create variable_name_conversion.csv

[ValentineHerr]

I made an attempt here but I think I need help with this, @teixeirak.

[teixeirak]

Looking at this now.

[teixeirak]

@CookPatton, what exactly is the difference between aboveground_biomass_stem and aboveground_biomass_woody? Does the former include just boles?

[teixeirak]

I've added variable_name_converstion. @ValentineHerr, you can get started with this, planning that there may be some minor corrections. @CookPatton, could you please check that this is all appropriate and provide the needed clarifications?

[ValentineHerr]

@teixeirak, maybe you could add a column to the variable_name_converstion file to specify what the variable should be called if it does not correspond to an existing variables in ForC?

[teixeirak]

For now, those should not be added.

For stem biomass variables, I'm not sure exactly what they are. Once that's clear, we may assign a ForC variable.

For litter, values in GROA currently don't match ForC categories (lump organic layer and dead wood, which I'd like to keep separate in ForC).

[CookPatton]

Just getting back from travel, excuse the delay. @teixeirak, aboveground_biomass_stem is just the stem and aboveground_biomass_woody is stem and branches but no foliage.

[CookPatton]

@ValentineHerr , @teixeirak variable name conversion file looks good. The only potential point of confusion is that your biomass_ag_OM and biomass_OM metric includes understory, whereas GROA tracks that separately, but you've noted the difference in notes.

[teixeirak]

Thanks @CookPatton.

@CookPatton, I'm inclined to leave out aboveground_biomass_stem/ aboveground_carbon_stem, as you don't seem to have many records and this variable is not currently included in ForC. But do you think its important to include? It seems like a variable that may be reported more in studies focused on plantations as opposed to natural forests? It wouldn't be a problem to add it to ForC if you think that's important. Otherwise, those data can just live in GROA.

Similarly with understory biomass distinction-- I'm inclined to leave it as planned unless you think it should be otherwise.

[CookPatton]

@teixeirak I think we can safely leave out the aboveground_biomass_stem data. I excluded them from the GROA analysis too. Understory appears to be ~4tC/ha on average, so a fairly small fraction of overall aboveground carbon. I think you can leave as planned.

[teixeirak]

Okay, thanks. @ValentineHerr, I think we can call this variable mapping final (with the understanding that we may add litter/ dead wood later).

[ValentineHerr]

@CookPatton, is it possible that some new variables were added since we created the variable_name_conversion document or am I missing something in that document ?

Here are the variables I am talking about:

• [ ] CWD_carbon
• [ ] aboveground_carbon + understory_carbon+CWD_carbon+litter_carbon
• [ ] aboveground_carbon + CWD_carbon + litter_carbon
• [ ] litter_biomass + CWD_biomass
• [ ] CWD_biomass
• [ ] CWD_carbon + litter_carbon
• [ ] litter_carbon + CWD_carbon

@teixeirak, if those are new, we need to define their corresponding ForC variable.name here.

[CookPatton]

@ValentineHerr and @teixeirak

Originally I had a general "litter" category that did not parse fine litter from coarse woody debris. I did work with a fellow co-author to distinguish those two dead biomass pools. That is probably what you are seeing now. The aggregate measures (ones with +) are those where the paper just reported a lump biomass/carbon value across pools.

[teixeirak]

I've added these categories to our variable name mapping document.

[ValentineHerr]

great thanks!