By default should be unconstrained as it is common to have more than one abundance type within a replicate? But see next paragraph...
However, I think we have a bit of a problem here in that I think there was a desire to associate more than one abundance type with an occurrence, i.e. to properly use things like density to justify the assigned SACFOR value (recording both). If that is the case which gets displayed in the matrix? So separate matrices per abundance type - probably good from an analytical perspective.
Likewise we need a think about what we mean by presence we need not to lose sight of the fact that presence absence recording is a specific way of recording presence or absence, at the same time a SACFOR value also indicates presence, but not in the same way - so a little caution needed in handling abundance types generally?
Rename as "Abundance type"
By default should be unconstrained as it is common to have more than one abundance type within a replicate? But see next paragraph...
However, I think we have a bit of a problem here in that I think there was a desire to associate more than one abundance type with an occurrence, i.e. to properly use things like density to justify the assigned SACFOR value (recording both). If that is the case which gets displayed in the matrix? So separate matrices per abundance type - probably good from an analytical perspective.
Likewise we need a think about what we mean by presence we need not to lose sight of the fact that presence absence recording is a specific way of recording presence or absence, at the same time a SACFOR value also indicates presence, but not in the same way - so a little caution needed in handling abundance types generally?