The types of land use in the map were categorized as paddy land, irrigated land/nonirrigated farmland, timber forest land, orchard land, sparse woods, bush, prairie and grassland, hilly/mountainous grassland, desert (desert, Gobi, cold desert), wetland, saline-alkali land, and bare land (12 ).
Map position was categorized as follows: 3′/5′ UTR, CDS, intergenic, intron, non-mapped, or multi-mapped.
For this study, we used a vegetation map of KGR that was categorized into five habitat types that differ in vegetation density: Closed riverine (1.6% of area), Open riverine (15.8%), Closed woodland (54.4%), Open woodland (24.1%), and Open scrub habitat (4.1%), in order of decreasing structural density [19].
Each map or pathway in KEGG was categorized into an existing taxonomy according to its function, and each pathway was supplemented with a set of orthologously grouped tables for cross-species information with respect to conserved pathways.
Contour map of the study area was categorized into five groups (Fig. 4) (Rani 2004): Open image in new window Fig. 4 Slope map of the study area.
The lineament and fault density map in the study area was categorized into four, i.e., very km2 area, respectively (Fig. 4i).
Land use was inferred from Global Map 2001 (Geoscience Australia) and was categorized as follows: 1 = Forests, 2 = Grasslands, 3 = Water, 4 = Agriculture.
Age was categorized in five year increments.
Each variable was categorized.
The integrated groundwater potential map has been categorized on the basis of normalized cumulative weightage assigned to different features of thematic maps.
