopy closure, facing one edge of the plot dimensionlessCanopy3 percent canopy closure, facing one edge of the plot dimensionlessCanopy4 percent canopy closure, facing one edge of the plot dimensionlessLandPost the landscape position of the plot (upslope, midslope, or downslope)PerRock percent surface rock in the plot dimensionlessslope slope of the plot, see next attribute for units used dimensionlessslopeunit units used to record the slope (either "degree", or "percent".)comments any comments on the plotFILE_ID the polygon in which the record occursTIPUP notes on whether tip-up mounds are present in the plot (Present/Absent)FIRE notes on whether there is evidence of fire in a plot (Present/Absent)OLDFIELD notes on whether there are white pines that clearly grew up in an old-field, due to their branching canopy (Present/Absent)WALLS notes on whether there are stone walls in or near the plot (Present/Absent)STONES notes on whether there are stones in or near the plot (Present/Absent)AP notes on whether there is a plow layer in the soil (Present/Absent)NEW_A notes on whether there is a new A layer forming above the plow layer (Present/Absent)AP_DEPTH if there is an AP, its depth centimeterA_DEPTH the depth of the A layer (only recorded if there was no Ap layer) centimeterEHORIZON notes on whether there is an eluviation layer in the soil (Present/Absent)DISTINCT how distinct the boundary is between the A and B layer (See protocol for details.)ORGDEP1 the depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plot centimeterORGDEP2 the depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plot centimeterORGDEP3 the depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plot centimeterORGDEP4 the depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plot angstromORGDEP5 the depth of the organic layer, at one point in the plot centimeterNOTES notes on the soil interpretation, and possible land-usePolyID polygon in which the record occursSpecies species of the recordDBH diameter at breast height of the tree centimeterdead a dummy variable, recording if the tree is deadclone records whether the tree is part of a clone or not. The other trees in the clone will always be in the record above or below the current one, and will also have the appropriate code in this field.ID unique identifier for each record. If sorted in ascending order, this places trees that are in the same clone next to one another.Rec unique identifier number for each recordPolyID polygon in which the record occursSpecies species of the recordSaplNum the number of saplings of that species in a given plot numberRec unique identifier number for each recordPolyID polygon in which the record occursSpecies species of the recordSeedNum number of seedlings of that species in a given plot numberRec unique identifier number for each recordfile_ID polygon in which the record occursGenus Genus of the recordSpecies species of the record. When unknown, just recorded as "sp."Cover cover-class of the recordSample . a dummy variable that records if a sample of the record was taken in the field, to double-check ID.Scientific Name Genus + SpeciesRec unique identifier number for each recordfile_ID polygon in which the record occursGenus Genus of the record. These plants have been lumped, to facilitate analysis: species in the genera Actaea, Arisaema, Aronia, Circaea, Corylus, Galium, Glyceria, Oxalis, Panicum (Dichanthelium), Polypodium, Prenanthes, Rhododendron, Ribes, Sambucus, Spiraea, Tiarella, Ulmus, Veronica, and Viola were lumped to genus. For Aster, we created three groups: Aster divaricatus, Aster acuminatus, and other. Similarly, for Carex we recognized four groups: Carex debilis, Carex laxiflora, Carex pensylvanica, and other; for Solidago, we recognized two groups: Solidago rugosa and other.Species species of the record. When unknown, just recorded as "sp."Cover cover-class of the recordSample . a dummy variable that records if a sample of the record was taken in the field, to double-check ID.Scientific Name Genus + SpeciesRec unique identifier number for each recordPolyID polygon in which the record occursSpecies species of the recordDiameter diameter at ground level of the stump centimeterhttps://cn.dataone.org/cn/v2/resolve/knb-lter-hfr.127.9ddrdrsdrs8drs86drs86gdrs86g2drs86g2sdrs86g2spfalsefalse