Question on writing

[mcgregorian1]

@teixeirak

I have a question on some writing in the text.

"In the context of the multivariate model, $Rt$ did not vary across drought years. That is, drought year as a variable did not appear in any of the top models -- i.e., models that were statistically indistinguishable ($\Delta$AICc<2) from the best model (see footnotes on Tables S8-S9). In contrast, "drought year" varied for both $Rc$ and $Rs$, and were present in all of the top models for the combined scenario (Tables S10-S11). Between both metrics, coefficients for "drought year" were highest in 1966, intermediate in 1977, and lowest in 1999."

I reworded the part after "In contrast." I'm not sure I understand the beginning part, though. Drought year as a variable was only ever present in the top models of the combined-years scenario. For Tables S8-S9 (Rt), drought year was included in all the top models, and had the same coefficients across all. Technically, Rt, Rc, and Rs have the same pattern with 1966 highest, then 1977 and lowest 1999. Rt_arima does 1966 - 1999 - 1977 in descending order.

[teixeirak]

Looks like I messed up the previous version on Rt. Glad you caught that! The footnote on tables S8-S9 needs to be changed too.

I'm way behind on everything right now; hoping to get back to helping with this soon.

[mcgregorian1]

You're fine! I wanted to make sure I did a full reading of the text again in case I found anything

[mcgregorian1]

It seems the response to reviews that's in the 2020-08-31 folder is a copy of the previous? I can start formatting it to reflect the second reviews tomorrow night if you want, and then this weekend I can focus on making sure those items are addressed.

[teixeirak]

It seems the response to reviews that's in the 2020-08-31 folder is a copy of the previous? I can start formatting it to reflect the second reviews tomorrow night if you want, and then this weekend I can focus on making sure those items are addressed.

Sorry for the confusion. The one you want is in the main manuscript folder.

[teixeirak]

I still want to work on intro and discussion, but have to get something else finished first.

One thing to note as we modify the discussion is that resilience was quite high; most trees increased their growth rate following the droughts. Thus, we don't want to imply that big trees had low resilience following drought, but their resilience was lower relative to smaller trees.

[mcgregorian1]

No problem! I've gone through the response to reviews and added what was needed from me. Thank you for making the other responses.

Regarding the manuscript, I wasn't sure how much more you wanted to add about the "resilience was lower for tall trees compared to small" - I added a slight clarification to where the idea is first mentioned in the discussion, but given how we're close to the word count I didn't want to go over too much.

[teixeirak]

@mcgregorian1 , please review changes in the most recent commit (above) and make sure that I got this right.

[mcgregorian1]

Will do, I'll get to that tonight.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:17 PM Kristina Anderson-Teixeira < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@mcgregorian1 https://github.com/mcgregorian1 , please review changes in the most recent commit (above) and make sure that I got this right.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SCBI-ForestGEO/McGregor_climate-sensitivity-variation/issues/145#issuecomment-696220221, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJNRBELWZWXL2SJOZ64I4WDSG54AVANCNFSM4RPU2J7Q .

--

Ian McGregor

Ph.D. Student | Center for Geospatial Analytics

He/Him/His

College of Natural Resources

Jordan Hall 4120 | Campus Box 7106

North Carolina State University

2800 Faucette Dr.

Raleigh, NC 27695 USA imcgreg@ncsu.edu | 714-864-1005 | geospatial.ncsu.edu

[mcgregorian1]

Just looked over it and looks good to me