Feedback on manuscript draft

[teixeirak]

Here's the start of some high-level comments (with things to change as check boxes):

Introduction:

• The first two paragraphs are pretty much on track. We'll refine later.
• [x] Section "What is primary productivity? ": This is good material, but we should assume that readers have a higher level of background knowledge (i.e., assume they understand the term "Gross Primary Productivity")--at least if we're writing a standard paper (as opposed to a review). For a standard paper, cut this whole section (sorry!). If we end up doing a review, I'd keep it in, but bump up the level of assumed background knowledge (heading something like : "The components of forest productivity", reviewing the various components, their relationships, basics of how they're measured).
• The section "Which factors influence primary productivity?" is again pretty much on track. We'll refine later. (Some of the content there may be better in the discussion, to be covered in the context of our results.)

Methods:

• These are generally good; we'll refine later.
• [x] It would be good to add n records/plots/geographic.areas to the table (which I saw after writing a previous comment about including such a table-- sorry!)

[teixeirak]

NEW ROUND OF FEEDBACK:

General

• total word count is currently ~6700 (w/o references). GCB limit is 8000. We're on track but don't want to make it much longer.
• consider terminology, and make sure its consistent throughout:
• [x] Refer to all fluxes considered as "forest autotrophic carbon fluxes" ? (R_root is not "productivity", but we can't say all major forest C fluxes because we exclude heterotrophic components)
• [ ] better integrate table 1 (refer to throughout the text)

Introduction: This is pretty much on track.

• [x] Consider shifting main focus of first paragraph from global C cycle to centrality of forest productivity to ecology & climate science.
• [x] the paragraphs on climate would benefit from some condensing. Specifically, combine the three paragraphs on MAT-MAP interactions, further variables, and growing season length into one.
• [x] insert Table 1
• [x] list questions in paragraph form
• [ ] @teixeirak detailed review

Methods: Again, pretty much on track. Once we're confident we're using the final data version,

• [x] update ForC stats in first paragraph
• [x] create release on GitHub, give Zenodo DOI.

Other:

• [x] In variables table, change n plots to n geographic areas. This is more meaningful.
• [x] remove table with sources of climate data. Rather, make an SI table with all variables, giving definition and source. Include growing season length in this table. Then summarize in text.
• [ ] @teixeirak detailed review
• [ ] what do we mean by "made biological sense"? (line 125) This is something that's likely to be criticized by reviewers as not very objective.
• [ ] *Data from the temperate regions was heavily skewed towards studies from the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest.* Is this really true in general? I know it was particularly bad for ANPP_woody, which we now exclude.

Results: Again, pretty much on track.

• [x] probably add some stats at the beginning regarding numbers of records/ geographic areas analyzed. (Keep it brief-- table contains most info)
• [x] put everything in past tense
• [x] regarding the section *Does climate explain the same proportion of variation in different components of primary productivity?*, I'm still not sure what to do with this. It seems (is) a bit out of place. I forget our discussion-- were we going to remove that table?
• [x] related to the above, perhaps have a section at the very beginning, under latitude, or at the end of results about relationships and differences among fluxes that includes summing of component fluxes (? - best at beginning), lack of major trends in allocation, and R2s.
• [x] consider switching figs. 2 and 3 (again!)
• [ ] @teixeirak detailed review

Discussion: good start, but I think the organization/ paragraph structure still needs some work. I'd like to take a pass at it, but can't do so right now.

• [x] condense the first 3 paragraphs into one.
• [x] @teixeirak review, focused on organization

[beckybanbury]

@teixeirak

In variables table, change n plots to n geographic areas

What are you defining as "geographic area"?

[beckybanbury]

In addition, when we create the DOI + release, will that refer to ForC or ForC simplified? The number of records/plots in each is different, so which one we use will influence the ForC summary stats I present at the beginning of the methods section.

[beckybanbury]

regarding the section Does climate explain the same proportion of variation in different components of primary productivity? , I'm still not sure what to do with this. It seems (is) a bit out of place. I forget our discussion-- were we going to remove that table?

I think it would be best to remove the table and potentially include it in SI, where we could include R2 values/p-values for the full range of relevant climate variables/growing season length/models including interaction effects

related to the above, perhaps have a section at the very beginning, under latitude, or at the end of results about relationships and differences among fluxes that includes summing of component fluxes (? - best at beginning), lack of major trends in allocation, and R2s

This fits pretty well I think

[beckybanbury]

• [ ] Create SI table detailing climate variables used/sources etc

• [ ] Create SI table summarising R2 values across fluxes for different climate variables

@beckybanbury

[teixeirak]

What are you defining as "geographic area"?

geographic.area variable in SITES

[teixeirak]

In addition, when we create the DOI + release, will that refer to ForC or ForC simplified? The number of records/plots in each is different, so which one we use will influence the ForC summary stats I present at the beginning of the methods section.

I always give stats for ForC itself.

[teixeirak]

I think it would be best to remove the table and potentially include it in SI, where we could include R2 values/p-values for the full range of relevant climate variables/growing season length/models including interaction effects

Agreed.

[teixeirak]

@beckybanbury, We have a new release! Here it is on Zenodo (with DOI): https://zenodo.org/record/3403855#.XXeiaVB7kl4.

[beckybanbury]

We have a new release! Here it is on Zenodo (with DOI): https://zenodo.org/record/3403855#.XXeiaVB7kl4.

awesome, thankyou!

[beckybanbury]

Refer to all fluxes considered as "forest autotrophic carbon fluxes" ? (R_root is not "productivity", but we can't say all major forest C fluxes because we exclude heterotrophic components)

Does this mean I shouldn't really be referring to "productivity" at all?

[teixeirak]

I think forest autotrophic C fluxes would (or use FACF as an acronymn) would be most appropriate for general use. Productivity obviously covers a lot of the variables and is appropriate at times.