Author Archives: richard telford

About richard telford

Ecologist with interests in quantitative methods and palaeoenvironments

Resampling Assemblage Counts

Imagine that one diatom assemblage has 20 species and another has 25, but the more species rich assemblage also has more diatoms counted.A fair comparison of the richness of each assemblage can only be made when the number of individuals … Continue reading

Posted in R | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A demo targets plan for reproducible pipelines for Neotoma data

In any analysis, there are a series of steps: data importing, cleaning, analysis, creating figures, and then putting it all together in an manuscript. Very often, some of these steps are time consuming, and you don’t want to rerun everything … Continue reading

Posted in reproducible research | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reproducibility of high resolution reconstruction – one year on

It is about a year since my paper discussing the reproducibility of high resolution reconstructions was finally published, so I thought I should give a full account of what has happened since. Nothing. None of the authors of the papers … Continue reading

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

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 | 3 Comments