{ "dataset": { "archive": "dryad", "id": "4j0zpc8hz", "label": "DRYAD:4j0zpc8hz" }, "page": "datasets/dryad/4j0zpc8hz/", "generated": "2026-11-05T07:41:23+00:00", "caution": "A failure to reproduce is not a finding that the paper is wrong. It may be a failure of the attempt.", "outcome_counts": { "reproduced": 14, "partially_reproduced": 3, "not_reproduced": 7, "blocked": 15 }, "outcome_counts_with_outside_data": { "reproduced": 0, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 0 }, "outcome_counts_elsewhere": { "reproduced": 0, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 0 }, "outcome_counts_links": { "reproduced": 0, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 0 }, "attempts": [ { "id": "dryad-4j0zpc8hz-didion-gency-2024-01", "dataset": { "archive": "dryad", "id": "4j0zpc8hz", "version": "260590", "doi": "10.5061/dryad.4j0zpc8hz" }, "key": "dryad:4j0zpc8hz", "label": "DRYAD:4j0zpc8hz", "dataset_version": "260590", "paper": "10.1093/plphys/kiad565", "paper_title": null, "date": "2026-10-27", "kind": "agent", "accountable": "CatalystNeuro", "agent": { "harness": "Claude Code", "model": "claude-opus-5-5", "protocol": "pilot-10" }, "runner": { "platform": "GitHub Actions", "url": "https://github.com/catalystneuro/encore/actions/runs/40506393318" }, "tier": "agent_verified", "deprecated": "", "deprecated_on": null, "entry": "dryad-4j0zpc8hz-didion-gency-2024", "entry_title": "Chronic warming and dry soils in beech and oak (Didion-Gency et al. 2024)", "description": "Tests the findings of Didion-Gency, Vitasse, Buchmann, Gessler, Gisler, Schaub and Grossiord (2024) on Dryad dataset 4j0zpc8hz, one table of 96 beech and oak trees grown in open-top chambers under warming and soil moisture reduction, in monocultures and mixtures, from 2019 to 2021. It tests the phenology regressions on air temperature, the treatment effects on leaf water potential, carbon relations and growth, and the effects of species mixture. The soil moisture and chamber climate records are not in the dataset.", "notebooks": [ { "path": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "title": "Reproducing Didion-Gency et al. (2024) from Dryad dataset 4j0zpc8hz", "executed": "notebooks/dryad-4j0zpc8hz-didion-gency-2024/reproduce_didion_gency_2024.html" } ], "outcomes": [ { "claim": "fig1ab-bud-swelling-advance", "statement": "Warmer spring air advanced bud swelling in both species, by 1.1 days per degree in beech and 2.3 days per degree in oak, across 2020 and 2021 and the four treatments.", "source": "Results, Phenology, paragraph 1; Figure 1A and 1B", "quote": "Higher daily air temperatures in spring were linked to an earlier bud swelling in both species, where beech was advanced by \u22121.1 d \u00b0C\u22121 and oak by \u22122.3 d \u00b0C\u22121 across the 2 yr and treatments", "statistics": [ { "test": "linear regression", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<", "n": "monoculture trees, 6 per treatment, species and year, 2020 and 2021" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Slopes of bud swelling on Tspring, monoculture trees 2020 and 2021, -1.078 days per degree in beech and -2.296 in oak, both within tolerance; P1 p = 0.00011 and 1.2e-08, P2 (8 treatment-year means) p = 0.033 and 0.010. The slopes are equal under P1 and P2 because every treatment-year has six trees. With a random intercept per treatment and year added to P1 (a variant, not a reading of the claims file), p = 0.0060 and 0.0002.", "deviations": [ "Reading P1 uses each tree-year against its treatment's temperature, as the dataset gives one temperature per treatment and year and no chamber value.", "The sensor height (H1, 50 cm, or H2, 2 m) of the deposited temperatures is not stated, so H1 and H2 could not be run separately." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig1cd-development-duration", "statement": "Warmer spring air shortened leaf development duration by 0.7 days per degree in both species.", "source": "Results, Phenology, paragraph 1; Figure 1C and 1D", "quote": "A shorter leaf development duration was also found, with a reduction of \u22120.7 d \u00b0C\u22121 in both species", "statistics": [ { "test": "linear regression", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Slopes of development duration on Tspring, -0.651 (beech) and -0.659 (oak) days per degree, within 0.7 +- 0.07. Under P1 p = 0.0010 and 0.0039; under P2 the oak regression has p = 0.16, so only P1 meets the criterion, which needs one reading. P1 treats the 48 tree-years as independent although the temperature is one value per treatment and year; with a random intercept per treatment and year (a variant, not a reading of the claims file), oak has p = 0.11 and beech 0.012, so the oak result rests on P1 as the claims file gives it.", "deviations": [ "Reading P1 uses each tree-year against its treatment's temperature, as the dataset gives one temperature per treatment and year and no chamber value.", "The sensor height (H1, 50 cm, or H2, 2 m) of the deposited temperatures is not stated, so H1 and H2 could not be run separately." