visualizations of pathways

[timadriaens]

visualizations of pathways

[peterdesmet]

Yes, graphs per plants/vertebrates/invertebrates are definitely more readable. I would also rotate the whole chart 90 clockwise, so second level pathways are on y-axis (and more readable), first-level pathways are blocks and numbers are on x-axis

[damianooldoni]

We have 32 pathways at level 2, that's way more than the pathways in graph you show, @timadriaens. So, our INBO style graph would result in something like this:

Or we should opt for a trade-off and cutting some pathways away. @timadriaens what do you think?

[damianooldoni]

By the way, the graph above was a draft of the graph using ALL taxa, no lower limit to year of introduction assigned and all kingdoms together.

Here below I show how it would look like for:

Plantae

Vertebrates

Invertebrates

So, breaking down taxonomically helps tremendously to reduce number of pathways level 2. I think also that removing the "unknown" pathways, especially from pathway level 1, would ease readability (one graph line less). The number of unknowns are still given in the tables.

Taxa introduced after 1950

Here below how it would like to use only taxa with year of first introduction above 1950 or unknown:

Personally, I find the last one a bad graph as the graph in previous comment. Too many pathways level 2, not easy to read, This was the reason you and @ToonVanDaele, during the hackathon in Botanic garden Meise on April 16, 2018 decided to opt for tables instead of graphs: see #19 (comment).

So, my opinion is: show graphs only when number of pathways level 2 are 10 or less.
@timadriaens and TrIAS fellas: feedback on the comments above is welcome.

[damianooldoni]

This issue can be closed. Functions in trias package have been successfully used. pathways document has been improved. If something more specific needs to be done, a new issue can be written.