Closed beckybanbury closed 5 years ago
I'd count that as adding up as expected. That difference is so minor that if we were to have confidence intervals on the summed terms, there would be a lot of overlap. We might mention it as an aside at some point.
ANPP_woody has always been fairly anomalous, as it has a disproportionate amount of data from the Pacific NW, right? ANPP_woody_stem has so much more data that I'm tempted to focus on that, although it neglects branch turnover.
@teixeirak when the confidence intervals are added to the stacked plots, two of the plots (above) show that summed estimates of the larger flux fall partly outside the confidence intervals generated from modelling field measurements (e.g. at high latitudes it looks like woody productivity may be slightly overestimated). Do you think this is worth discussing at all in the paper, or is it such a small difference that it should just be left out?