EcoClimLab / vertical-thermal-review

Manuscript and new analysis files for Vinod et al., 2022, New Phytologist
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
0 stars 0 forks source link

submission logistics #77

Closed teixeirak closed 2 years ago

teixeirak commented 2 years ago

@NidhiVinod , we need:

teixeirak commented 2 years ago

And some final manuscript details:

NidhiVinod commented 2 years ago

I removed the sentence in 3.2 interspecific trait variation

NidhiVinod commented 2 years ago

Just adding actions here Two action items for you:

  1. I'm confused by the description of search terms. There's a general list and then a separate list for each search engine. Can you please clarify?
  2. Please verify the final total number of records in the tables (currently 70).
NidhiVinod commented 2 years ago

1) the terms in the bullet point are the same as the ones below, but specified with which search engine I used. Specific combinations worked best for specific search engines:

Databases, search terms, and numbers of studies reviewed We searched for relevant studies using ISI Web of Science, Smithsonian online library, and Google Scholar, with the following key terms: • (leaf traits OR foliar traits) AND (inter-canopy OR intra-canopy OR canopy height) AND (e.g. chlorophyll OR e.g. LMA OR stomatal conductance) this yeilded the best results in Smithsonian library • (leaf temperature and metabolism OR leaf thermal sensitivity OR leaf thermal tolerance OR leaf traits OR foliar traits) AND (within-canopy OR intra-canopy OR sun shade OR canopy height OR canopy gradient OR canopy profile OR canopy position) AND (temperate forests OR boreal forest OR conifer OR savanna OR tropical) this worked best for google scholor because astricks didn't work on google scholor • (leaf temperature and metabolism OR leaf thermal sensitivity OR leaf thermal tolerance OR leaf traits OR foliar traits) AND (within-canopy OR intra-canopy OR sun shade OR canopy height OR canopy gradient OR canopy profile) AND (temperate forests OR boreal forest OR conifer OR savanna OR tropical). this worked best for web of science In Google Scholar, 600 articles were screened, using the key terms (leaf temperature and metabolism OR leaf thermal sensitivity OR leaf thermal tolerance OR leaf traits OR foliar traits) AND (within-canopy OR intra-canopy OR sun shade OR canopy height OR canopy gradient OR canopy profile OR canopy position) AND (temperate forests OR boreal forest OR conifer OR savanna OR tropical). After screening the title and reading the abstract, 185 articles were identified as most relevant and saved for further careful reading. Similar search was conducted with the Smithsonian online library with the key terms (leaf traits OR foliar traits) AND (inter-canopy OR intra-canopy OR canopy height) AND (e.g. chlorophyll OR e.g. LMA OR stomatal conductance) provided most relevant results among the set of keywords mentioned above, with the field refine function that included botany, ecology, biology, environmental sciences, and forestry. Out of 150 relevant articles screened, 26 were most relevant after screening the title and reading the abstract, out of which 22 were already acquired through Google scholar search, such that 4 new articles were added. For ISI Web of Science, a search of the key terms (leaf temperature and metabolism OR leaf thermal sensitivity OR leaf thermal tolerance OR leaf traits OR foliar traits) AND (within-canopy OR intra-canopy OR sun shade OR canopy height OR canopy gradient OR canopy profile) AND (temperate forests OR boreal forest OR conifer OR savanna OR tropical) yielded 410 relevant results. Of these, 37 were most relevant after screening the title and reading the abstract, out of which 24 were already acquired through the above process, such that 13 new articles were added. Through the above process, 202 articles were saved for careful evaluation. To this, articles shared by co-authors and references mentioned in other studies collectively added >32 studies. The articles were tagged after careful reading of each as added to the tables, irrelevant to the tables but relevant to the review (with a note on the reason), or irrelevant to the table and the review (with a note on the reason for exclusion). In total, following careful review, we identified 70 articles as relevant and included their results in Tables 1-2.

NidhiVinod commented 2 years ago

@teixeirak We have changed this a lot through editing and we definitely have more than 32 suggested studies from co-authors so not sure if this would be relevant? Through the above process, 202 articles were saved for careful evaluation. To this, articles shared by co-authors and references mentioned in other studies collectively added >32 studies.

teixeirak commented 2 years ago

Don't bother giving a number; just say we added additional studies. If you have an easy way to get the number, it's nice to give it, but not essential.

NidhiVinod commented 2 years ago

reviewers: Shawn Serbin, Julian Lamour, Dennis Baldocchi, Ulo Niinemetes, Peter Reich