be more careful with major conclusions
Closed this issue · 6 comments
from R2: "I am uncomfortable reading some of the major conclusions of the work here, such as speculation that large canopy trees are most vulnerable to warming when water is limited, but understory trees may be more vulnerable [to warming] when well-watered. This is not consistent with my knowledge of 'preponderance of available data'. Perhaps the authors implying that understory trees will succumb to warming earlier in a heat wave than large canopy trees? Is this based on the T50 evidence (l. 542-548) which is from 2 studies, or from one tree-ring study (l. 674-676), or both? An intriguing thought, but these studies and the corresponding author’s study have weaknesses and no clean experiment on this has been set up and done. I recommend that the more cautious language on l. 676-678 should in fact be repeated in the conclusions relevant to this point. It’s less stimulating and sober, but true, that it’s difficult to say so with strength of evidence and remains for further testing with good experimental design. An objective of such a review can stimulate further and better research."
This comment makes sense. We should revise language to be more cautious about drawing conclusions when few studies have addressed the topic.
I'd also somehow indicate this uncertainty in Fig. 1.
@teixeirak, would it be good to bring in information about heat waves and the vertical gradient?
@teixeirak, would it be good to bring in information about heat waves and the vertical gradient?
I don't think that's required to address this comment. But are you aware of any literature on this? If so, it would certainly be interesting to include.
@NidhiVinod , I've edited the implications and conclusions sections wrt this reviewer concern, and have noted the changes in the response to reviewers document.
Reviewing the abstract, I think that what we say (copied below) is sufficiently justified, although its perhaps marginal. What do you think?
"In contrast, understory trees benefit from a buffered microclimate but have fewer cooling mechanisms and thus may be disproportionately impacted under hot, humid conditions, or when the buffering provided by large trees is lost."
@NidhiVinod , I'm satisfied that this is solved. You can close the issue if you are too.
@NidhiVinod , I've edited the implications and conclusions sections wrt this reviewer concern, and have noted the changes in the response to reviewers document.
Reviewing the abstract, I think that what we say (copied below) is sufficiently justified, although its perhaps marginal. What do you think?
"In contrast, understory trees benefit from a buffered microclimate but have fewer cooling mechanisms and thus may be disproportionately impacted under hot, humid conditions, or when the buffering provided by large trees is lost."
@teixeirak, just read the changes you incorporated, thank you! I'm satisfied with what we have now too, so I'll close this issue.