Crop pollination model - error in result .tif files

Science, Research & Data
1

Hi, I’ve run the Pollination model successful but cannot view the resulting .tif files.

I attach the log file.
InVEST-Crop-Pollination-log-2022-04-18–09_55_45.txt (18.8 KB)

When I try to open the .tif files, I get a message from Windows picture viewer that the files are damaged, corrupted or are too large (they are c. 225KB each).

Any suggestions?
Many thanks
Richard

2

Hi @Minton71 -

Have you tried bringing the .tifs into a GIS program? Do you get a similar error?

~ Stacie

1 Like
3

Hi Stacie – thanks, it does indeed work when imported into GIS

Kind regards

Richard

4

I have a follow up query please. There is a significant difference in pollinator abundance in relation to LULC class between two seasons. In Summer, we see the abundance data replicates the boundaries of LULC classes; in Spring abundance is shown as a continuous filed. There is nothing in the input data that I can see that would result in this difference. Can you please clarify? I attach screenshots of Summer and Spring findings.
Thanks
Richard

Spring
Spring993×636 93.5 KB

Summer
Summer997×640 90.9 KB

5

Hi Richard -

I could use some help interpreting the maps. Is it the case that the land use/land cover map is in the background, and the pollinator abundance layers are the squares with blocky colors on top? The patterns within the squares look very similar to me, with the summer appearing darker than spring, and neither appear to follow much of the LULC map underneath. It might be easier to see what you’re describing by showing the land use map separately from the abundance maps, where the abundance maps don’t have any opacity.

~ Stacie

6

Hi Stacie – you’re exactly right.

The LULC map is in the background – it is artificially generated (not related to the real-world LULC), superimposed on real-world soil, DEM, climate etc. for various ES modelling.

image001.png636×674 424 KB

You can see the blocky Summer abundance data reflects exactly the LULC boundaries, whereas we expected to see significant diffusion of these edges, as per the Spring data.

Thanks

Richard

7

Hi @Minton71,
If you can share all your input data that would help us identify what is happening. You can upload it directly on the forum, or share a Google Drive or Dropbox link, or email it to me privately if you prefer (esoth@stanford.edu).

8

I can’t tell from your screen shots, but are the summer abundance values exactly the same within each LULC block? If you inspect individual pixels, I would expect there to be some variation that’s hard to see with your map’s current coloring.

The blocky appearance could happen because pollinator abundance itself is not convolved (diffused across LULC boundaries):

Pollinator Abundance = Flowers Foraged x Floral Resources x Pollinator Supply

The floral resources (intermediate_outputs/floral_resources_X.tif) and pollinator supply (pollinator_supply_X.tif) rasters are convolved over the radius (alpha). If you look at these rasters, they should appear diffused across the LULC boundaries.

But the flowers foraged raster (intermediate_outputs/flowers_foraged_index_X_Y.tif) is not convolved. It should appear blocky because its values depend directly on the LULC value for each pixel.

When we multiply these convolved and non-convolved together to calculate pollinator abundance, the result will have a mix of blocky and diffused patterns. The block edges may obscure the faint diffused patterns. But I’m not sure why they are so much more apparent in spring vs. summer.

1 Like
9

Hi Emily

I really appreciate your time looking into this. Attached is a PNG of the LULC – will this do for discussion?

Referring to your community post points:

I can’t tell from your screen shots, but are the summer abundance values exactly the same within each LULC block? If you inspect individual pixels, I would expect there to be some variation that’s hard to see with your map’s current coloring.

  • The summer abundance values are exactly the same as each LULC block; there is no convolution. Not even a slight blurring, let alone the vast difference to the Spring values. If I’m following the gist of your post, is this because the Summer apis abundance is calculated differently from the Spring apis abundance?

The crux of the issue is as per your observation: I’m not sure why they are so much more apparent in spring vs. summer.

Cheers

Richard

image001.png
image001.png636×674 424 KB

10

Hi Richard,
Thanks for checking that the values are exactly the same within each block. Spring and Summer should be calculated the same, the model works the same way for any arbitrary season.

If you could please re-send your LULC raster as a .tif, I’ll investigate further (I could not open the .mxd format). Thanks!

1 Like