search

lizzieinvancouver / ospree

Budbreak review paper database
3 stars 0 forks source link

photoperiod wrong for Thielges? #415

Closed lizzieinvancouver closed 1 year ago

lizzieinvancouver commented 3 years ago

is it 16/8 hours (end of first paragraph of M&M, no?)

dbuona commented 1 year ago

@lizzieinvancouver I think not. I think the 16/8 hour description refers to the thermo-period (good for them....they did not covary thermo-period and photoperiod). The photoperiod treatment is:

"10 cuttings per clone, five in a natural photoperiod (9.5-10.5 h over the course of the experiment) and five in an extended (16 h) photoperiod."

lizzieinvancouver commented 1 year ago

@dbuona This is great also. I agree with your interpretation.

I then checked the data and it looks like we entered the 16/8 as photoperiod. So then I looked at the paper again and it looks like we extracted data from fig 1 -- which appears to be the 'mean' across treatments ... though I cannot figure where the control went. If this were the case I think we'd have to try to adjust the photoperiod to be a mean of 9.5-10.5 and 16 depending on number of chill days... We don't have an exact start date to do that though ('Cuttings were taken in late September').

Ailene entered this and was pretty conscientious and it's been reviewed a lot in the process of writing our papers so far (this study does not seem to show up in our NCC or photoperiod paper on quick glance), so my urge is to leave the entry as we did it.

So I am going to close this, but if you think we should change it instead, let me know and we can loop in Ailene and discuss.