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig1gh-senescence-duration", "statement": "Warmer fall air extended leaf senescence duration by 3.4 days per degree in beech and 3.1 days per degree in oak.", "source": "Results, Phenology, paragraph 1; Figure 1G and 1H", "quote": "Similarly, senescence duration was extended by +3.4 d \u00b0C\u22121 in beech and +3.1 d \u00b0C\u22121 in oak", "statistics": [ { "test": "linear regression", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Slopes of senescence duration on Tfall, 3.396 (beech) and 3.084 (oak) days per degree, within tolerance; p <= 0.0056 under P1 and P2, and p < 0.0001 with a random intercept per treatment and year (a variant).", "deviations": [ "Reading P1 uses each tree-year against its treatment's temperature, as the dataset gives one temperature per treatment and year and no chamber value.", "The sensor height (H1, 50 cm, or H2, 2 m) of the deposited temperatures is not stated, so H1 and H2 could not be run separately." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig1ij-growing-season", "statement": "Warmer annual air lengthened the growing season by 4.5 days per degree in beech and 5.7 days per degree in oak.", "source": "Results, Phenology, paragraph 1; Figure 1I and 1J", "quote": "The growing seasons were extended by +4.5 d \u00b0C\u22121 and +5.7 d \u00b0C\u22121 for beech and oak, respectively, with an increase in daily mean annual air temperature", "statistics": [ { "test": "linear regression", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Slopes of the deposited growing season length on Tannual, 4.460 (beech) and 5.652 (oak) days per degree, within tolerance; p <= 0.035 under P1 and P2. The deposited Growth_length never equals onset of senescence minus bud swelling, the Methods' definition (median difference 55 days); with that definition, which the criterion repeats (bud swelling to onset of senescence), the slopes are 1.09 (beech, P1 p = 0.085) and 2.16 (oak, P1 p = 0.0014), and the claim would not be reproduced. Neither the workbook nor Metadata.csv defines Growth_length. The outcome uses the deposited column, which gives the paper's slopes within 0.04; a question asks which is to be tested. With a random intercept per treatment and year (a variant), p = 0.0067 and < 0.0001.", "deviations": [ "Reading P1 uses each tree-year against its treatment's temperature, as the dataset gives one temperature per treatment and year and no chamber value.", "The sensor height (H1, 50 cm, or H2, 2 m) of the deposited temperatures is not stated, so H1 and H2 could not be run separately.", "The deposited Growth_length is used; it does not follow the Methods' definition (see findings)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig1-oak-steeper-advance", "statement": "The temperature-driven advance was larger in oak than in beech (P = 0.004, least squares analysis).", "source": "Results, Phenology, paragraph 1", "quote": "However chronic warming was more advantageous to oak than to beech as the advancement of bud swelling extension was higher in oak (P = 0.004 using Least-squares analysis)", "statistics": [ { "test": "least-squares analysis", "p": 0.004 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Reading (a), bud swelling on Tspring by species, each tree-year (P1): oak slope -2.30 against beech -1.08, species by temperature interaction p = 0.0046 (paper 0.004). On treatment means (P2) p = 0.12; reading (b), growing season length on Tannual, p = 0.36 (P1) and 0.57 (P2), oak slope 5.65 against 4.46. With a random intercept per species, treatment and year added to P1 (a variant, not a reading of the claims file), reading (a) gives p = 0.097, so the result rests on P1 as the claims file gives it.", "deviations": [ "Reading P1 uses each tree-year against its treatment's temperature, as the dataset gives one temperature per treatment and year and no chamber value.", "The sensor height (H1, 50 cm, or H2, 2 m) of the deposited temperatures is not stated, so H1 and H2 could not be run separately." