Additional ATRC data: TAS surveys

[bpasquer]

Follow up from #689 to ingest TAS data specifically

Data that need to be ingested is provided in #689 (comment)

TAS data need to be checked for

• inconsistencies in abundances between RLS and NRMN database see Abundance inconsistencies in Additional ATRC survey data #774
• potential duplicates with RLS surveys as explained by Lizzie (email 2022/02/23):
  The data from S.A. (“GSV” site codes) are fine to go, as well as data from 2 “TAS” sites. The other Tassie surveys are all duplicated in NRMN under both programs and we need to decide on a plan. Things to note about the duplications:
  The data under RLS program has both blocks – i.e. already has the “additional data”, but it is inconsistent whether this is block 1 or 2 that relates to the “additional data” that is missing from the ATRC data
  The data under ATRC has M3 in situ data (at least some do but haven’t checked completeness)
  The data under RLS has PQs and thus the survey_id is an important to link to the PQs
  One more site-date combination has data for both programs in NRMN but they do not match (see attached)
  Also, I’ve highlighted some records that are inconsistent between the 2 databases. This is often repeated for certain species like Forsterygion gymnotum or Pempheris multiradiata, but it tends to be abundance numbers that are different rather than omissions so I’m very confused. Could you have any idea why this is the case and if so is it a problem more widely in the data?

Same appreaoch as for SA data will be adopted:

• identify the observations and survey information (ie survey Notes) to extract from IMAS bio div
• extract [Bene]
• check that no data is missing [Bene]
• format the data to the data ingest XLSX format [TBD]
• ingest [TBD]
• edit the survey notes of the impacted surveys [TBD]