Maybe I’m missing something, but this looks to me that you don’t use a unique model to identify the climate sensitivity while accounting for size effects (the stated objective of the m.s.). Researchers tend to use similar approaches than this two-step process, but the difference is that most of them use linear approaches. e.g. Alfaro-Sanchez 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107630
Alfaro-Sanchez 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-020-00949-x
I recommend to include a more specific statement about the differences of this new method with previous approaches and to remove the word simultaneously from the objectives.
I think it's still fair to say "simultaneously", as climate + other factors are included together in the GLS. True that the candidate driver step is separate, and this needs to be clear throughout. I'm going to split this out as a separate issue.
teixeirak
commented
3 years ago
I think it's still fair to say "simultaneously", as climate + other factors are included together in the GLS. True that the candidate driver step is separate, and this needs to be clear throughout. I'm going to split this out as a separate issue.
Originally posted by @teixeirak in https://github.com/EcoClimLab/ForestGEO-climate-sensitivity/issues/101#issuecomment-753994843