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig1ef-onset-senescence-no-temperature", "statement": "The onset of senescence was not related to fall air temperature in either species.", "source": "Results, Phenology, paragraph 1; Figure 1E and 1F", "quote": "No relationship between the onset of senescence and fall daily air temperatures was found, suggesting that the onset of senescence is not driven by temperature changes in the fall for both species", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "No regression of onset of senescence on Tfall has P <= 0.05 (p 0.44 to 0.80 over species and P1, P2); slopes 0.24 (beech) and -0.45 (oak) days per degree; p 0.79 and 0.45 with a random intercept per treatment and year (a variant). 48 of 191 tree-years have an onset at day 250 to 252, the start of the observations.", "deviations": [ "Reading P1 uses each tree-year against its treatment's temperature, as the dataset gives one temperature per treatment and year and no chamber value.", "The sensor height (H1, 50 cm, or H2, 2 m) of the deposited temperatures is not stated, so H1 and H2 could not be run separately." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs1-phenology-no-moisture", "statement": "No phenological trait was related to soil moisture in either species.", "source": "Results, Phenology, paragraph 1; Supplemental Figure S1", "quote": "We observed no significant relationship between phenology and soil moisture for both species (Supplemental Fig. S1)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "The dataset has no soil moisture (Mspring, Mfall, Mannual or the 25 cm records); the workbook and Metadata.csv list every column and none is a soil moisture variable. The paper names no other archive for them.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig2-gdd-chilling", "statement": "The more chilling days trees received, the fewer growing degree days they needed to reach bud swelling, in both species, following a negative exponential.", "source": "Results, Phenology, paragraph 2; Figure 2A and 2B", "quote": "With an increase in the number of chilling days, both species had lower GDD requirements to budburst (Fig. 2)", "statistics": [ { "test": "negative exponential regression (nls)", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<", "n": "monoculture trees, one point per tree and year, 2020 and 2021" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "With the deposited GDD and Chill_days, monoculture trees 2020 and 2021 (48 per species), both forms of the negative exponential decrease over the observed range in both species. (e) GDD = a exp(b CD): b = -0.0135 (beech, p = 4.4e-27, R2 0.95), -0.0114 (oak, p = 7.4e-20, R2 0.88). (f) GDD = a + b exp(c CD): c = -0.035 (beech, p = 2.9e-07), -0.054 (oak, p = 4.2e-07).", "deviations": [ "The readings (a) or (b) for GDD, (c) or (d) for the end of the chilling count, and H1 or H2 could not be run separately: the dataset gives GDD and chilling days already computed and not the temperature records. Metadata.csv says chilling days run to leaf flushing (reading d)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "disc-max-chilling-days", "statement": "Even without warming, trees received at most 97 chilling days.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph 1; Figure 2", "quote": "In our experiment, trees were exposed to a maximum of 97 d even in the absence of warming (Fig. 2)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Largest Chill_days among C and MR monoculture trees in 2020 and 2021 is 97 (2021; 82 and 76 in 2020); 97 is also the largest in the dataset.", "deviations": [ "Chilling days are the deposited values; readings (c), (d), H1 and H2 could not be run separately." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig3-psi-warming-2020", "statement": "Warming made predawn leaf water potential more negative in 2020 in both species, and midday leaf water potential more negative in 2020 in beech only.", "source": "Results, Leaf water potential, paragraph 1; Figure 3", "quote": "Warming resulted in more negative \u03a8PD in 2020 in both species and more negative \u03a8MD in 2020 but only in beech (Fig. 3)", "statistics": [ { "about": "predawn water potential, warming by moisture reduction by year, beech", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 3.54", "p": 0.031 }, { "about": "predawn water potential, warming by moisture reduction by year, oak", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 