Methods


 * Post your methods writeups here. First draft due Fri 5 Nov 5PM so that they can be reviewed and commented on.**

Run-off Methods

Version 1:


 * Nutrient Retention**

Version 3: (11/19 - Table edited by Chris) Version 2: (11/15 - Text edited by Chris, Tables missing a few valuation links)

Version 1: [|DataSources.doc]


 * [|DOWNLOAD: Falls Lake Fiscal Analysis]**

Comments from George 2010 Nov 9

This is good, complete (mostly) information. Moving forward, we need to remove redundancy between the text and the tables. In many cases the source of data is repeated in the text.

The first paragraph is good. The separate "Methods to create ..." paragraphs can mostly be eliminated by retitling the citation column to "Source / Process" or something like that and adding a few lines about how we manipulated the data to appropriate cells. For example, just add to the soil depth cell "All cells corresponding to water and urban in our land cover data were assigned a soil depth of zero."

Carry out this kind of shortening and simplification throughout.

Don't understand why you'd average upper falls lake and below the dam. Upper Falls is only the top half of the lake. The relevant value for the model, assuming we're looking at one watershed, is the 66,600lbN/yr allowed to leave the dam.

I still don't believe the $658$/kgN figure - don't see it in the link provided, don't see where it came from or how it was calculated. This is a number that Chris has put forward before, and I think it's the full capital cost of a treatment plant. Have you tried looking at the price of nitrogen credits? Try googline "nitrogen credits cost" or "nitrogen credits costs NC" - some interesting things come up.


 * Pollination**

Version 2 (11/11/10): [|PollinationMethodsFinal.doc]

Version 1: [|PollinationMethods.doc]

Comments from George 2010 Nov 6

This is in pretty good shape. I suggest that you now separate things that will actually go into the text of an article from things that will go into an appendix. For now, let's figure on tables and short text for the article; rest for appendix.

Also make the language a bit more concise and professional. No "best guess," avoid first... next

For example ... We first compiled a list of local bee species by contacting local experts (Roos, Bambara). Next we identified the relevant parameters for each bee species (Table 1) by reviewing the literature and expert opinion (Roulston, Droege, Hines, Bambara, Roos, Delaplane). ... becomes ... For our study area, we compiled a list of bee species and relevant parameters by consulting the literature and local apiologists (TableX, citations).


 * Carbon**

Version 1: [|C.Model.Methods.docx]

Comments from George 2010 Nov 6

This is a good start and great documentation for a "supplemental material" section.

What we need now is something compact and concise for the article, and you can do that based on what you have.

I recommend a summary table showing the values used for each land cover - probably a 4-column by 8-row table. Columns are land cover, C above, C below, C soil; rows are one per land cover; cells contain values used; caption refers to an appendix for detailed soil calculations. The table might be better the other way - reversing rows and columns - but you can decide that. This table may also be useful for our presentation.

The text should summarize how values were attained.

For example ... The InVEST model requires estimates of carbon stored by vegetation above and below ground, as well as in the soil for each land cover simulated. We estimated carbon storage values for the seven land cover categories we modeled using values from a variety of sources (Table X; see Appendix A for details and citations). For urban areas, above-ground carbon values were estimated using data collected in Raleigh, NC; below-ground was assumed to be 20% of above-ground; and soil carbon was estimated by averaging blah blah.

Then put what you have in the document into a more formal form with complete citations as an appendix.

Meg's reply November 10, 2010:

George, please see the updated version of the methods. I will have a refworks folder of citations which I will share around with everyone as well.

Version 2:

Biodiversity methods draft [|Methods_Biodiv.doc]

Comments from George 2010 Nov 9

This is nice and succinct, but there are a few things we'll likely want to enhance as we move forward.
 * We'll be doing more than the top quartile - we'll do top quartile and top half for sure, possible top 75%.
 * Need a brief description of what SNHA's, EOs, and GAP are - at least somewhere in the paper - let's put it here for now. This can be modified from Hess etal.
 * Completeness and representation are described backwards, as the completeness and representation of the ES rather than of the species of conservation concern. "Completeness was calculated as the proportion of element occurrences included in areas representing the highest quartile (and half) of ecosystem services. Representation was calculated as the proportion of unique element occurrences included in areas representing the highest quartile (and half) of ecosystem services (ie, what proportion are capture at least once)."

SPECIES LIST TABLE (still needs to be cleaned up, but getting there-Thanks Kevin for the suggestion!) SpeciesbyPixel.zip