Most papers don't measure growth

[buniwuuu]

I read the first 10 papers, and only 1 had radial growth data. Some other measurements include CO2 fluxes, NPP, remote sensing vegetation greenness and leaf index. I could try to read more papers too!

[lizzieinvancouver]

@buniwuuu Nice work on this! I agree that most papers don't measure growth but sometimes we get a low hit rate. Sometimes a low accept rate means we should give up and sometimes it means the task should just go quickly. In this case, I think we should do the rest of the papers and hopefully it will be quick!

A few notes:

1. You don't need to scrape every data point for this analysis (so we don't need to do this the same way we do EGRET) as we're just trying to get a sense of variation. I would aim to pull out averages by site/species etc.
2. Try to note when they have ring width data but don't report it; if you can mention what other types of data they have. You do this generally, just keep it up!

Here's how I would approach a few of the papers:

1. Anderson -- liked how you entered it would add to reasonreject 'commentary with no data'
2. Brand -- I would add 'mean tree ring width' as given in Table 2 (seems like two means per sites for most sites -- you could enter 'MIT site' or 'TOT site' in treatment for now to differentiate, so 7 rows). Be sure to include the units and note in the method 'mean of raw tree-ring width chronologies from 27 (or however many) trees'
3. I like how to scraped this but you need to figure out what the units of RWI are and explain it more in method column
4. I like how you enter Canon; I would just clarify that they have RW data, but only show correlations. So instead of 'Only presented correlation (no raw data)' I would write 'seem to have RW data, but only presented correlation in main text (no raw data)'

[buniwuuu]

@lizzieinvancouver Thank you for the feedback! I will continue working on it!