work on final paragraph

[teixeirak]

from R2: "My main suggestion is that it could use a bit more emphasis on its importance, and I would be interested in hearing a bit more about what the authors feel their results imply regarding the cause of the preferential vulnerability of large individuals."

[teixeirak]

For mature forests, it’s inconsequential from ecology perspective whether large trees suffer more because of height or exposure, but it matters when we consider the fate of early successional forests

[teixeirak]

we might mention the need to expand to understanding resilience and mortality in this paragraph

[mcgregorian1]

I'm thinking of the broad perspective. I'm not sure if we want to include this part?

• with this as one of our main findings: "vulnerability conferred by tall height and associated crown exposure outweigh any advantage of a larger root system, even in drier microenvironments", it seems to me that, if we take this result to be true across NAmerican and/or European temperate deciduous forests, this presents a pretty damning picture for what mature forests are going to look like in the near future. If you combine this increased vulnerability with having more drought in the future, then susceptibility to fire and pests/pathogens shoots up and will contribute to mass die-off. Does this mean we're going to be seeing a shift in mature forests toward overall smaller heights?
  • this plays into your comment currently in the paragraph about how we don't know what the case is for forests that don't have buffered tall trees: as in, will the future lack of buffering mean that we will see decreased resistance everywhere? e.g. you mentioned fagr has high Rt due to buffering
  • but yes, as part of this, it will help to have a better understanding of resistance and how this affects resilience. Is it true that resistance can influence numerical understanding of resilience?

[teixeirak]

Hmmmm.... good point! See McDowell et al 2020, Science. I’m a coauthor, so I really should have thought of it. Let’s cite that!

There’s also a new paper on the 2018 European drought that Nidhi just sent me. I can write some content in then AM.

On Jul 23, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Ian McGregor notifications@github.com wrote:

 External Email - Exercise Caution

I'm thinking of the broad perspective. I'm not sure if we want to include this part?

• with this as one of our main findings: "vulnerability conferred by tall height and associated crown exposure outweigh any advantage of a larger root system, even in drier microenvironments", it seems to me that, if we take this result to be true across NAmerican and/or European temperate deciduous forests, this presents a pretty damning picture for what mature forests are going to look like in the near future. If you combine this increased vulnerability with having more drought in the future, then susceptibility to fire and pests/pathogens shoots up and will contribute to mass die-off. Does this mean we're going to be seeing a shift in mature forests toward overall smaller heights?
  • this plays into your comment currently in the paragraph about how we don't know what the case is for forests that don't have buffered tall trees: as in, will the future lack of buffering mean that we will see decreased resistance everywhere? e.g. you mentioned fagr has high Rt due to buffering
  • but yes, as part of this, it will help to have a better understanding of resistance and how this affects resilience. Is it true that resistance can influence numerical understanding of resilience?

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FSCBI-ForestGEO%2FMcGregor_climate-sensitivity-variation%2Fissues%2F120%23issuecomment-663310280&data=02%7C01%7Cteixeirak%40si.edu%7Cc43202dbcdaf4fcec5e608d82f7189a2%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637311511972809054&sdata=HKwQIAss%2BLuNnG04ywKOQIzSsYh%2FzmTAxnGc3LR07hc%3D&reserved=0, or unsubscribehttps://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FABQPXDSBBJKCJJ3XQSD54OLR5DQFXANCNFSM4PCKO7ZQ&data=02%7C01%7Cteixeirak%40si.edu%7Cc43202dbcdaf4fcec5e608d82f7189a2%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637311511972814034&sdata=F7FY8TIXDlKOj7JJxHt7dG0wHZniqnaKU4vi6LNCseM%3D&reserved=0.

[mcgregorian1]

Cool! Sounds good, I've added a sample text into the manuscript (in bold) in the final paragraph.

The McDowell paper is cited and added to the references list.

[teixeirak]

@mcgregorian1 , please see what you think of the revised version.

[mcgregorian1]

I'll check now

[mcgregorian1]

I like it! Just a couple words that I'd change but I will do that after the meeting / later

[mcgregorian1]

Ok I'm going to add to the final paragraph and push that in a second

[mcgregorian1]

It's pushed. Let me know how I can help more - as a reminder I'm going to be on computer until about 1.30/1.45 and then I'll be on the road the rest of the workday

[mcgregorian1]

Alternatively let me know if you won't be working on it for a little and I'll make more headway on inserting text into the reviewer responses! Either way works for me

[teixeirak]

I plan to work on finishing touches on the main manuscript now. I can leave the reviewer response alone and let you work on that.

[mcgregorian1]

Perfect