There were a relatively large number of extinctions of mammalian species roughly 10,000 years ago. To help understand why these extinctions happened scientists are interested in understanding whether there were differences in the body size of those species that went extinct and those that did not. Since we’re starting to get pretty good at this whole programming thing let’s stop messing around with made up datasets and do some serious analysis.
Download the largest dataset on mammalian body size in the world. Fortunately this dataset has data on the mass of recently extinct mammals as well as extant mammals (i.e., those that are still alive today). Take a look at the metadata to understand the structure of the data. One key thing to remember is that species can occur on more than one continent, and if they do then they will occur more than once in this dataset. Also let’s ignore species that went extinct in the very recent past (designated by the word ‘historical’ in the ‘status’ column).
Import the data into Python. If you’ve looked at a lot of data you’ll realize
that this dataset is tab delimited. The special character to indicate tab in
Python is \t
.
To start let’s explore the data a little and then start looking at the major question.
len(data.groupby(['genus']))
. Modify this code to determine
the number of species. Remember that a species is uniquely defined by the
combination of its genus name and its species name. Print the result to
the screen. The number should be between 4000 and 5000.mean()
should help you here. It is available as both a numpy function and a Pandas
DataFrame method. Don’t worry about species that occur more than once. We’ll
consider the values on different continents to represent independent data
points. Print out the results in the following sentence: “The average mass of
extant species is X and the average mass of extinct species is Y.” with the
appropriate values filled in for X and Y.This is a follow up to the Scientific Python 1.
Looking at the average mass of extinct and extant species overall is useful, but
there are lots of different processes that could cause size-biased extinctions
so it’s not as informative as we might like. However, if we see the exact same
pattern on each of the different continents that might really tell us
something. Repeat the analysis in
Scientific Python 1, but this time compare the
mean masses within each of the different continents. Export your results to a
csv file where the first entry on each line is the continent, the second entry
is the average mass of the extant species on that continent, the third entry is
the average mass of the extinct species on that continent, and the forth entry
is the difference between the average extant and average extinct masses. Call
the file continent_mass_differences.csv
. If you notice anything
strange think about what’s going on and present the final data in the way that
makes the most sense to you.
This is a follow up to Scientific Python 2.
We have previously compared the average masses of extant and extinct species on
different continents to try to understand whether size has an influence on
extinction in mammals. Looking at the averages was a good start, but we really
need to look at the full distributions of masses of the two groups to get the
best picture of whether or not there was a major size bias in extinctions during
the late Pleistocene. Make a graph with a subplot for each continent that you
think is worth visualizing. Each subplot should contain two histograms that use
the same bins to display the number of extinct and extant species. Use the
log(mass) rather than the mass itself so that you can see the form of the
distributions more clearly. Label the axes appropriately. The optional argument
alpha
will allow you to make the histograms transparent, which will help with
visualizing two histograms that overlap one another.
There is a lot of work to do in this problem so make sure to break it down in to manageable pieces. Some logical chunks include:
Understanding the total amount of biomass (the total mass of all individuals) in forests is important for understanding the global carbon budget and how the earth will respond to increases in carbon dioxide emissions. Measuring the mass of entire trees is difficult, and it’s pretty much impossible to weigh an entire forest (even if we were willing to clear cut a forest for science), but fortunately we can estimate the mass of a tree based on its diameter.
There are lots of equations for estimating the mass of a tree from its diameter, but one good option is the equation M = 0.124*D^(2.53), where M is measured in kg of dry (above-ground) biomass and D is in cm d.b.h. (Brown 1997). We’re going to estimate the total tree biomass for trees in a 96 hectare area of the Western Ghats in India.
retriever install csv Ramesh2010
and the data will be
stored in Ramesh2010_macroplots.csv
) and import it into Python.