Closed beckybanbury closed 3 years ago
NB ANPP:BNPP and foliage:stem are log transformed values because I haven't yet figured out how to back transform and keep the line fitting/transform the y axis
Thanks, and no problem-- I hadn't updated any results based on that plot (or any results in the manuscript, for that matter). That's one thing you could work on now; I'm going to have to stop for now, and probably for the rest of the day.
What do you think re removing outliers? This is the plot where outliers are not removed:
I'm tempted to not remove, as I'm never sure about justification for removing outliers.
I also still can't work out how to transform the log values/yaxis for those plots of log ratios - is it okay as it is where I have just noted log(___) in the subheadings?
Sorry Krista - ignore all this, I've just confused myself! I've just gone back through previous issues and I think this is all fine, and I resolved it fully previously. I will update the graph and results now
@teixeirak I realised I made a silly error and I ran the ratio regressions including an altitude term, even though we decided a while ago to exclude that from the models. In addition, I actually uploaded the wrong figure into the SI, from a script before I made the changes Helene suggested (calculating variables where we have the two other variables). I've now corrected these mistakes - the graph is here. As you can see, several ANPP:NPP relationships are now significant, but not BNPP:NPP or ANPP:BNPP, despite the fact that these all now use the same dataset (the slight differences in the number of samples are because I removed outliers, but the significance doesn't change if I leave outliers in - would also be good to get your thoughts on whether we should remove them or not). This is not what I expected! What do you think?