You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm making the switch to using the "Individual Phenometrics" data instead of the "Status and Intensity" data. The former summarizes things into first "yes" dates for all individual trees, which I was doing manually myself. This NPN summarized data also has better conflict flags which can be used to filter out most of the problematic group sites.
The differences are they are now using the NPN formated data,
see prior commit and sdtaylor/phenology_forecasts#34.
Also because of this the phenophase 498 models are no longer
using "intensity was >= 50%" as used in c2cdbfc, but the
first 'yes' doy as used in other phenophases
For phenophases 371 and 501 the following models were included.
m1 = pyPhenology.models.Alternating()
m2 = pyPhenology.models.ThermalTime()
m3 = pyPhenology.models.Uniforc()
m4 = pyPhenology.models.Linear(parameters={'time_start':(-30,60), 'time_length':(1,120)})
For newly added phenophase 498 (fall coloring) the following were used
m1 = pyPhenology.models.Linear(parameters={'time_start':(180,300), 'time_length':(10,90)})
m2 = pyPhenology.models.FallCooling()
I'm making the switch to using the "Individual Phenometrics" data instead of the "Status and Intensity" data. The former summarizes things into first "yes" dates for all individual trees, which I was doing manually myself. This NPN summarized data also has better conflict flags which can be used to filter out most of the problematic group sites.
Data download for all prior data used in model buidling (2008 - 2017)
https://data.usanpn.org/observations?search=3dd370f197c6ae95e881f0e93cc56ae8
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: