I am trying to downscale climatic conditions using the methodology in this article using the R software. I am almost there, but I am missing a couple of steps
Packages and data needed
For this example I uploaded some data to the archive.org website to load the required packages and data used in this example use the following code:
library(raster)
library(rgdal)
download.file("https://archive.org/download/Downscaling/BatPatagonia.rds", "Bat.rds")
download.file("https://archive.org/download/Downscaling/TempMinPatNow.rds", "Tmin.rds")
BatPatagonia <- readRDS("Bat.rds")
TempMinPatNow <- readRDS("Tmin.rds")
BatPatagonia is a raster file with the Bathymetry and altitude of the area extracted and transformed from the GEBCO dataset, while the TempMinPatNow is the minimum temperature of the same area for January extracted from worldclim. The plots of the datasets are seen bellow:
The goal of this question
In order to downscale past data from the last glacial maximum I need to model how current climate would be like if the sea level was the same as it was in the past. In order to do that I use the GEBCO data and to figure out more or less were the coast was. According to the methodology in the article cited above this are the first three steps to follow:
Create a DEM for land above 20 meters above sea level
Calculate a Multiple Linear Regression in a moving window
Extrapolate coefficients to the ocean
Point 3 is what I have been struggling to do, I will show how I did the first 2 points, and show what I have been looking for trying to solve point 3
1. Create a DEM for land 20 meters above sea level
In order to do this I took the BatPatagonia raster, and replaced all values bellow 20 meters with NA values using the following code:
Elev20 <- BatPatagonia
values(Elev20) <- ifelse(values(Elev20) <= 20, NA, values(Elev20))
The resulting raster is shown in the following image
2. Calculate a Multiple Linear Regression in a moving window
According to the manuscript in page 2591, the next step is to do a Multiple Linear Regression in a moving window using the Following formula for altitudes over 20 meters:
We already have the elevation data, but we also need the rasters for latitude and longitude, for that we use the following code, where we first create the Latitude and Longitude Rasters:
Latitud <- BatPatagonia
Longitud <- BatPatagonia
data_matrix <- raster::xyFromCell(BatPatagonia, 1:ncell(BatPatagonia))
values(Latitud) <- data_matrix[, 2]
values(Longitud) <- data_matrix[, 1]
We will multiply this by a raster mask of the areas that have elevations over 20 meters, so that we get only the values that we need:
Elev20Mask <- BatPatagonia
values(Elev20Mask) <- ifelse(values(Elev20Mask) <= 20, NA, 1)
Longitud <- Elev20Mask*Longitud
Latitud <- Elev20Mask*Latitud
Now I will build a stack with the response variables and the predictor variables:
Preds <- stack(Elev20, Longitud, Latitud, TempMinPatNow)
names(Preds) <- c("Elev", "Longitud", "Latitud", "Tmin")
The resulting stack is shown in the following figure:
As stated in the paper the moving window should be of 25 by 25 cells, resulting in a total of 625 cells, however they state that if the moving window has less than 170 cells with data, the regression should not be performed, and it should have a maximum of 624 cells in order to ensure that we are only modelling areas close to the coast. The result of this Multiple Regression with the moving window should be a stack with the Local intercept, and the local estimation of each one of the Betas that are in the equation shown above. I found out how to make this using the following code using the getValuesFocal function (This loop takes a while):
# First we establish the 25 by 25 window
w <- c(25, 25)
# Then we create the empty layers for the resulting stack
intercept <- Preds[[1]]
intercept[] <- NA
elevationEst <- intercept
latitudeEst <- intercept
longitudeEst <- intercept
Now we start the code:
for (rl in 1:nrow(Preds)) {
v <- getValuesFocal(Preds[[1:4]], row = rl, nrows = 1, ngb = w, array = FALSE)
int <- rep(NA, nrow(v[[1]]))
x1 <- rep(NA, nrow(v[[1]]))
x2 <- rep(NA, nrow(v[[1]]))
x3 <- rep(NA, nrow(v[[1]]))
x4 <- rep(NA, nrow(v[[1]]))
for (i in 1:nrow(v[[1]])) {
xy <- na.omit(data.frame(x1 = v[[1]][i, ], x2 = v[[2]][i, ], x3 = v[[3]][i,
], y = v[[4]][i, ]))
if (nrow(xy) > 170 & nrow(xy) <= 624) {
coefs <- coefficients(lm(as.numeric(xy$y) ~ as.numeric(xy$x1) +
as.numeric(xy$x2) + as.numeric(xy$x3)))
int[i] <- coefs[1]
x1[i] <- coefs[2]
x2[i] <- coefs[3]
x3[i] <- coefs[4]
} else {
int[i] <- NA
x1[i] <- NA
x2[i] <- NA
x3[i] <- NA
}
}
intercept[rl, ] <- int
elevationEst[rl, ] <- x1
longitudeEst[rl, ] <- x2
latitudeEst[rl, ] <- x3
message(paste(rl, "of", nrow(Preds), "ready"))
}
Coeffs <- stack(intercept, elevationEst, latitudeEst, longitudeEst, (intercept + Preds$Elev * elevationEst + Preds$Longitud * longitudeEst + Preds$Latitud *latitudeEst), Preds$Tmin)
names(Coeffs) <- c("intercept", "elevationEst", "longitudeEst", "latitudeEst", "fitted", "Observed")
The result of this loop is the coeffs stack, show bellow:
This is where I got stuck:
Extrapolate coefficients to the ocean
The goal now is to extrapolate the first 4 rasters of the Coeffs stack (intercept, elevationEst, longitudeEst and latitudeEst) to where the coast should be according to the last glacial maximum which was 120 meters shallower
MaxGlacier <- BatPatagonia
values(MaxGlacier) <- ifelse(values(MaxGlacier) < -120, NA,1)
The projected coastline is shown in the following map:
The way the authors projected the coefficients to the coast was by filling the gaps using by solving poisson's equation using the poisson_grid_fill of the NCL language from NCAR. But I would like to keep it simple and try to do all in the same language. I also found a similar function in python.
I would be happy with any extrapolation process that works well, I am not limiting my search to that algorithm.
I found several r packages that fill gaps such as the Gapfill package and even found a review of methods to fill gaps, but most of them are for interpolating and mostly for NDVI layers that can be based on other layers where the gap is filled.
Any ideas on how to move froward on this?
Thanks
Thinking back several decades to my physics undergrad days, we used Laplace relaxation to solve these types of Poisson equation problems. I'm not sure, but I guess that may also be how poisson_grid_fill works. The process is simple. Relaxation is an iterative process where we calculate each cell except those that form the boundary condition as the mean of the cells that are horizontally or vertically adjacent, then repeat until the result approaches a stable solution.
In your case, the cells for which you already have values provide your boundary condition, and we can iterate over the others. Something like this (demonstrated here for the intercept coefficient - you can do the others the same way):
gaps = which(is.na(intercept)[])
intercept.ext = intercept
w=matrix(c(0,0.25,0,0.25,0,0.25,0,0.25,0), nc=3, nr=3)
max.it = 1000
for (i in 1:max.it) intercept.ext[gaps] = focal(intercept.ext, w=w, na.rm=TRUE)[gaps]
intercept.ext = mask(intercept.ext, MaxGlacier)
Edit
Here's the same process embedded in a function, to demonstrate how you might use a while loop that continues until a desired tolerance is reached (or maximum number of iterations is exceeded). Note that this function is to demonstrate the principle, and is not optimised for speed.
gap.fill = function(r, max.it = 1e4, tol = 1e-2, verbose=FALSE) {
gaps = which(is.na(r)[])
r.filled = r
w = matrix(c(0,0.25,0,0.25,0,0.25,0,0.25,0), nc=3, nr=3)
i = 0
while(i < max.it) {
i = i + 1
new.vals = focal(r.filled, w=w, na.rm=TRUE)[gaps]
max.residual = suppressWarnings(max(abs(r.filled[gaps] - new.vals), na.rm = TRUE))
if (verbose) print(paste('Iteration', i, ': residual = ', max.residual))
r.filled[gaps] = new.vals
if (is.finite(max.residual) & max.residual <= tol) break
}
return(r.filled)
}
intercept.ext = gap.fill(intercept)
intercept.ext = mask(intercept.ext, MaxGlacier)
plot(stack(intercept, intercept.ext))
Related
I am trying to estimate a big OLS regression with ~1 million observations and ~50,000 variables using biglm.
I am planning to run each estimation using chunks of approximately 100 observations each. I tested this strategy with a small sample and it worked fine.
However, with the real data I am getting an "Error: protect(): protection stack overflow" when trying to define the formula for the biglm function.
I've already tried:
starting R with --max-ppsize=50000
setting options(expressions = 50000)
but the error persists
I am working on Windows and using Rstudio
# create the sample data frame (In my true case, I simply select 100 lines from the original data that contains ~1,000,000 lines)
DF <- data.frame(matrix(nrow=100,ncol=50000))
DF[,] <- rnorm(100*50000)
colnames(DF) <- c("y", paste0("x", seq(1:49999)))
# get names of covariates
my_xvars <- colnames(DF)[2:( ncol(DF) )]
# define the formula to be used in biglm
# HERE IS WHERE I GET THE ERROR :
my_f <- as.formula(paste("y~", paste(my_xvars, collapse = " + ")))
EDIT 1:
The ultimate goal of my exercise is to estimate the average effect of all 50,000 variables. Therefore, simplifying the model selecting fewer variables is not the solution I am looking for now.
The first bottleneck (I can't guarantee there won't be others) is in the construction of the formula. R can't construct a formula that long from text (details are too ugly to explore right now). Below I show a hacked version of the biglm code that can take the model matrix X and response variable y directly, rather than using a formula to build them. However: the next bottleneck is that the internal function biglm:::bigqr.init(), which gets called inside biglm, tries to allocate a numeric vector of size choose(nc,2)=nc*(nc-1)/2 (where nc is the number of columns. When I try with 50000 columns I get
Error: cannot allocate vector of size 9.3 Gb
(2.3Gb are required when nc is 25000). The code below runs on my laptop when nc <- 10000.
I have a few caveats about this approach:
you won't be able to handle a probelm with 50000 columns unless you have at least 10G of memory, because of the issue described above.
the biglm:::update.biglm will have to be modified in a parallel way (this shouldn't be too hard)
I have no idea if the p>>n issue (which applies at the level of fitting the initial chunk) will bite you. When running my example below (with 10 rows, 10000 columns), all but 10 of the parameters are NA. I don't know if these NA values will contaminate the results so that successive updating fails. If so, I don't know if there's a way to work around the problem, or if it's fundamental (so that you would need nr>nc for at least the initial fit). (It would be straightforward to do some small experiments to see if there is a problem, but I've already spent too long on this ...)
don't forget that with this approach you have to explicitly add an intercept column to the model matrix (e.g. X <- cbind(1,X) if you want one.
Example (first save the code at the bottom as my_biglm.R):
nr <- 10
nc <- 10000
DF <- data.frame(matrix(rnorm(nr*nc),nrow=nr))
respvars <- paste0("x", seq(nc-1))
names(DF) <- c("y", respvars)
# illustrate formula problem: fails somewhere in 15000 < nc < 20000
try(reformulate(respvars,response="y"))
source("my_biglm.R")
rr <- my_biglm(y=DF[,1],X=as.matrix(DF[,-1]))
my_biglm <- function (formula, data, weights = NULL, sandwich = FALSE,
y=NULL, X=NULL, off=0) {
if (!is.null(weights)) {
if (!inherits(weights, "formula"))
stop("`weights' must be a formula")
w <- model.frame(weights, data)[[1]]
} else w <- NULL
if (is.null(X)) {
tt <- terms(formula)
mf <- model.frame(tt, data)
if (is.null(off <- model.offset(mf)))
off <- 0
mm <- model.matrix(tt, mf)
y <- model.response(mf) - off
} else {
## model matrix specified directly
if (is.null(y)) stop("both y and X must be specified")
mm <- X
tt <- NULL
}
qr <- biglm:::bigqr.init(NCOL(mm))
qr <- biglm:::update.bigqr(qr, mm, y, w)
rval <- list(call = sys.call(), qr = qr, assign = attr(mm,
"assign"), terms = tt, n = NROW(mm), names = colnames(mm),
weights = weights)
if (sandwich) {
p <- ncol(mm)
n <- nrow(mm)
xyqr <- bigqr.init(p * (p + 1))
xx <- matrix(nrow = n, ncol = p * (p + 1))
xx[, 1:p] <- mm * y
for (i in 1:p) xx[, p * i + (1:p)] <- mm * mm[, i]
xyqr <- update(xyqr, xx, rep(0, n), w * w)
rval$sandwich <- list(xy = xyqr)
}
rval$df.resid <- rval$n - length(qr$D)
class(rval) <- "biglm"
rval
}
I am trying to fit a soft-core point process model on a set of point pattern using maximum pseudo-likelihood. I followed the instructions given in this paper by Baddeley and Turner
And here is the R-code I came up with
`library(deldir)
library(tidyverse)
library(fields)
#MPLE
# irregular parameter k
k <- 0.4
## Generate dummy points 50X50. "RA" and "DE" are x and y coordinates
dum.x <- seq(ramin, ramax, length = 50)
dum.y <- seq(demin, demax, length = 50)
dum <- expand.grid(dum.x, dum.y)
