Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use new Figure component #93

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 24, 2022
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension


Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 8 additions & 8 deletions package-lock.json

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion package.json
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
"dependencies": {
"@carbonplan/charts": "^2.7.0",
"@carbonplan/colormaps": "^3.0.1",
"@carbonplan/components": "^11.2.3",
"@carbonplan/components": "^11.5.0",
"@carbonplan/icons": "^1.0.0",
"@carbonplan/layouts": "^1.1.3",
"@carbonplan/maps": "^1.2.0",
Expand Down
41 changes: 22 additions & 19 deletions posts/climate-trace-release.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
import { Link, FigureCaption } from '@carbonplan/components'
import Figure from './climate-trace-release/figure'
import { Link, Figure, FigureCaption } from '@carbonplan/components'
import Map from './climate-trace-release/figure'

export const meta = {
version: '1.0.0',
Expand All @@ -17,24 +17,27 @@ In early 2020, CarbonPlan joined the [Climate TRACE](https://www.climatetrace.or

For the initial release of the Climate TRACE platform we used established methods to estimate gross emissions from stand-replacing forest disturbances. Our work closely followed the approach of [Zarin et al. (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13153) and is similar to that of the recent [Harris et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6) paper, the results of which are hosted by the [Global Forest Watch](https://www.globalforestwatch.org/) platform. Our analysis created a data product of annual emissions for each 30 m x 30 m forest pixel across the globe from 2001 through 2020. The primary differences between our implementation for the Climate TRACE platform and the original data from Zarin et al. (2016) are an extension through 2020 and the complete coverage of all global forested areas.

<Figure />
<FigureCaption>
Cumulative emissions from forests (2001 - 2020). Pixels are 1º x 1º. Open the{' '}
<Link
sx={{
color: 'secondary',
'@media (hover: hover) and (pointer: fine)': {
'&:hover': {
color: 'primary',
<Figure>
<Map />
<FigureCaption>
Cumulative emissions from forests (2001 - 2020). Pixels are 1º x 1º. Open
the{' '}
<Link
sx={{
color: 'secondary',
'@media (hover: hover) and (pointer: fine)': {
'&:hover': {
color: 'primary',
},
},
},
}}
href='/research/forest-carbon'
>
interactive
</Link>{' '}
version to explore more.
</FigureCaption>
}}
href='/research/forest-carbon'
>
interactive
</Link>{' '}
version to explore more.
</FigureCaption>
</Figure>

Our complete methods are documented in detail [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSVPWE8BOOqu_G9_bdioMquhoIOTnJ4UOYeJeCpEr9RMBrazStaIxQIJtrt8DzVBMZb4waxA9fLyyqr/pub) and all of our source code is available on [GitHub](https://github.com/carbonplan/trace). The full data product is visible via an interactive [webmap](https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-carbon). Interested users can also check out a sample [jupyter notebook](https://aws-uswest2-binder.pangeo.io/v2/gh/carbonplan/trace/HEAD?urlpath=lab/tree/notebooks%2Fblogpost_sample_notebook.ipynb) to inspect the resulting publicly-available, cloud-based emissions archive at the 30 m scale and visualize the data like the map above.

Expand Down
3 changes: 0 additions & 3 deletions posts/climate-trace-release/figure.js
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -89,10 +89,7 @@ const Figure = () => {

return (
<Box
as='figure'
sx={{
mt: [6, 6, 6, 7],
mb: [4, 4, 4, 5],
border: 'solid',
borderColor: 'muted',
borderWidth: '1px',
Expand Down
44 changes: 23 additions & 21 deletions posts/open-lidar-biomass.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
import { FigureCaption } from '@carbonplan/components'
import Figure from './open-lidar-biomass/figure'
import { Figure, FigureCaption } from '@carbonplan/components'
import Chart from './open-lidar-biomass/figure'

export const meta = {
version: '1.0.0',
Expand All @@ -22,25 +22,27 @@ Estimating forest carbon begins with understanding a single tree. A ground truth
To generate global-scale datasets of AGB in a more cost-effective manner, researchers have turned to remotely-sensed data. For instance, space-mounted LiDAR has been used to measure elevation globally. This data can be processed to derive canopy metrics (e.g. vegetation height) that are predictive of biomass. Researchers can then develop empirical allometric equations that translate LiDAR-based canopy metrics to AGB using collocated ground measurements. These equations have been published for different geographical, bioclimatic, and ecological zones.
Recently, [Harris et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6) synthesized these equations to generate biomass estimates across the globe, and helpfully included in their methods a comprehensive [spreadsheet](https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-020-00976-6/MediaObjects/41558_2020_976_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx) of allometric equations and height metric definitions. Others have combined LiDAR and other remote-sensing products for biomass estimation with broader spatial or more frequent temporal coverage ([Baccini et al., 2017](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962); [Wang et al., 2021](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01027-4), [Duncanson et al, 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112845)).

<Figure />
<FigureCaption number={1}>
Example LiDAR return signal, which could result in two different tree heights
depending on the choice of methods. The y-axis represents distance from the
satellite where the LiDAR instrument is located. A higher value (lower
position) on the y-axis indicates a distance farther from the satellite, and
thus closer to the center of earth. (Note that for simplicity we show the top
of the y-axis as 0. The actual distance from the satellite can be calculated
by adding ~600,000 meters). A higher value on the x-axis indicates a larger
return signal strength at that distance, implying high reflection and more
tree surface area at that height. The raw LiDAR return data are plotted in
dark gray dots and a fitted smooth curve is plotted in white. In this example,
using either of the two definitions of ground peak lead to different
calculated magnitudes of <i>Max Vegetation Height</i> (25% less when using
alternative ground peak in this example). In general, allometric equations
relying on <i>Max Vegetation Height</i> as an input would estimate higher
biomass (if using the yellow ground peak) or lower biomass (if using the pink
alternative ground peak).{' '}
</FigureCaption>
<Figure>
<Chart />
<FigureCaption number={1}>
Example LiDAR return signal, which could result in two different tree
heights depending on the choice of methods. The y-axis represents distance
from the satellite where the LiDAR instrument is located. A higher value
(lower position) on the y-axis indicates a distance farther from the
satellite, and thus closer to the center of earth. (Note that for simplicity
we show the top of the y-axis as 0. The actual distance from the satellite
can be calculated by adding ~600,000 meters). A higher value on the x-axis
indicates a larger return signal strength at that distance, implying high
reflection and more tree surface area at that height. The raw LiDAR return
data are plotted in dark gray dots and a fitted smooth curve is plotted in
white. In this example, using either of the two definitions of ground peak
lead to different calculated magnitudes of <i>Max Vegetation Height</i> (25%
less when using alternative ground peak in this example). In general,
allometric equations relying on <i>Max Vegetation Height</i> as an input
would estimate higher biomass (if using the yellow ground peak) or lower
biomass (if using the pink alternative ground peak).{' '}
</FigureCaption>
</Figure>

## Why the details matter

Expand Down
Loading