agree on something like study-method

[lizzieinvancouver]

@alanaroseo Started work on getting down to something like this:

> table((d$method))

                    2 
      eddy covariance 
                    3 
greenhouse or chamber 
                    7 
                model 
                    1 
     provenance trial 
                    5 
        radial growth 
                   16 
               remote 
                    3 
            synthesis 
                    5 
            tree ring 
                   20

Using mainly study_type (which incudes empty values for delpierre2017) ...

> unique(d$study_type)
 [1] "tree ring"                                           
 [2] "provenance trial"                                    
 [3] "tree ring (simulated , vs-lite model)"               
 [4] "whole forest experiment (eddy covariance)"           
 [5] "tree-ring"                                           
 [6] "whole forest experiment, eddy covariance"            
 [7] "synthesis"                                           
 [8] "permanent plot"                                      
 [9] "tree ring (growth), phenology observations (for GSL)"
[10] "permanent plot?"                                     
[11] "common garden"                                       
[12] "greenhouse or chamber (technically CHN terrace)"     
[13] "satellite-based phenology data"                      
[14] "greenhouse or chamber experiment"                    
[15] "provenance"                                          
[16] "greenhouse or chamber"                               
[17] "greenhouse"                                          
[18] "remote sensing, flux tower"                          
[19] "radial growth"                                       
[20] ""                                                    
[21] "model"                                               
[22] "satellite"  

[cchambe12]

@lizzieinvancouver @alanaroseo whoops sorry! I fixed delpierre2017 in the data/submittedround6 folder. The entries got a little tangled. It is a "permanent plot" study.

[lizzieinvancouver]

@alanaroseo We discussed this a couple weeks back but did not get much input? Could you possibly take one more stab at this? I think you would have to also use 'd$growth_metric' to get it right and see below from issue #12

@jannekehrl and/or @AileneKane Would you be okay with zani2020 and zohnerpreprint being labelled as 'radial growth' method studies?@lizzieinvancouver: I don't think this would be appropriate - both the Zani 2020 and the Zohner preprint (I guess now Zohner 2023) measure photosynthesis on saplings (as well as some other things - each of these studies comes with three lines), so I don't think radial growth really makes sense (since they don't measure this!). Am I missing something?

[alanaroseo]

@jannekehrl or @AileneKane, in one of the Zani rows the study type is "permanent plot?" and it says. "434,226 observations, 14626 individual time series between 1948 and 2015 (see supplement for number of time series per species)" This is what I thought was radial growth, was it something else? NDVI? Other rows for that study were classed differently, but the growth metric is "photosynthesis" so I am confused because it wasn't measured in the field in the 1950s unless they call NDVI that, but I though that wasn't that early of a metric

Similarly, the Zohner 2023 says "12759 total individual time series (~3000 per species)"

Please help :)

I could change both to plot-NDVI if that is what it is, to distinguish from the other plot-radial growth studies

[AileneKane]

@alanaroseo the zani rows for permanent plot are PEP sites from which they get phenology data but they do not use radial growth. They quantify "spring-summer productivity [estimated from a parameterized photosynthesis model"

[lizzieinvancouver]

@alanaroseo Can you check your updated code looks good (I moved things around so check the README before you run anything) and see also issue #12 ... then perhaps we can close this? If not, let me know what we need to do get there.

[alanaroseo]

Yes, I think this looks good!