May 18 2021 10:14 PM
May 19 2021 07:04 AM - edited May 19 2021 07:53 AM
The data that you provide in the Excel file is insufficient.
implies that Drr, Apa and Grr are 3-dimensional arrays, and C and Csf are 1-dimensional arrays.
The sigma formula says that we sum Drr*Apa*(C-Cnf) + Grr*Apa*(C-Csf) for each i, j and k -- that is, for each cell identified by each i,j,k in Drr, Apa and Grr and by each corresponding i in C and Csf.
But you only provide only one value of each in columns B:D, to namely:
|Drr i,j,k||Peat swamp||0.20|
|Sec peat swamp||0.10|
|Grr i,j,k||Peat swamp||0.13|
|Sec peat swamp||-|
|Apa i,j,k||Peat swamp||30.00|
|Sec peat swamp||23.00|
|Sec peat swamp||147.00|
|Sec peat swamp||104.00|
If i goes from 1 to p, and j goes from 1 to q, and k goes from 1 to r, you need to provide p*q*r data for each of Drr, Apa and Grr and p data for each of C and Csf.
You might present Drr, Apa and Grr as p-by-q arrays of data repeated r times (a total of p*r rows). We can derive p from the size of C and Csf.
Otherwise, you need to tell us what p, q and r are.
May 20 2021 09:49 PM
Hi, I'm so sorry for this late reply. Well, I referred to the reference document which provides a table like below:
'Drr' and 'Grr' for each i,j,k
'Apa' value for each i,j,k
And the expected result should be like below (highlighted number):
What I tried in the excel file was to obtain that result. I also want to confirm, does the formula that I wrote in the file is correct?
May 21 2021 12:52 AM
According to this screenshot, the Drr and Grr values are percentages, so their values in your sample workbook are a factor 100 too large.
The value you want is the sum of the EBLs for the four forest types.
Your screenshots do not show the C, Cnf and Csf values, so I cannot check the outcome of your formula against that in the last screenshot.
May 21 2021 02:05 AM
My apologies, I'm totally unfamiliar with the subject, so the following is undoubtedly very stupid. Does this mean that
1) The C for Secondary Peat Swamp and Secondary Riparian is 0?
2) The Csf for Peat Swamp and Riparian is 0?
3) The Cnf for all the above types is 0?
May 21 2021 03:00 AM
Hi Hans, sorry I made it more complex.
Referring to 'Drr' and 'Grr' screenshot above, all types of forest i, j, k has deforested value, so I used 'Deforestated land' (Cnf) value (33 Mg C ha-1) constantly for each i, j, k, and it applies to C also, means every forest has 'C' value.
As I read in reference, secondary forest is the degraded forest and it is the lowest level of forest status (no more degradation would quantify there). So that's why every secondary forest doesn't have a 'Cnf' value, which means 0.
May 21 2021 03:59 AM
Now I'm confused. You first write "I used 'Deforestated land' (Cnf) value (33 Mg C ha-1) constantly for each i, j, k," and then "every secondary forest doesn't have a 'Cnf' value, which means 0."
Do Secondary Peat Swamp and Secondary Riparian have Cnf=33 or Cnf=0?
May 21 2021 04:00 AM
I would recommend collecting your data together in tabular form and, provided you are using Excel 365, perform calculations as array formulas using the structured references or defined names. I picked up some of the percentage issues from your later posts but have not worked through them in detail.