It was great to catch up with you! I am writing to follow up on our conversation earlier today and to also link in (and recap for) some other MOL team members.
It was great to discuss the spatial biodiversity products for N American marine taxa you developed and put online (https://oceanadapt.rutgers.edu), and how we could best feature them in MOL. As I consider your predictions and projections similar in format to those others might do for marine taxa, I am happy for us to expend a bit of effort on the MOL end to get them represented in the right way. Each representation would obviously have metadata informed by you (incl. links to your papers) and links to your website.
To recap, we are talking about ~ 700 species along the W and E N American seaboard and two types of predictions: 1) present to future (GCM model-based) and 2) historical (interpolations). Here the suggested plan:
1) Projections:
These are five projections (representing 20y intervals, and starting 2007-20), and i) simplified: ensemble means of 16 GCMs for two scenarios and ii) detailed: individual predictions for 16 GCM predictions and 3 scenarios.
Response variables are a) relative biomass (not relative abundance as displayed) and b) probab occurrence together with kappa threshold for translating to presence. Relative biomass: relative to the most abundant point in the range surveyed (e.g. E seaboard)
Let’s focus on i) for now.
If you get i) (and if easier just response a)) to us in a reasonable spatial format (geotiffs or lat coordinates with grid info), we could that up in MOL relatively soon.
I see this land on MOL as follows: present projections on Detail page. Then all projections on Projections page. Maybe we’d focus on just a) in the beginning.
2) Historical:
These are annual tiffs for years 1970 or later to near present (varies by region); split up by 8 regions. Biomass per area. But areas and gear/survey type vary by region (survey).
We could take these as for each species as many separate rasters as it occurs in per year. And not worry about standardization of biomass values across regions for now. We’d display it all as if it was a ‘suitability’ measure, but call it biomass in legend and info window.
I see this as second priority.
Malin, if this sound good, as next step I suggest sharing 1)i) a) and b) or just a) for a subset or all species. It will probably take us a few months to get to this, but this way we get the ball rolling. You could engage directly with Yanina (cced) on this, and keep me in cc. Once we are on top of this we could follow with 2).
MOL team: Let’s discuss how we best prepare the UI additions for the best temporal representations, building on the /projections piece etc. No rush here obviously, but just getting this on our horizon for Spring/Summer.
Jetz, Walter walter.jetz@yale.edu Fri 2/14/2020 10:44 AM To: Malin Pinsky malin.pinsky@rutgers.edu Cc: Ajay Ranipeta (ajay.ranipeta@gmail.com) ajay.ranipeta@gmail.com; SICA, Yanina yanina.sica@yale.edu; Wilshire, John john.wilshire@yale.edu; Gabriel Reygondeau gabriel.reygondeau@gmail.com
Hi Malin (and Yanina, Ajay, John, Gabriel),
It was great to catch up with you! I am writing to follow up on our conversation earlier today and to also link in (and recap for) some other MOL team members.
It was great to discuss the spatial biodiversity products for N American marine taxa you developed and put online (https://oceanadapt.rutgers.edu), and how we could best feature them in MOL. As I consider your predictions and projections similar in format to those others might do for marine taxa, I am happy for us to expend a bit of effort on the MOL end to get them represented in the right way. Each representation would obviously have metadata informed by you (incl. links to your papers) and links to your website.
To recap, we are talking about ~ 700 species along the W and E N American seaboard and two types of predictions: 1) present to future (GCM model-based) and 2) historical (interpolations). Here the suggested plan:
1) Projections:
These are five projections (representing 20y intervals, and starting 2007-20), and i) simplified: ensemble means of 16 GCMs for two scenarios and ii) detailed: individual predictions for 16 GCM predictions and 3 scenarios.
Response variables are a) relative biomass (not relative abundance as displayed) and b) probab occurrence together with kappa threshold for translating to presence. Relative biomass: relative to the most abundant point in the range surveyed (e.g. E seaboard)
Let’s focus on i) for now.
If you get i) (and if easier just response a)) to us in a reasonable spatial format (geotiffs or lat coordinates with grid info), we could that up in MOL relatively soon.
I see this land on MOL as follows: present projections on Detail page. Then all projections on Projections page. Maybe we’d focus on just a) in the beginning.
2) Historical:
These are annual tiffs for years 1970 or later to near present (varies by region); split up by 8 regions. Biomass per area. But areas and gear/survey type vary by region (survey).
We could take these as for each species as many separate rasters as it occurs in per year. And not worry about standardization of biomass values across regions for now. We’d display it all as if it was a ‘suitability’ measure, but call it biomass in legend and info window.
I see this as second priority.
Malin, if this sound good, as next step I suggest sharing 1)i) a) and b) or just a) for a subset or all species. It will probably take us a few months to get to this, but this way we get the ball rolling. You could engage directly with Yanina (cced) on this, and keep me in cc. Once we are on top of this we could follow with 2).
MOL team: Let’s discuss how we best prepare the UI additions for the best temporal representations, building on the /projections piece etc. No rush here obviously, but just getting this on our horizon for Spring/Summer.
Cheers,
Walter