Closed teixeirak closed 4 years ago
I should reduce the records shown to the ones actually used in ERL? (ForC_simplified, unmanaged, undistrurbed, with history record?), correct?
Yes, please.
the "forested area" in the barplot is actually the number of records that have "forest" in the FAO.ecozone, not the amount of forested area in the different bio-geographic regions... I can change that if you think that is better
(actually it is number of sites, rather than records...)
oh, yes, please change it. I think I've been mistaken about that all along.
but that means that the other barplots are not only records in forest but also in steppes, etc... so not excatly a good comparison of coverage...
oh, let's just drop that forest area barplot then.
ok cool... because it is actually not that easy/slow R code...
What do you think of this file ? The Biome and Leaf phenolgy map don't overlap exactly (costlines a bit different) but for this first round of review it is probably okay?
Looks fantastic! I probably wouldn't even worry about the map overlap for the final version.
One thing: could we somehow coordinate the colors on this map with the age trend figures? (maybe temperate could be gold and red, mixing to make orange, and boreal and tropical could be the colors you have)
Unfortunately this is not how the map is built... The Biomes have one, solid, dark color, and I overlay the leaf phenology with white and different degrees of transparency... I think it could get complicated to try to change that.
Oh, I just mean that we could match the tropical and boreal colors in the age trend figures, and then for temperate pick two colors that bracket the color used on the map. Please don't worry about trying to do anything complicated!
@ValentineHerr , as discussed in lab meeting, let's make a map like the one here, but with the forest biomes (tropical, temperate, boreal) in place of biogeographic zones. It would be good to keep the broadleaf/evergreen/mixed distinctions.