Author Archives: richard telford

About richard telford

Ecologist with interests in quantitative methods and palaeoenvironments

Simplistic and Dangerous Models

A few weeks ago there were none. Three weeks ago, with an entirely inadequate search strategy, ten cases were found. Last Saturday there were 43! With three inaccurate data points, there is enough information to fit an exponential curve: the prevalence … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 3 Comments

COVID-19, climate and the plague of preprints

Many diseases have geographically variability in prevalence or seasonal variability in epidemics, which may, directly or indirectly, be causally related to climate. Unfortunately, the nature of the relationship with climate is not always clear. With the recent outbreak of COVID-19, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 4 Comments

Erroneous information … was given

By coincidence, days after I wrote about the apparently very low midge counts in Hiidenvesi, the authors published a correction. Erroneous information considering Chironomidae and Chaoboridae accumulation was given in Figure 4 published in Luoto et al. (2017). Therefore, it … Continue reading

Posted in Peer reviewed literature, transfer function | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Making a pollen diagram from Neotoma

Last week I gave a course on R for palaeoecologists covering data handling using tidyverse, reproducibility and some some ordinations and transfer functions. One of the exercises was to download some pollen data from Neotoma and make a pollen diagram. … Continue reading

Posted in Data manipulation, R, reproducible research | Tagged | 1 Comment

Count sums – the preprint

I wandered lonely as a cloud That floats on high o’er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host, of golden chironomids; Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze. Continuous … Continue reading

Posted in Peer reviewed literature | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Count-less chironomids?

Most papers that present microfossil assemblages report (not always accurately) the minimum number of microfossils that were counted in each sample, an important indicator of the precision of the data. Some do not. For these papers, the reader should be … Continue reading

Posted in Peer reviewed literature, transfer function | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Tools for a reproducible manuscript

It is all too easy to make a mistake putting a manuscript together: mistranscribe a number, forget to rerun some analyses after the data are revised, or simply bodge the round some numbers. Fortunately it is possible to avoid these … Continue reading

Posted in reproducible research | Tagged | 2 Comments

Double diatoms

I am in awe of Dr Elisabeth Bik and her amazing ability and dedication to spotting duplications in images. A new thread on – what appears to be – an obviously photoshopped image by Andrzej N released by @NatGeoMagI guess … Continue reading

Posted in Peer reviewed literature, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Funky ordination plots with ggvegan

Yesterday, I tweeted a photo of a ordination I plotted with ggvegan, and thought I should show how I made it. ggvegan and ggplot make it easy to make complex ordination plots pic.twitter.com/zmEal7W4Q8 — Richard Telford (@richardjtelford) April 10, 2019 … Continue reading

Posted in R, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Sunspots and raindrops

It is time, as the walrus said, to talk about another paper reporting an effect of solar variability on the Earth’s climate. Laurenz et al. (2019) correlate European country-scale precipitation data from CRU with the number of sunspots, a proxy … Continue reading

Posted in Peer reviewed literature, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 5 Comments