3.59", "p": 0.03 }, { "about": "treatment contrasts within year", "test": "Tukey's HSD post-hoc test", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<", "n": "6 monoculture trees per treatment, species and year" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "2020, W against C. Predawn beech -0.67 MPa (adjusted p 0.0027 T1, 0.027 T2), holds; predawn oak -0.23 MPa (p 0.39, 0.55), does not; midday beech -1.36 MPa (p 0.0005, 0.0077), holds; midday oak -0.53 MPa (p 0.38, 0.55), not significant, as claimed. Three of four conditions under both readings.", "deviations": [ "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig3-psi-mr-oak-2020", "statement": "Lower soil moisture alone made predawn leaf water potential more negative in 2020 in oak only.", "source": "Results, Leaf water potential, paragraph 1; Figure 3", "quote": "lower soil moisture reduced \u03a8PD in 2020 but only in oak (Fig. 3)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "2020 predawn, MR against C, oak -0.28 MPa (adjusted p 0.25 T1, 0.41 T2), beech -0.13 MPa (p 0.91, 0.97); neither is significant.", "deviations": [ "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig3-psi-wmr-2021", "statement": "Combined warming and drier soil made predawn leaf water potential more negative in 2021 in both species.", "source": "Results, Leaf water potential, paragraph 1; Figure 3; Supplemental Table S1", "quote": "However, combined warming and drier soils resulted in more negative \u03a8PD in 2021 in both species (Fig. 3, Supplemental Table S1)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "2021 predawn, WMR against C, beech -0.61 MPa (adjusted p 0.0066 T1, 0.039 T2) and oak -0.72 MPa (p < 0.0001 both).", "deviations": [ "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "disc-psi-minimum", "statement": "Under the low moisture treatment trees reached predawn water potentials of about -1.9 MPa in beech and -1.2 MPa in oak.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph 3; Figure 3", "quote": "As the predawn (\u03a8PD) and midday leaf water potential (\u03a8MD) of our trees were slightly affected by our low moisture treatment (Fig. 3), we considered the water availability level as moderate. Indeed, trees reached \u03a8PD of about \u22121.9 and \u22121.2 MPa in beech and downy oak, respectively", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "No reading puts both species within tolerance. Beech (target -1.9 +- 0.19) -0.678 (a), -1.057 (b), -1.177 (c), -2.180 (d); oak (target -1.2 +- 0.12) -0.583 (a), -0.949 (b), -1.148 (c, within), -3.500 (d). Measured values are reading (a), the first the criterion lists.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4-beech-warming-none", "statement": "In beech, warming alone had no effect on starch, sugar, Asat, or height, diameter and AGWB increments.", "source": "Results, Leaf-level carbon relations and tree growth, paragraph 1; Figure 4; Supplemental Table S1", "quote": "In beech, warming had no impact on leaf-level carbon relations and growth (Fig. 4, Supplemental Table S1)", "statistics": [ { "about": "warming main effect, starch", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 1.55", "p": 0.236 }, { "about": "warming main effect, sugar", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 2.59", "p": 0.133 }, { "about": "warming main effect, Asat", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 2.44", "p": 0.144 }, { "about": "warming main effect, height increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 0.78", "p": 0.395 }, { "about": "warming main effect, diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 1.45", "p": 0.252 }, { "about": "warming main effect, AGWB increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 0.17", "p": 0.69 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values (questions/dryad-4j0zpc8hz.yaml): the claims file now names S1, S2 and S3 for negative starch, sugar and Asat values as for increments; S3 (negative values dropped) is new. Of 108 W against C contrasts in beech (six traits, 2020 and 2021, twelve readings), two are significant, both starch 2020 under T1 on yearly tree means, S2 (raw -3.52 %, adjusted p 0.041) and S3 (p 0.018); under S1 p 0.099, and under T2 or on campaign values p 0.050 to 0.33. The readings still differ, so the claim stays blocked, as in the first run (one significant contrast of 72, under S2). Table S1 warming terms, marginal tests under T1, p 0.081 to 0.72; the warming by year term for Asat has marginal