lizzieinvancouver
commented
2 years ago @AileneKane replied:
I believe that I ran these models on my old laptop, which unfortunately has died, so I don’t know that I have any .Rda files to send you- I can look at my other laptop (which is at home; I am at the office, for a change today) to see if anything is there. In any case, the models are pretty quick to run to if you have to rerun them it shouldn’t take long! I can send you the files this afternoon, if I do indeed have them.
I think your first option (“Selecting overlapping subsets of species in the NCC all sps model and our angiosperm model and checking correlations in species-level slopes”) sounds reasonable, since the goal is to compare how incorporating phylogeny alters our estimates of phenological responses.
AileneKane
@MoralesCastilla wrote: I’m now writing the results of the ospree phylogeny ms. and somewhere there (or in the discussion) I would like to compare our results including the phylogeny against those from the all sps model in the NCC paper. I’ve been trying to retrieve those results but I realize I may not have the .Rda files with the model outputs from the NCC paper. If there is a way to zip those and send them to me so I do not need to run them again, that would be great!
In any case, I have a few questions in order to do these comparisons. The thing is that the all species model contains 203 species, and we are modelling angiosperms (192sps) and gymnosperms (19sps) separately and excluding crops. This means we may not get to compare exactly equivalent models. Since the goal is not to make an exhaustive comparison but check for overall consistency (i.e. correlations?) among species-level slopes from different approaches, perhaps this is not a big issue and can be circumvented by:
Or, we can forget about the NCC results and focus in the new ones (that would be sad in my opinion, as we would miss the chance to say whether including phylogeny may shift results or not).