Methodological consistency

[beckybanbury]

@teixeirak I'm looking at the paragraphs on methodology, and before I rewrite them just wanted to summarise what we need to include there to check I've included everything we altered.

• Standardised by min dbh measure
• I didn't address recruitment in my code; is this specified in ForC or in the creation of ForC simplified?
• Again, I didn't address the specific methodology used in my code - do you know how these methods were excluded (in creating ForC simplified?)

I think I could just remove the whole paragraph about the components included for NPP/ANPP/BNPP, given that we used all measures of them, unless you think it's worth including something providing justification (i.e. that herbivory etc are such small components it wasn't worth standardising). We've also included measures where components were unknown.

[teixeirak]

We ended up not removing any. ForC simplified selects the better measurements-- e.g., estimates that include understory vs >10cm trees, when both are available.

So yes, I think you can just remove the whole paragraph.

[beckybanbury]

I'm tempted to also remove the whole paragraph on methods (recruitment, soil/root respiration etc), unless you wanted to write anything on those?

[teixeirak]

Agreed; I think the whole "methodological consistency" section can just be removed. I just went ahead and did that.