Do we need to/ can we get more temperate woody ANPP?

[teixeirak]

Helene (@hmullerlandau) thinks we're dramatically under-representing available data for temperate forest productivity, particularly ANPP_woody(_stem). I'm not sure we're doing as badly as it seems on the surface, but this is worth assessing, as there's a good chance reviewer's would bring up the same issue.

• Reminder (particularly for @hmullerlandau): we can visualize data in the ForC using the shiny app

A couple considerations:

• We haven't put as much focus into temperate data as tropical, but we have included all productivity data from several global data compilations.
• A larger proportion of temperate forest data is lost when you apply criteria of age >100 year and no major disturbance/ management. According to this map of forest stand age, US eastern deciduous forests are dominated by stands < 100 years old.

Potential additional sources (running list):

• [x] Reich & Bolstad is a review that might point to some sources, although a lot of the studies there sound familiar, and note in table 11-1 that most are <100 years.
• [ ] targeted search for data at some of the research "super sites" that will almost certainly have data (keeping in mind that some are below age cutoff).
• [x] Helcoski et al. in press- ANPP_stem for SCBI
• [x] old-growth temperate sites - list from paper that KAT reviewed

[teixeirak]

This issue relates to our criteria for excluding sites based on management or disturbance. @beckybanbury, I'm very sorry, I lost track of where to find the analysis you did with more of those included. Could you please point me towards that?

[teixeirak]

We won't add more data-- closing this.