tree location data

[hpoulos]

From Dylan: I think we watn the rawer data for sdms, yes? I suppose plot centers and importance values would do it.

The trait work will have to be lined up with taxa, not taxa by location. We are talking 5-10 individuals per species per mtn range only. So our attempt to spread out sampling was aimed to average over geography rather than include it. So our trait sampling doesn't really influence what data we use for the distribution part -- we want to use all we have.

OUr tagged trees for traits:

https://github.com/schwilklab/CSC-sky-island-forest/blob/master/data/tagged_trees.csv

So species:

[1] "JUFL" "JUDE2" "QUEM" "PICE" "QUGR3" "QUGR2" "QUHY" "QUGA" "PIPO" [10] "PIST3" "QUMU" "PIED" "QUPU" "JUPI" "PSME"

But that doug fir was a student mistake we just left it in.

[hpoulos]

I think we decided to use IVs because it gave us a sense of characteristic locations on the landscape where we would find each species. This could be done any number of ways. We could use density data for each species in each plot as an estimate, although---IVs are calculated as the sum of the relative density + the relative basal area, which provides a better measure than just using density or basal area alone. I would stick with using IVs for now because it seems more robust to me and because I have actually already done the work for all of those species.

Once I get the OK, I'll add it to the repo with folders for data from each range.

[dschwilk]

Sounds good. I think this should go in the CSC-skyisland-forest repo, though. Go ahead and do the work in a separate branch and then issue a pull request. That way I can review the organization before we add a ton of data.

-Dylan

On 02/03/2017 10:15 AM, hpoulos wrote:

I think we decided to use IVs because it gave us a sense of characteristic locations on the landscape where we would find each species. This could be done any number of ways. We could use density data for each species in each plot as an estimate, although---IVs are calculated as the sum of the relative density + the relative basal area, which provides a better measure than just using density or basal area alone. I would stick with using IVs for now because it seems more robust to me and because I have actually already done the work for all of those species.

Once I get the OK, I'll add it to the repo with folders for data from each range.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/schwilklab/skyisland-climate/issues/39#issuecomment-277290332, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACRzy1Tqntk-c5xYr6ceVvWSNLStB-DUks5rY1K7gaJpZM4L2gYm.

[dschwilk]

Added to CSC-sky-island-forest repostitory:

See 0ae9d9108ca9e4f2595e180bc0a713d096acf62b https://github.com/schwilklab/CSC-sky-island-forest/blob/master/scripts/read-distribution-data.R