-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Model type and unit issue 4 #26
Comments
I looked at this and yes, must be. I'll fix and add a note. |
I checked and the parameters in Table 1 do produce roughly the curves shown in Figure 1. For the first equation, the parameters at -2 C = about 0.2 µmol/m2/s = ~90 gC/m2/yr via Bahn equation. But the paper reports much higher annual numbers. Right? Huh, I wonder what happened. 🤷♂️ |
This is listed in the database as first author "Brye", but we're talking about Cahill et al. (2009) right? |
I'm a little confused here. I should (i) change the equation type and (ii) change the Rs_annual values to |
Agreed. Done. |
In the Notes field it says: "Q10 models from 8917" (8917 Han in Scientific Reports). |
2182Yes, the reported Rs_annual is too high if the model parameters are correct. 4756Yes, Cahill et al. (2009). 7704Sorry for the unclear description, if change the Rs_annual values, the Model_output_units should maintain the same. So, only need two changes: 9563Thanks, according table 2 in 8917, Model_paramB should change, and the estimates match well with the reported Rs_annual. |
Changed 7704 and 9563. Re 2182 and 4756–let's go over later today. |
390
1384
2182
4756
2560
3976
3649
5162
7530
7596
WHERE Record_number = 5822
WHERE Record_number = 5823
7704
8007
8079
8334
8382
8866
8917
9563
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: