New!] So, why not just create multiple normalized tables (one for each data set type/field monitoring method)?
There are several reasons for not doing this. In fact, this question addresses two issues which need to be addressed separately: (1) multiple tables; and (2) normalized data tables. On reason for not breaking the data up into separate tables is that if you can put all data in a single table (with each data set type indicated by a field value in each record), you can easily ask questions BY SPECIES on your ENTIRE DATA SET–e.g. “show me ALL data points I have for [species x].” If a new table were created for each data set type, you’d have to remember EACH TIME you create a new table to update ALL QUERIES (“now, what were all those queries’ names…?” of this type to include every new table. In addition, keeping the data in a single table, it better ensures that your data is in an understandable format, and allows the Monitoring Database infrastructure to work for you: metadata structures for all fields are already set up (and, hopefully, procedures are established in your organization t
