Dear all, I have simulate HQ V.3.7, I got the weird result of boundary of the simulated area turn to degraded. I used to run serveral version of HQ before and never get such as result. Any comments? See the error image result here:
1 Like
Hmm, very interesting model behavior! I wonder what’s causing it. Could you attach your logfile to the post so we can see if there’s anything that looks amiss about the model run?
thank you for your respond and Here are the log. mate.
InVEST-Habitat-Quality-log-2019-06-24–22_39_16.txt (64.6 KB)
InVEST-Habitat-Quality-log-2019-06-25–05_46_13.txt (42.9 KB)
Hmm, nothing looks especially out of the ordinary. Could you send your inputs so I can take a look? A google drive or dropbox link here should work great.
I think I can share the land use data now since it is still in the project. sorry for that. by the ways can you manage to test the model with the existing tutorial dataset? sorry for inconvenience. Pheaktra
That’s just the problem … running the HQ model with the sample data we provide doesn’t produce this issue, so I can only guess about what’s going wrong with the model when run on these inputs. If you’re uncomfortable posting your inputs here on the forums but you’re still able to share them, you can also email me a file sharing link at jdouglass@stanford.edu.
Hi everyone, we just fixed an issue with the Habitat Quality model that was causing this for users of Habitat Quality in InVEST 3.6 and 3.7. The bug has been fixed in this development build (https://storage.googleapis.com/releases.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/3.7.0.post241+he520675466a4/InVEST_3.7.0.post241+he520675466a4_x86_Setup.exe), and will be included in the next release of InVEST.
hi, same problems here
I tried version 3.7 and 3.7post367 both several times, but same result.
InVEST-Habitat-Quality-log-2019-09-10–16_50_17.txt (62.8 KB)
Hi @yingjie, I’m very surprised that the 3.7.0.post367 development build does not fix the issue for you! Would you please send your data so we can take a look?
Thanks,
James
hi @jdouglass, I send you a google drive link for all the input data by email (jdouglass@stanford.edu).
Thanks!
Yep!
So the issue here is with two of the threat rasters, crp_c.tif and urb_c.tif. Both of these rasters have pixel values of 0, 1 and 128, but they do not have a defined nodata value, which is causing the model’s convolutions to produce incorrect results that are then used in the degradation and habitat quality calculations.
I’ve updated these two rasters to define 128 as the nodata value and the issue appears to be resolved.
I’ve shared the datasets with your gmail address via google drive. Let me know if they aren’t working for you!
James
Got it!!! Thanks, James! @jdouglass
It is a little tricky at first when I read the user manual - “do not leave its sensitivity to each threat as Null or blank”, which I thought the map (when added to ArcGIS) region should not have NoDATA. But it turns out not. Now I understand even the surrounding area should not have NoDATA value…
The model works perfectly now! Many thanks!!!