Test for C cycle closure (consistency)

forc-db / ERL-review

Analyses supporting Environmental Research Letters review paper

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

0 stars 0 forks source link

Test for C cycle closure (consistency) #16

Closed teixeirak closed 6 years ago

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

@ValentineHerr, I'd like to test the internal consistency of the ensemble C cycles derived from ForC. The following text describes what I'd like to do. From a quick scan of the figures, it appears to be true, but of course needs to be formally verified: "For variables with records from ≥7 distinct geographic areas, these ensemble C budgets were generally consistent. That is, component fluxes summed to within 1 std of more inclusive fluxes in all but one instance (in temperate conifer forests, aboveground woody biomass + foliage biomass > aboveground biomass + 1std). "

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

@ValentineHerr, this is an older issue that I'd like to put relatively high on your list.

ValentineHerr commented 6 years ago

Should I use ForC_simplified for that ?

ValentineHerr commented 6 years ago

I might need more explanation.

Aren't aboveground woody biomass and foliage biomass stocks rather that fluxes?
Should I do it all by Biome ?
should the threshold of ≥7 distinct geographic areas be applied for both the component and more inclusive variables ? And for each biome separately?

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

I think we solved this all through our discussion.

Yes, we do use ForC_simplified-- same data as the other analyses.

ValentineHerr commented 6 years ago

@teixeirak , Does this work ? If you see any problem with the equations, please edit in this file and let me know. Thanks!

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

Generally, it looks great!

A couple minor things: 1- Equation for R_soil has an error. Should be: R_soil= R_het_soil + R_auto_root 2- Please rename "possible.components" as "components.with.sufficient.data", just because I found the former name a bit confusing.

I'll give it a more careful review later, but that's all for now.

ValentineHerr commented 6 years ago

Ok I updated the file according to your comment above

teixeirak commented 6 years ago

This appears to be correct now. We will re-run it once the data are finalized.