richardson2020 (and other studies)

[lizzieinvancouver]

We struggled over how many rows to enter. They explored the relationship between phenology and growth across sites and site-years separately (table 2 vs 3). For each of these comparisons, they looked at several different metrics of SOS and EOS (satellite, fluxnet, modeled), and even within satellite / fluxnet measures of SOS / EOS, they tried (and reported) on results using different thresholds. Finally, they explored relationships between SOS and spring GEP, ER and NEP and EOS and autumn GEP, ER and NEP separately. In all, there were 22 different tests. We ultimately chose to report on the 3 different kinds GSL metrics (satellite vs. fluxnet vs modeled), additionally separating out tests on SOS and EOS (so 6 rows).

@jannekehrl and @AileneKane

I think there are two big issues with richardson2020 entry to fix:

1. How many rows? Since you did not use gs_metric_other I wondered if you could reduce rows for cases where EOS and SOS give the same answer (if so, you could enter one of the two in gs_metric_used and the other in gs_metric_other) . Also modeled was not super common, nor really our focus here so we could discuss with GREPHON team whether we want those included?

2. For all of theauthorsthink_evidence_gsxgrowth and similar columns you should enter yes if they find it in one site. Please remove all the extra info. You can move it to notes_specific_columns

If you end up resubmitting the file, I'd appreciate if you could also more generally fix:

• [x] For study_type, I don't understand tree ring (growth), phenology observations (for GSL)
• [x] For study_type, 'permanent plot?' -- can we change this or commit? It sounds like an experiment so I was confused.
• [x] Be more specific about what temperatures or precip are limiting as external factors
• [x] Please try to use the exact entries requested for all the 'did authors look at external/external' ... if you can copy and paste from the metadata it would help with cleaning (not critical at all, just appreciated).

Thank you!

[lizzieinvancouver]

thanks to @kavs-P who gave @jannekehrl "some good insight into the mysterious (to me) gs_metric_other. " @jannekehrl plans to "collapse this to 3 rows, one per 'type' of growing season measure (satellite, fluxnet derived, and GSI - which is really temperature), and include endogenous factors since they looked at and found site level differences they attribute to conifer vs. deciduous. I will also satisfy my extreme confusion with this paper by adding lots of notes about how many other things they measured (lots)."

[lizzieinvancouver]

Nice work @jannekehrl -- based on your great efforts I am closing this issue!