submit new versions of your papers!

[lizzieinvancouver]

Please submit by FRIDAY JUNE 2 (seriously) a new grephontable.cv file with your assigned papers agreed upon with your double-entry person. Any questions, can be asked here!

[lizzieinvancouver]

Double entry partners are: Alana and Cat Ailene and Janneke Fredi and Rubén Kavya and Lizzie

[lizzieinvancouver]

Some additional notes.... @kavs-P and I met today and wanted to share some reminders/decisions we made:

• Use permanent plot for studies of dendrometers etc. in a permanent plot (Harvard forest, etc.)
• For Rep numbers -- do the best you can, but don't kill yourself; we will all have to standardize later if we decide we want to use this; just add info as best you can and keep notes yourself on where to find it in the paper
• study_level -- same as 'rep_numbers' ... if an option given (see meta files) fits more or less, use it.
• If you have distinct multiple studies within a paper -- remember to treat them as separate rows and separate studies, so do not share info across the rows (example in Dow et al. 2022, one study looked at GSL x growth and the other looked at external factors -- the first row (first study) should have GSL and growth metric info but the second row (second study) should not)
• authorsfoundevidencefor_externalfactors: pick yes for ANY external factor (if some factors show evidence and some factors don't, then pick 'yes' and explain complexities in the notes_specific_columns)
• authorsthink_evidence_gslxgrowth_suitabledays_or_starttoend: suitable days can be consecutive or not.

[lizzieinvancouver]

@AileneKane @jannekehrl We're not sure how to enter the endogenous effects part of our table for this paper .... we think it should be entered similar to the Zohner related papers and would love your advice! One relevant fig:

[lizzieinvancouver]

Met with @kavs-P again and we ....

• added a new option to study_level (see updated meta file)
• we noticed I was not very consistent about multiple rows for authorsfoundevidence_externalfactors .. what should you do when you have info on both growth and season length? You should now enter 'yes - growth and growing season' (see updated meta file)
• How to enter gsl_metric etc. when they don't look at what we WANT (that is when authorsthink_evidence_gslxgrowth should be 'not mentioned')? You should still enter what they did look at. See also the question from another group below ...

[lizzieinvancouver]

Updates from another group!

We struggled with the entry for authorsthink_evidence_gslxgrowth for a few papers when there is a related test BUT the authors use as GSL metric SOS or EOS. The metadata file suggests we should be strict about the definition of GSL, as it says "Their GSL metric must be either start to end of wood or vegetative growth or periods suitable for growth related to wood or vegetative growth (this latter case mainly for drought systems etc.).". If we do so, we would say "No" in the column authorsthink_evidence_gslxgrowth for the Finzi paper, for example (see below) even though they correlated SOS and EOS (which we list as gsl_start_metric and gsl_end_metric in previous columns) to NEP (which is one of their measures of growth). We would then explain that they did have this alternative test in authorsthink_ALTteststatistic and cite these figures in test_statisticwhere.

My response: Yes! This is a little weird, but you should answer yes or no in authorsthink_evidence_gslxgrowth based on them testing it VERY SPECIFICALLY (their growth metric can be whatever but their GSL metric must be either start to end of wood or vegetative growth or periods suitable for growth related to wood or vegetative growth). If they did a related but different test than you enter 'not mentioned' and explain the test they did authorsthink_ALTteststatistic.

So, if an paper did SOS ~ growth, you would enter SOS in gsl_metric, and in gsl_start_metric and none in gsl_end_metric and then not mentioned forauthorsthink_evidence_gslxgrowth and explain in authorsthink_ALTteststatistic what they did do and find. (I might change this if I could, but it's fine.)

[lizzieinvancouver]

And another question:

For the column authorslooked_endogenousfactors that could limit the length of the growing season. In the Finzi paper they found site-level differences in GSL start and end, which were determine from ecosystem level attributes (but that they attributed to species composition of those sites). We debated whether this was an endogenous constraint or not, we thought no since their growth measure is at the ecosystem level. We also answered "NA" rather than no for this question, although could see going either way.

Species differences count as an endogenous factor for me so I would count this if they explicitly linked it to species differences.

[lizzieinvancouver]

Finally, we also updated the meta a little more with a new study_level. I will email it around.