Conversation with submitter resulted in tow additional files being submitted, updates to the two data files, and some updates to the metadata. See below for detail. ***************** Stephen Formel - NOAA Federal Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 12:31 PM To: Brooke Olenski - NOAA Affiliate Cc: Steven McKagan - NOAA Federal Brooke, Thank you for this clear response! I'll make the accession request and begin the publishing process. Cheers, Steve On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 2:18 AM Brooke Olenski - NOAA Affiliate wrote: Hi Stephen, Thank you very much for the thoughtful suggestions in your revision. Please see answers to each of your questions below: 1. Data Dictionary: Could you please provide a data dictionary that defines each of your column headers? Although some of the headers are intuitive, some require explanation **********The Data Dictionary for both the Parent Colony table and the Fragment Growth table are attached below. 2. Missing Values: In the file SCNPP_Fragment_Growth.csv there are missing data for length, width, and height. In the file SCNPP_Parent_Coloy.csv there are a few rows for which Tag_Number is blank. If these are null values, I would suggest changing them to NA. If that is the case, could you please make the changes and email me new copies of the files? ***********Both data files have been updated to reflect NA in all null cells. 3. Data Type Descriptions: a. For the "Coral Health Condition" data type the sampling method could use more detail. Based on the abstract, I assume this was a visual estimation of % alive? Were any other criteria used to assess the health of the parent (e.g. symptoms of disease, bleaching)? Could you please send me a revised description? *********We have included another column in the Fragment_Growth data file called “Percent_Recently_Dead”. Both were visual estimates. Please update the Sampling and Analyzing Method to: “Determining the health condition and potential resilience of each parent colony and fragment by conducting a visual survey for the percent alive and percent recently dead.” b. Based on the data in the package, "Coral Colony Size" might be a more appropriate data type than "Coral Census". However, you describe this as an ongoing study, in which case "Coral Census" might be more appropriate. Do you intend to submit more data related to this project? If not, are you okay with switching the terms to more accurately reflect the data in the package itself? *********Thank you for this suggestion. This is an on-going data stream and we intend to continue to submit data, so we would like to stay with the description of Coral Census. 4. Potentially Missing Data: a. In the abstract there are mentions of two surveys for which there does not appear to be corresponding data: "Scoping surveys" and "All parent colonies are surveyed at least once after fragment collection to assess the healing process." I would suggest removing these lines from the abstract or revising the data to include these surveys. ***********Agreed. This is reflected in the final abstract below. b. The dates in the data match the date range you described in your submission to S2N. But, the parent colony collection info appears to continue beyond the fragment growth info, making it seem like there are parent colonies for which there are no fragment growth data. This could be perceived as data having been lost since there is no mention of the purpose of these extra parent colonies in the abstract. Could you please clarify if there is missing data or if the pertinent data are intended to be submitted with future results? ***********These are not missing data, this is an on-going data stream so there will be fragment growth data submitted with future results that is related to the current parent colony data you mentioned. I included a statement to put at the end of supplemental info. 5. Suggested revision to abstract: a. Collections were described as coming from five target species, but eight are included in the data. ************Agreed, there are an initial five target species but since more were in the data we like your suggestion. I took the word target out of your suggested abstract. b. The descriptions of methodology you include in the abstract are generally included as supplementary information, and I would be happy to move them to that section of the metadata for you. *********** Yes, that would be very appreciated, thank you! c. Taking into consideration some of the above questions, here is a suggested update to the abstract. However, I welcome you to suggest your own: The data described here result from parent colony fragmentation collection and the monitoring of the fragment growth in the coral nursery through the Saipan Coral Nursery Pilot Project (SCNPP). Parent colony survey data includes genus and species identification, collection site information including: latitude, longitude, reef name, reef zone, depth, and tag number. Fragment growth data from the nursery includes: the nursery identifier, parent colony identifier, fragment code, genus and species name, presence/absence, and growth data. Parent colonies were collected from sites around Saipan in both Forereef and Lagoon reef types. Fragments were collected using an appropriate cutting tool from parent colonies of eight target coral species including: Acropora. pulchra, A. globiceps, A. aspera, A. abrotanoides, and A. muricata. Wild abundance and nursery capacity determined the number of parent colonies collected for each species. Coral fragments were monitored for growth, survival and health status through measurement utilizing a three-dimensional survey design and visual surveys. ******** This is great! Response below with the final abstract. d. It may also be helpful to provide some information about the fate of the fragment. Were measurements stopped because the fragment was outplanted? ********* Since this is an on-going dataset we will continue to submit updated survey data of the fragment growth, as well as outplanted data in the future once that part of the methodology begins. **Please move the descriptions of the methodology to the supplemental information section, as well as this statement: This data is a part of an on-going data stream that undergoes routine data submissions/updates. Final Abstract: The data described here result from parent colony fragmentation collection and the monitoring of the fragment growth in the coral nursery through the Saipan Coral Nursery Pilot Project (SCNPP). Parent colony survey data includes genus and species identification, collection site information including: latitude, longitude, reef name, reef zone, depth, and tag number. Fragment growth data from the nursery includes: the nursery identifier, parent colony identifier, fragment code, genus and species name, presence/absence, and growth data. Parent colonies were collected from sites around Saipan in both Forereef and Lagoon reef types. Fragments were collected using an appropriate cutting tool from parent colonies of eight coral species including: Acropora. pulchra, A. globiceps, A. aspera, A. abrotanoides, and A. muricata. Wild abundance and nursery capacity determined the number of parent colonies collected for each species. Coral fragments were monitored for growth, survival and health status through measurement utilizing a three-dimensional survey design and visual surveys. Attached are the two data dictionaries: Fragment_Growth_Data_Dictionary.csv Parent_Colony_Data_Dictionary.csv Attached are the two updated csv files: SCNPP_Fragment_Growth.csv SCNPP_Parent_Colony.csv Thank you again for your time and energy with this, as well as the wonderful suggestions. Best, Brooke