search

lizzieinvancouver / ospree

Budbreak review paper database
3 stars 0 forks source link

review new limiting cues draft #431

Closed lizzieinvancouver closed 2 years ago

lizzieinvancouver commented 2 years ago

By 10 December (if feasible) please review new drafts and send comments (on PDF, in email, in Rnw on repo, whatever, just let me know how to find them)... especially looking for thoughts on:

lizzieinvancouver commented 2 years ago

Hoping we might submit to New Phytologist as research review:

Short Research reviews should be in the range of 3,500–4,000 words, with up to 60 references and six figures/tables. Following a short introduction, putting the area into context, and providing a ‘way in’ for the non-specialist, these will concentrate on the most recent developments in the field

dbuona commented 2 years ago

@lizzieinvancouver I just added comments to the .Rnw file (indicated with %%%DB%%%).

lizzieinvancouver commented 2 years ago

@AileneKane @dbuona @cchambe12 @MoralesCastilla Thank you all! I just pushed a new version with all your edits (commit # a44c3fe2eb5cccabbaa03cae7b729efbff7ffe40).

lizzieinvancouver commented 2 years ago

I have a few notes for @AileneKane comments...

  1. I liked your point about us having the data now to integrate experiments and observations for some well studied species ... if you see a way to add it to the abstract while not adding more than 4 words, let me know!
  2. I tried to fix Figure 2, but I cannot figure out how to add the black outside lines to legend. If anyone can, please help! My notes and code below.
  3. For Figure 3, Ailene wrote "Forgive me but I do not understand and cannot remember how this differs from white space on the figure? Also what do the gray squares mean in panel b?" ... the gray always means we don't have the chilling info -- sometimes it's because the design was as shown in b (for panel a) or as shown in a (for panel b) and sometimes we just can't figure out the right level. I am not sure how to explain this better ....
  4. For figure 4, we report the warming scenario in the supp and there's no green line as there's no chill data for that species, we say that -- but if you see a way to say it better, let me know.

Okay, back to Figure 2: The code this figure is at the end of analyses/limitingcues/GDD_plottinglimcues.R .... Based on this page thought adding pch=rep(21, 5), col="black", bg=colz[6:2] to the legend should work, but it didn't.

I am hoping to submit on Tuesday this week if possible, but can wait (and might run out of time anyway... my days feel very busy just now)

AileneKane commented 2 years ago

@lizzieinvancouver I solved the Figure 2 legend issue! See here

AileneKane commented 2 years ago

@lizzieinvancouver

  1. here is an attempt at adding the point to the abstract - it has exactly 200 words, i believe. the last few sentences could be modified to: 'Most studies focus on one cue, limiting our ability to make accurate predictions, but some well-studied forest species offer valuable opportunities to advance climate change forecasting. We outline how greater integration of controlled environment experiments with long-term data and insights from physiology, alongside a new generation of lab experiments could transform our fundamental understanding of phenology and improve forecasts of shifting phenology.'
  2. After looking at Figure 3 again, it made sense- I'm not sure what my previous issue was. sorry!
  3. I missed that. It's probably fine as is. If you want to be slightly more clear for readers like me who need lots of help to grasp the figure, you could for say "...Fagus sylvatica there are no chilling treatments of differing temperatures, so green line is absent in inset of A)."
lizzieinvancouver commented 2 years ago

@dbuona @cchambe12 @MoralesCastilla @AileneKane Thank you all! It's resubmitted for now.