search

SCBI-ForestGEO / climate_sensitivity_cores

Ryan Helcoski's analysis of climate sensitivity from SCBI tree cores
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
2 stars 0 forks source link

Remove gypsy moth infestation years #15

Closed teixeirak closed 6 years ago

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

@ValentineHerr (and @RHelcoski), We should remove the years in which growth (mainly of oak) was influenced by gypsy moths. We don't have a record of the year. Bill McShea thinks it was 1988 or 1989. Growth could be reduced in the following year, so I'd throw out 1988-1991. 1991 was a year of low growth for oaks and any other species, and its possible this was gypsy moths.

ValentineHerr commented 6 years ago

@teixeirak , are you still willing to do that after looking at the moving average figures? I guess it is hard to see any effects of the Gypsy moth with a 25-year window. We could try a smaller window? I am just worried that creating gaps for only some of the species is going to make things more complicated, especially for the moving average and for comparing species together.

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

I'd like to hear what @RHelcoski thinks about this.

RHelcoski commented 6 years ago

I don't think it's necessary with the 14 year window. I think we might be able to see it with a much more narrow window but that would mean we're specifically looking for it (a different study?) I don't think there's much impact over all. Just looking at the COFECHA output those years are somewhat more narrow but not by much (as an average, some individuals did suffer but as a whole not quite as much)

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 9:39 AM Kristina Anderson-Teixeira < notifications@github.com> wrote:

I'd like to hear what @RHelcoski https://github.com/RHelcoski thinks about this.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/EcoClimLab/climate_sensitivity_cores/issues/15#issuecomment-412085212, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Aat8I-1seLJ6MqnhhJ5Y_c21Gwo79gdcks5uPY0ggaJpZM4VySHo .

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

With a little more thought, I'd prefer to remove them. Please remove them for all species. They could create bias, and it's okay if the moving average has only 22 years instead of 25 for those periods.

ValentineHerr commented 6 years ago

I am worried about creating gaps in the data.. I get warnings when running the analysis. Also it makes it much more tricky to line up the SD and mean of climate variable for the moving average analysis.

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

Don't worry about it then.