This dataset was ingested using three sources: 1. a supplemental data release, which contained dry-bulk-density, total 210-Pb and lat-longs, 2. A digitization of a figure with loss-on-ignition, and 3. a table in a the paper with site_id's and elevations. This is ok for now, but ideally I would like to make two improvements in the long run.
[ ] We should contact the authors and see if we can get them to publish the original loss-on-ignition values, so we are not relying on the digitized figure anymore.
[ ] In the supplemental information I removed dry-bulk-density and total 210-Pb associated with 'Tusk', because in the supplemental data release, there was an obvious copy-and-paste error with erroneous 210-Pb and dry-bulk-density values. I wasn't able to fix the copy-paste error, so I just omitted them.
This dataset was ingested using three sources: 1. a supplemental data release, which contained dry-bulk-density, total 210-Pb and lat-longs, 2. A digitization of a figure with loss-on-ignition, and 3. a table in a the paper with site_id's and elevations. This is ok for now, but ideally I would like to make two improvements in the long run.