I am in interested in how do effect coding in R. I know that someone else has asked this question (i.e https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/52132/how-to-do-regression-with-effect-coding-instead-of-dummy-coding-in-r). Here is the lm() model on its own:

      Fixed.Full<-lm(sqrtClay_Tot ~ Physio.Code+ROCKTYPE1, data=PedonsTx_Reread,
                 contrasts =  list(Factor.0.Physio = contr.sum))

    > summary(Fixed.Full)
    
    Call:
    lm(formula = sqrtClay_Tot ~ Physio.Code + ROCKTYPE1, data = PedonsTx_Reread)
    
    Residuals:
        Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
    -4.5719 -1.1543  0.0102  1.1366  6.0146 
    
    Coefficients:
                                        Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
    (Intercept)                          5.18961    0.54194   9.576  < 2e-16 ***
    Physio.Code2                        -0.90588    0.15752  -5.751 1.11e-08 ***
    Physio.Code3                         0.70532    0.21141   3.336 0.000874 ***
    Physio.Code4                         0.56462    0.31295   1.804 0.071444 .  
    Physio.Code7                        -0.04656    0.26410  -0.176 0.860075    
    Physio.Code8                        -0.41242    0.24330  -1.695 0.090294 .  
    Physio.Code9                        -0.81833    0.32048  -2.553 0.010782 *  
    Physio.Code11                       -0.04619    0.16420  -0.281 0.778515    
    ROCKTYPE1chert                       1.43390    1.80191   0.796 0.426319    
    ROCKTYPE1clay or mud                 0.35031    0.53861   0.650 0.515562    
    ROCKTYPE1evaporite                  -0.95719    0.65049  -1.471 0.141408    
    ROCKTYPE1fine-grained mixed clastic -1.02193    0.59167  -1.727 0.084377 .  
    ROCKTYPE1gravel                     -0.16708    0.56139  -0.298 0.766041    
    ROCKTYPE1limestone                   0.36667    0.55323   0.663 0.507585    
    ROCKTYPE1mudstone                    0.18934    0.58553   0.323 0.746476    
    ROCKTYPE1rhyolite                   -0.25743    0.83684  -0.308 0.758426    
    ROCKTYPE1sand                       -0.92281    0.53193  -1.735 0.083014 .  
    ROCKTYPE1sandstone                  -1.57669    0.57599  -2.737 0.006281 ** 
    ROCKTYPE1serpentinite               -0.18647    1.84384  -0.101 0.919464    
    ROCKTYPE1shale                       0.34408    0.62577   0.550 0.582518    
    ROCKTYPE1silt                       -0.82415    0.65554  -1.257 0.208912    
    ROCKTYPE1siltstone                  -1.21094    0.79293  -1.527 0.126970    
    ROCKTYPE1terrace                    -0.64082    0.60119  -1.066 0.286663    
    ROCKTYPE1tuff                        1.10034    1.31108   0.839 0.401482    
    ---
    Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
    
    Residual standard error: 1.748 on 1261 degrees of freedom
    Multiple R-squared:  0.2072,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.1928 
    F-statistic: 14.33 on 23 and 1261 DF,  p-value: < 2.2e-16

Now here is the model using effecting coding within lm():

    > Fixed.Full<-lm(sqrtClay_Tot ~ Physio.Code+ROCKTYPE1, data=PedonsTx_Reread,
    + contrasts =  list(Physio.Code = contr.sum))
    > summary(Fixed.Full)
    
    Call:
    lm(formula = sqrtClay_Tot ~ Physio.Code + ROCKTYPE1, data = PedonsTx_Reread, 
        contrasts = list(Physio.Code = contr.sum))
    
    Residuals:
        Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
    -4.5719 -1.1543  0.0102  1.1366  6.0146 
    
    Coefficients:
                                        Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
    (Intercept)                          5.06968    0.50933   9.954  < 2e-16 ***
    Physio.Code1                         0.11993    0.13291   0.902  0.36703    
    Physio.Code2                        -0.78595    0.11689  -6.724 2.68e-11 ***
    Physio.Code3                         0.82525    0.15844   5.208 2.22e-07 ***
    Physio.Code4                         0.68455    0.24897   2.750  0.00605 ** 
    Physio.Code5                         0.07337    0.21084   0.348  0.72792    
    Physio.Code6                        -0.29249    0.18905  -1.547  0.12208    
    Physio.Code7                        -0.69840    0.26157  -2.670  0.00768 ** 
    ROCKTYPE1chert                       1.43390    1.80191   0.796  0.42632    
    ROCKTYPE1clay or mud                 0.35031    0.53861   0.650  0.51556    
    ROCKTYPE1evaporite                  -0.95719    0.65049  -1.471  0.14141    
    ROCKTYPE1fine-grained mixed clastic -1.02193    0.59167  -1.727  0.08438 .  
    ROCKTYPE1gravel                     -0.16708    0.56139  -0.298  0.76604    
    ROCKTYPE1limestone                   0.36667    0.55323   0.663  0.50759    
    ROCKTYPE1mudstone                    0.18934    0.58553   0.323  0.74648    
    ROCKTYPE1rhyolite                   -0.25743    0.83684  -0.308  0.75843    
    ROCKTYPE1sand                       -0.92281    0.53193  -1.735  0.08301 .  
    ROCKTYPE1sandstone                  -1.57669    0.57599  -2.737  0.00628 ** 
    ROCKTYPE1serpentinite               -0.18647    1.84384  -0.101  0.91946    
    ROCKTYPE1shale                       0.34408    0.62577   0.550  0.58252    
    ROCKTYPE1silt                       -0.82415    0.65554  -1.257  0.20891    
    ROCKTYPE1siltstone                  -1.21094    0.79293  -1.527  0.12697    
    ROCKTYPE1terrace                    -0.64082    0.60119  -1.066  0.28666    
    ROCKTYPE1tuff                        1.10034    1.31108   0.839  0.40148    
    ---
    Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
    
    Residual standard error: 1.748 on 1261 degrees of freedom
    Multiple R-squared:  0.2072,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.1928 
    F-statistic: 14.33 on 23 and 1261 DF,  p-value: < 2.2e-16

The code above is functional within the lm() function as seen above,and what I am trying to do in the code above is to predict clay content (square-root transformed) from the categorical variables 'Physio.Code' and 'ROCKTYPE1'. What I would like to know, however, is if there is any way to do effect coding using the gls() or glm() functions in R, where method="REML" or REML estimation can be used. I am interested in comparing the levels within 'Physio.Code' specifically to to the grand sample mean (i.e. sum contrasts).
 
The other question I had was how to interpret the numbers after the categorical variable and whether they correspond to the same levels. With respect to 'Physio.Code', in the two models above '1' was used as the baseline - the levels were originally '1,2,3,4,7,8,9,11" but when '1' was used as the baseline group, it switched to "2,3,4,7,8,9" - I wasn't sure if levels are the same (i.e. Physio.Code2 in model is the same as Physio.Code1 in the 2nd model). Thank you.