Open CaitlinPries opened 1 year ago
Thanks for finding this Caitlin. I seem to remember going through this with @SophievF at one point---either because the CN ratios were so abnormal, or the 15N data were---but I'll check it again and report back.
So it looks like the fraction C and N data got scrambled together somehow. Thanks for catching that. I fixed the template and uploaded the new version to github. I ran summary statistics on the source data (an external worksheet from Gentch), and the data still diverge---in some cases substantially. But even the sample numbers are different, so I'm not quite sure how to explain the discrepancy...
The %C and %N data in Gentsch_2018 are not correct. We are talking tiny %C of 0.004 and in many cases the %N is greater than the %C. These data do not match what is in Table 1 of the paper, which only shows means. I have looked at the supplement, but I cannot find data for individual samples except for 14C, so I am not sure where these data came from. This template was entered by Jeff according to the metadata.