Prepare SI materials`

[teixeirak]

@NidhiVinod , we need to be sure to get the SI ready. We're currently missing:

• [x] text on the methods for NEON analysis
• [x] complete text on Tealeaves methods
• [x] table of tealeaves parameters (#57 )
• [x] complete description of lit review methods
• [x] complete caption for Fig. S1

I'll detail each of those below.

[teixeirak]

For Appendix S1 (description of NEON methods), @mcgregorian1 , would you be able to draft something on the micromet? We'll also need a description of the LiDAR analysis data.

[teixeirak]

For Tealeaves, @NidhiVinod , we'll need to get a little more specific/ have better documentation. I'll add some comments to the document.

[teixeirak]

@NidhiVinod , for a description of the lit review methods... I'm not sure if we really need this. I'd say that it's better practice to describe the process, but unlikely to cause any kind of problem if we don't. So, let's actually drop that, and could always add something if reviewers request it.

[teixeirak]

For completing the caption for Fig. S1, that's easy-- simply a matter of filling in NEON codes, and potentially a bit more.

[mcgregorian1]

For Appendix S1 (description of NEON methods), @mcgregorian1 , would you be able to draft something on the micromet? We'll also need a description of the LiDAR analysis data.

To clarify, this would be more in-depth than the description in the paper, right?

[teixeirak]

@NidhiVinod , for the Tealeaves documentation, we'll want to knit your .csv parameters table in as an SI table, as in the commit I just pushed.

[teixeirak]

To clarify, this would be more in-depth than the description in the paper, right?

Yes, we just need standard methods text that addresses (just a quick list):

• which sites were included? (Forested NEON)
• how /when were data downloaded and analyzed?
• time frame of data included
• any filtering/ QC of data before computing stats
• exact specification of how calculations were performed

[mcgregorian1]

Sounds good, I'll do that soon. Note that there was not filtering of the data / QC as there was not a QC qualification given with the NEON data itself.

[teixeirak]

Thanks! And don't feel a need to stick closely to my list-- we just need a standard methods description of how the figure was made. We'll also want to get help from @eoway and/or @m-n-smith on the lidar part.

[NidhiVinod]

@NidhiVinod , for a description of the lit review methods... I'm not sure if we really need this. I'd say that it's better practice to describe the process, but unlikely to cause any kind of problem if we don't. So, let's actually drop that, and could always add something if reviewers request it.

Okay, here are the methods for Lit Review Tables which also has information for Lit Review Methods itself, I used a few more search terms for Lit Review that I have written down so can add that in if needed but probably not if this maybe way too much detail

[NidhiVinod]

Thanks! And don't feel a need to stick closely to my list-- we just need a standard methods description of how the figure was made. We'll also want to get help from @eoway and/or @m-n-smith on the lidar part.

Oh also here is the Google Drive SI information link that Marielle has contributed to: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HdPa7X5AMrEwfLjazGMU92uTYMc6pObh/edit

[teixeirak]

Oh, wow! I didn't realize how much content we already have for the SI! Great news!

So, @mcgregorian1 , you'll just want to modify/ add to the google doc. Do you prefer to work there or in .Rmd?

@NidhiVinod , great that you have such careful documentation of the review methods! We'll definitely want to reinstate that section and include those.

I'll work on population the .Rmd with this stuff as soon as I get a chance, but unlikely to get much done today beyond 2pm.

[teixeirak]

I think table S1 is good now.

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak 4. complete description of lit review methods: what else would be important to mention here?

[teixeirak]

I was thinking a bit of description of criteria for inclusion. The word document where you detailed the search terms has an outline describing what we were looking for. That level of detail isn't necessary, but I'd include things like:

• geographic scope (global)
• ecosystem types included (any with trees: mostly forest, but savanna also considered)
• independent variables: sun/shade vs height (where height is generally also sun/shade)
• dependent variables of interest: say a bit about how we determined which variables to include (e.g., those known to be relevant to leaf T).

[mcgregorian1]

Oh, wow! I didn't realize how much content we already have for the SI! Great news!

So, @mcgregorian1 , you'll just want to modify/ add to the google doc. Do you prefer to work there or in .Rmd?

Sorry for the delay - Google doc is fine since that's what I've been working out of. I'll go over my descriptions now.

[mcgregorian1]

@teixeirak currently the description in the SI for the micromet vertical profiles covers both the main manuscript and the SI figure, and has the below text. Did you want more specifics? Note we do have the LiDAR description as well.

Micrometeorological data was downloaded for each site from NEON (neonUtilies R package) at 30 minute intervals for 2015-2020. To focus on the middle of the growing season, the data was constrained to be for the month of July each year. Per site, we calculated the mean maximum and minimum values of each variable by day and by sensor height. In Figure S1 we expanded on Figure XX (main manuscript) by including 22 sites representing five forest structure types.

[teixeirak]

@mcgregorian1 , I think that's all we need. Thanks!

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak let me know what else to add into SI.rmd!