p 0.026 (L1) and 0.006 (L2).", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4-oak-warming-growth-2021", "statement": "In oak, warming alone reduced height, diameter and AGWB increments, in 2021 only.", "source": "Results, Leaf-level carbon relations and tree growth, paragraph 1; Figure 4G to 4L; Supplemental Table S1", "quote": "In oak, warming reduced height increment, diameter increment, and AGWB increment but only in 2021 (Fig. 4, Supplemental Table S1)", "statistics": [ { "about": "warming main effect, oak diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 15.04", "p": 0.002 }, { "about": "warming by year, oak height increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 5.00", "p": 0.008 }, { "about": "warming by year, oak diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 3.66", "p": 0.026 }, { "about": "treatment contrasts within year", "test": "Tukey's HSD post-hoc test", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values: S3 (negative values dropped) is now a reading for the increments too. Oak, W against C. 2021 height increment -11.7 cm (adjusted p 0.012 to 0.045 under S1 and S2, 0.052 and 0.054 under S3), AGWB increment -21.5 g (p 0.032 T1, 0.060 T2), diameter increment not significant; no 2020 contrast is significant. Two or one of three under five readings (partially reproduced), none under T2 with S3 (not reproduced). The first run, with S1 and S2 only, found partially reproduced under every reading; S3 makes the readings differ.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "disc-oak-warming-no-carbon-change", "statement": "In oak, warming had no effect on Asat or on starch and sugar concentrations.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph 4; Figure 4A to 4F", "quote": "downy oak, which occurs in environments of 19 \u00b0C MAT (Pasta et al. 2016), showed no effect of warming on Asat and NSC but a substantial decrease in growth (Fig. 4)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values (questions/dryad-4j0zpc8hz.yaml): the claims file now names S1, S2 and S3 for negative starch, sugar and Asat values as for increments; S3 (negative values dropped) is new. No W against C contrast of starch, sugar or Asat in oak is significant in 2020 or 2021 under any of the twelve readings (T1, T2; S1, S2, S3; L1, L2), smallest adjusted p 0.30, as in the first run.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4-beech-mr", "statement": "In beech, lower soil moisture alone reduced Asat in 2021, height increment in 2021, diameter increment in 2020 and 2021, and AGWB increment in 2021.", "source": "Results, Leaf-level carbon relations and tree growth, paragraph 1; Figure 4", "quote": "In beech, lower soil moisture led to a significant reduction of Asat in 2021, height increment in 2021, diameter increment in 2020 and 2021, and AGWB increment in 2021", "statistics": [ { "about": "moisture reduction by year, beech Asat", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 19.00", "p": 0.001, "p_relation": "<" }, { "about": "moisture reduction by year, beech height increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 13.82", "p": 0.001, "p_relation": "<" }, { "about": "moisture reduction by year, beech diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 10.26", "p": 0.001, "p_relation": "<" }, { "about": "treatment contrasts within year", "test": "Tukey's HSD post-hoc test", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values (questions/dryad-4j0zpc8hz.yaml): the claims file now names S1, S2 and S3 for negative starch, sugar and Asat values as for increments; S3 (negative values dropped) is new. Beech, MR against C. Asat 2021 -5.90 (adjusted p < 0.0001), height 2021 -9.6 cm (p 0.0004 to 0.0091) and AGWB 2021 -9.4 g (p 0.016 T1, 0.040 T2) hold under every reading; diameter 2021 -1.56 holds under S1 and S2 (p 0.008 to 0.025) but not S3 (-0.35 on the rows kept, p 0.99); diameter 2020 never. Four of five under S1 and S2, three under S3; partially reproduced under every reading, as in the first run.