Edited figures

[gclawson1]

Hi everyone,

I had some suggestions to try to make figure 1 (the map figure) a bit clearer with titles and the numbers shown on the plot. I've tried to incorporate some of that, but before I start editing for a final product, I wanted your opinions.

I really only changed the legend titles and also added a range of values as percentages, instead of only showing the upper limit as a proportion.

One thing I worry about is having "Proportion of habitat impacted (%)" but showing a percentage, rather than a proportion... I'm not sure if that muddies the waters more than before. I suppose I could just list it is "Habitat impacted (%)" instead, but our "key metric" is the "proportion of habitat impacted" so it might be important to keep that consistent throughout the paper?

[cottrellr]

I think it looks good Gage. My opinion is that percentage can be used with proportion if the % unit is clear.

---

Richard S. Cottrell Research Fellow in Aquaculture Sustainability Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies College of Sciences and Engineering University of Tasmania

Theme Co-Lead, Sustainable Futures and Planetary Health Centre for Marine Socioecology University of Tasmania

Size Ecology Labhttps://www.sizeecology.org/ | Centre for Marine Socioecologyhttps://marinesocioecology.org/themes/sustainable-futures-and-planetary-health/ Google Scholarhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=X1a9t90AAAAJ&hl=en&authuser=1 | ORCIDhttps://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0000-0002-6499-7503 | @RichCottrell22https://twitter.com/RichCottrell22

From: Gage Clawson @.> Date: Monday, 22 July 2024 at 2:52 PM To: Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_biodiv_impact_mapping @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: [Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_biodiv_impact_mapping] Editing map figure (Issue #21)

Hi everyone,

I had some suggestions to try to make figure 1 (the map figure) a bit clearer with titles and the numbers shown on the plot. I've tried to incorporate some of that, but before I start editing for a final product, I wanted your opinions.

I really only changed the legend titles and also added a range of values as percentages, instead of only showing the upper limit as a proportion.

One thing I worry about is having "Proportion of habitat impacted (%)" but showing a percentage, rather than a proportion... I'm not sure if that muddies the waters more than prior before. I suppose I could just list it is "Habitat impacted (%)" instead, but our "key metric" is the proportion of habitat impacted so it might be important to keep that consistent throughout the paper?

image.png (view on web)https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4a1695ed-3ee7-4eed-8829-fc72fa009a14

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_biodiv_impact_mapping/issues/21, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJK3YJAMKTOM3XKLG6XOJS3ZNSFYZAVCNFSM6AAAAABLHRGRO6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGQZDCOJRG43TCMA. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.

[gclawson1]

Awesome, this will likely be what I put in the revised manuscript:

[gclawson1]

Hi @cottrellr

Here is the case study figure with what we chatted about yesterday:

I think it looks much better. For reference, I considered any species above least concern to be "at-risk". So any species classified as near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, etc. as "at-risk" in this plot

[gclawson1]

Figure with legends on the bottom rather than side

[gclawson1]

A suggestion that @juliablanchard had for figure 2 was to perhaps differentiate between the marine and terrestrial taxonomic means with colors in some way. Currently, the average across all species within taxon and diet scenarios are orange points.

Option 1 (current version):

Option 2 (with average points being colored light blue for marine and dark green for terrestrial):

What do we think about these options? I worry that the light blue and dark green coloring might confuse readers because they are similar colors to the diet scenarios.