colnames(dum) <- c("RA", "DE")
## Combine with data and specify which is data point and which is dummy, X is the point pattern to be fitted
bind.x <- bind_rows(X, dum) %>%
mutate(Ind = c(rep(1, nrow(X)), rep(0, nrow(dum))))
## Calculate Quadrature weights using Voronoi cell area
w <- deldir(bind.x$RA, bind.x$DE)$summary$dir.area
## Response
y <- bind.x$Ind/w
# the sum of distances between all pairs of points (the sufficient statistics)
tmp <- cbind(bind.x$RA, bind.x$DE)
t1 <- rdist(tmp)^(-2/k)
t1[t1 == Inf] <- 0
t1 <- rowSums(t1)
t <- -t1
# fit the model using quasipoisson regression
fit <- glm(y ~ t, family = quasipoisson, weights = w)
`
However, the fitted parameter for t is negative which is obviously not a correct value for a softcore point process. Also, my point pattern is actually simulated from a softcore process so it does not make sense that the fitted parameter is negative. I tried my best to find any bugs in the code but I can't seem to find it. The only potential issue I see is that my sufficient statistics is extremely large (on the order of 10^14) which I fear may cause numerical issues. But the statistics are large because my observation window spans a very small unit and the average distance between a pair of points is around 0.006. So sufficient statistics based on this will certainly be very large and my intuition tells me that it should not cause a numerical problem and make the fitted parameter to be negative.
Can anybody help and check if my code is correct? Thanks very much!
I am working on a land-use/cover change simulation in R. I have two raster maps, one with 'land-use/cover classes' and another with 'deforestation risk info.' I am using the risk raster to identify the forest pixels (one of the land-use/cover classes) more likely to be deforested. So far I have a R code that works, here is an example that can be reproduced:
#create land-use/cover raster
real <- raster(nrows=25, ncols=25, vals=round(rnorm(625, 3), 0))
real[ real > 3 ] <- 3 #just so we end with 3 land-use/cover classes
real[ real < 1 ] <- 1 #just so we end with 3 land-use/cover classes
plot(real)
#function to create the deforestation risk raster created by someone else
rtnorm <- function(n, mean = 0, sd = 1, min = 0, max = 1) {
bounds <- pnorm(c(min, max), mean, sd)
u <- runif(n, bounds[1], bounds[2])
qnorm(u, mean, sd)
}
risk <- raster(nrows=25, ncols=25, vals=rtnorm(n = 625, .1, .9)) #deforestation risk raster
plot(risk)
#The actual analysis starts here:
forest <- real #read the land-use/cover raster
forest[ forest != 3 ] <- NA #all left is class 3 (let's say, forest) in the raster
plot(forest, col="green")
deforestation <- sum(forest, risk) #identify the forest pixels with highest risk
plot(deforestation)
deforestation[ deforestation <= 3.5 ] <- 0 #rule to deforest the forest pixels
deforestation[ deforestation > 0 ] <- 100 #mark the pixels that will be deforested
plot(deforestation)
simulation <- sum(real, deforestation)
simulation[ simulation > 100 ] <- 2 #I use this to mark the forest pixels to a different land-use/cover class
plot(simulation)
I would like to change the rule I am using to select the forest pixels that will be deforested (i.e., deforestation[ deforestation <= 3.5 ] <- 0 ). Instead of selecting a threshold value like 3.5, I wonder if I could set a specific number of forest pixels (e.g., 50) to be deforested, and then select the 50 forest pixels with the highest deforestation risk.
I am completely clueless about how to do something like this in R, so any suggestions will be highly appreciated. Thank you.
If the raster is not too large, you can get the 50 cells with the highest values as follows:
i <- order(values(deforestation), decreasing=TRUE)[1:50]
You can then use these like this
deforestation[] <- 0
deforestation[i] <- 100
I have a problem with lsoda in deSolve package in R. (It might be applicable to ode function too). I am modeling the dynamics of a food web using a set of ODEs calculating abundances of 5 species in two identical food webs which are connected through dispersal.
the abundances are calculated in 2000 time steps, and they are not supposed to be negative or less than 1e-6. In that case the result should be changed into 0. I could not find any parameter for lsoda to turn negative results into zero. I tried the following trick in my ODE function:
solve.model <- function(t,y, parms){
solve.model <- function(t,y, parms){
y <- ifelse(y<1e-6, 0, y)
#ODE functions here
#...
#...
return(list(dy))
}
but it seems not working. Below is a sample of abundances of species in a web.
I will be very grateful for your help, and hope the sample code can give enough information about my problem.
Babak
P.S. I am solving the following ODE set for the abundances of species(the first two equations) and resource change (third equation)
the corresponding code for the function is as below
solve.model <- function(t, y, parms){
y <- ifelse(y<1e-6, 0, y)
with(parms,{
# return from vector form into matrix form for calculations
(R <- as.matrix(y[(max(no.species)*length(no.species)+1):length(y)]))
(N <- matrix(y[1:(max(no.species)*length(no.species))], ncol=length(no.species)))
dy1 <- matrix(nrow=max(no.species), ncol=length(no.species))
dy2 <- matrix(nrow=length(no.species), ncol=1)
for (i in 1:no.webs){
species <- no.species[i]
(abundance <- N[1:species,i])
adj <- as.matrix(webs[[i]])
a.temp <- a[1:species, 1:species]*adj
b.temp <- b[1:species, 1:species]*adj
h.temp <- h[1:species, 1:species]*adj
#Calculating sigmas in denominator of Holing type II functional response
(sum.over.preys <- abundance%*%(a.temp*h.temp))
(sum.over.predators <- (a.temp*h.temp)%*%abundance)
#Calculating growth of basal
(basal.growth <- basals[,i]*N[,i]*(mu*R[i]/(K+R[i])-m))
# Calculating growth for non-basal species
no.basal <- rep(1,len=species)-basals[1:species]
predator.growth<- rep(0, max(no.species))
(predator.growth[1:species] <- ((abundance%*%(a.temp*b.temp))/(1+sum.over.preys)-m*no.basal)*abundance)
predation <- rep(0, max(no.species))
(predation[1:species] <- (((a.temp*b.temp)%*%abundance)/t(1+sum.over.preys))*abundance)
(pop <- basal.growth + predator.growth - predation)
dy1[,i] <- pop
dy2[i] <- 0.0005 #Change in the resource
}
#Calculating dispersals .they can be easily replaced
# by adjacency maps of connections between food webs arbitrarily!
# added to solve the problem of negative abundances
deltas <- append(c(dy1), dy2)
return(list(append(c(dy1),dy2)))
})
}
this function is used by lsoda by the following call:
temp.abund[[j]] <- lsoda(y=initials, func=solve.model, times=0:max.time, parms=parms)
This may seem a really simple question, but here goes:
I have a data frame:
test_df <- data.frame(x1 = c(277422033,24118536.4,2096819.0,
182293.4,15905,1330,105,16,1),
x2 = c(2.496e-3,2.495e-2,2.496e-1,
2.496e0,2.47e1,2.48e2,2.456e3,
3.7978e4,3.781e5))
and I would like to linearly interpolate this to increase the number of points. The variables are linearly related on a log scales, i.e.
plot(log10(test_df[,1]),log10(test_df[,2]))
So, my question is, how do I linearly interpolate these to increase the number of values?
Here is my attempt using a linear model (as opposed to the approx function):
I have defined a linear model as:
test.lm <- lm(log10(x1) ~ log10(x2), data = test_df)
and then define a new variable for the new points:
ss <- seq(min(test_df$x2),max(test_df$x2),length.out = 100) # new x1
then predict the new values and plot the points
newY <- predict(test.lm, newdata = data.frame(x2 = ss)) # interpolated values
test_df2 <- data.frame(x1 = 10^newY,
x2 = ss)
points(newY,log10(ss),col = "red")
This works as I expect i.e. the graph in the end is as I expected.
I would like to increase the number of points in test_df2 which can be done by increasing length.out e.g.
ss <- seq(min(test_df$x2),max(test_df$x2),length.out = 10000000)
but this makes the running time very long on my machine, to the point that I have to restart R.
Is there a way that I can linearly interpolate at an evenly distributed number of points which also extend the entire number of points specified in ss?
Just use
ss <- 10^seq(log10(min(test_df$x2)),log10(max(test_df$x2)),length.out = 1000)
to have your new data evenly distributed on the log scale.