Table 1 (hypotheses)

[teixeirak]

from @hmullerlandau -

I suggest that this would work better as five questions and corresponding hypotheses. See my notes on table 1.

[teixeirak]

posting Helene's comments here for convenience:

[beckybanbury]

@teixeirak where are we with this? I'm trying to check that I have graphs prepared for all the hypotheses, so it would be helpful to finalise our presentation of this first. Shall I replace hypotheses with questions etc? Have any of our hypotheses/questions changed since editing the methods/results?

[teixeirak]

I don't think any have changed. I do think switching to questions makes sense.

[beckybanbury]

@teixeirak I've updated the questions and some of the hypotheses for the table (but haven't been able to knit the manuscript). I noted that we don't have a separate hypothesis/question for allocation, but just include it as hypothesis 1.2; do you think it's worth including it as a separate subheading, or just leave it how it is, given that most of our results are non-significant?

[teixeirak]

I'd leave it as 1.2. I made a wording adjustment to make it fit better under hypothesis 1.

However, I think this hypothesis is confusing (and currently incorrect) in combination with our method of recording whether or not they are supported. Previously, it was: Allocation of GPP to subsidiary fluxes varies with latitude. Now, it is: H1.2. All FACFs vary with latitude in constant proportion to each other

First, it looks like wording change flipped the meaning, but answers stayed the same. Second, it's hard to interpret what is meant by the answers under each FACF. For example, would a "yes" answer mean that there are no fluxes whose ratio with the flux in question varies significantly with latitude?

I'm not sure how to write this so that it makes sense.

I'm wondering if perhaps we should drop it from the hypothesis table and simply discuss it in the text. This is in part because its tricky to present and in part because our analysis wasn't really focused on the ratios, and perhaps isn't carefully standardized enough to draw very decisive conclusions.

@beckybanbury, what do you think?

[beckybanbury]

Thanks for catching that - yes, it's tricky to word. I changed it from GPP because for example we look at the ratio of NPP:ANPP, so that doesn't fit anyway (alternatively we could switch the analysis back to look at GPP: each flux).

I think it would probably be okay to drop it; the way we've done it doesn't currently fit with the structure of the hypothesis table.

[teixeirak]

Okay, let's drop it.

[teixeirak]

I also wonder if it would help to simplify the table a bit-- for example, putting "-" instead of "n.s." (visually easier to process) and drop treatment of the shape of the curves. That is, the only possibilities would be "yes" (sig support), "no" (sig reject), or "-" (not sig).

[beckybanbury]

I think it would be good to simplify it like that - I guess the only problem is how we deal with specific hypotheses relating to the shape of the curves. Do you think it would be better to remove the specific hypotheses about the curve and replace with e.g. 'there is a positive relationship between x and y' on the basis that we discuss the shape of the relationship in the text? That way the hypotheses are only about the direction, not the shape of the relationship, and so we don't require any more detail than yes, no, or -

[teixeirak]

Yes, I think we can take out the curvature. I have a few suggestions for hypothesis wording that I'll try to incorporate in a few minutes.

[teixeirak]

I just took out H1.1.alt and H1.2, but I'll wait until a time you're not working on this to do any more.

[beckybanbury]

I've removed references to shape of curves from the hypothesis table

[teixeirak]

@beckybanbury, here's a summary of what I think we still need to deal with on Table 1:

• [x] issue #58
• [x] I liked Helene's suggestion to number (with footnote) or completely drop references from the table. If we can easily figure out how to make the numbering work (using this?), we could do that, otherwise just drop.
• [x] complete info in "support", column, being sure to have a figure/table for each one (issue #50).