{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02111324376199616, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005758157389635317, 'mean_word_length': 5.321212121212121, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Template phenology for vegetation models

To assist the representation of phenology in vegetation models we created several templates of phenology-driver relations by characterizing the annual phase differences between phenology and two phenology drivers. We did this using the results of a cross spectral analysis of MODIS EVI with radiation (CPTEC) and with precipitation (TRMM). Four phase ranges were identified for phenology-radiation and three phase ranges for phenology-precipitation. These ranges were classified and mapped together into 12 zones of our study area where particular phase relationships coincided. Around ~25% area was in phase with radiation, with varying phase ranges of precipitation, and ~16 % was in phase with precipitation with varying phase ranges of radiation. For each zone we conceptualized the phenology-driver relationships with phase lagged curves. The phase timing of these plots matched well with average time series plots from the same zones, but more work is needed on the representation of amplitude.