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4-oak-mr", "statement": "In oak, lower soil moisture alone reduced Asat and height, diameter and AGWB increments in both 2020 and 2021.", "source": "Results, Leaf-level carbon relations and tree growth, paragraph 1; Figure 4", "quote": "Similarly, we observed a substantial reduction in Asat, height increment, diameter increment, and AGWB increments in oak in 2020 and 2021 (Fig. 4, Supplemental Table S1)", "statistics": [ { "about": "moisture reduction by year, oak height increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 35.13", "p": 0.001, "p_relation": "<" }, { "about": "moisture reduction main effect, oak diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 5.01", "p": 0.045 }, { "about": "moisture reduction by year, oak diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 15.93", "p": 0.001, "p_relation": "<" }, { "about": "moisture reduction by year, oak AGWB increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 7.27", "p": 0.002 }, { "about": "treatment contrasts within year", "test": "Tukey's HSD post-hoc test", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": "<" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values (questions/dryad-4j0zpc8hz.yaml): the claims file now names S1, S2 and S3 for negative starch, sugar and Asat values as for increments; S3 (negative values dropped) is new. Oak, MR against C. Six or seven of eight trait-years hold under every reading. Height 2020 is not significant under any reading (raw -9.6 cm, smallest adjusted p 0.062); Asat 2021 is significant on campaign values under T1 with S1 or S2 and T2 with S1 (p 0.039 to 0.048), not under S3 (p 0.15, 0.19) and not on yearly means. Same outcome as the first run.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4-beech-wmr", "statement": "In beech, combined warming and low moisture reduced Asat and diameter increment in 2020 and 2021.", "source": "Results, Leaf-level carbon relations and tree growth, paragraph 1; Figure 4", "quote": "Under combined warming and low moisture, we observed a reduction of Asat, and diameter increment in 2020 and 2021 in beech", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values: S3 is now a reading for the increments too. Beech, WMR against C. Asat 2021 -6.40 (adjusted p < 0.0001) holds, Asat 2020 does not (p 0.062 to 0.23); diameter 2021 -1.19 is significant under S2 (p 0.020 T1, 0.045 T2) but not S1 (p 0.074, 0.086) or S3 (-0.47 on the rows kept, p 0.81, 0.80); diameter 2020 is not. One of four under S1 and S3 (not reproduced), two under S2 (partially reproduced), so the readings differ, as in the first run.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4-oak-wmr", "statement": "In oak, combined warming and low moisture reduced Asat and height, diameter and AGWB increments in 2020 and 2021.", "source": "Results, Leaf-level carbon relations and tree growth, paragraph 1; Figure 4", "quote": "In oak, a reduction of Asat, height increment, diameter increment, and AGWB increment in 2020 and 2021 was observed", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values (questions/dryad-4j0zpc8hz.yaml): the claims file now names S1, S2 and S3 for negative starch, sugar and Asat values as for increments; S3 (negative values dropped) is new. Oak, WMR against C, all eight trait-years significant under every reading, S3 included (Asat adjusted p <= 0.0013, height 2020 p 0.028 to 0.048, the others p <= 0.029). Same outcome as the first run.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4-wmr-same-as-mr", "statement": "Responses to combined warming and low moisture did not differ from responses to low moisture alone.", "source": "Results, Leaf-level carbon relations and tree growth, paragraph 1; Figure 4", "quote": "No significant differences were found between responses to lower moisture alone and combined warming and soil moisture reduction (Fig. 4, Supplemental Table S1)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values (questions/dryad-4j0zpc8hz.yaml): the claims file now names S1, S2 and S3 for negative starch, sugar and Asat values as for increments; S3 (negative values dropped) is new. Of 216 MR against WMR contrasts (two species, six traits, two years, readings), two are significant, both oak diameter increment 2021 under S2 (raw WMR - MR -0.50, adjusted p 0.020 T1, 0.033 T2); under S1 and S3 none. Largest absolute raw differences per trait are 0.37 to 3.67 in beech and 0.50 to 2.86 in oak. The readings differ, as in the first run.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "disc-nsc-unchanged-drier-soil", "statement": "Drier soils did not change starch and sugar concentrations in either species.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph 5; Figure 4A to 4D", "quote": "Chronically drier soils strongly reduced the leaf-level carbon relations and growth of both species, except for NSC where we found no changes (Fig. 4)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on negative values (questions/dryad-4j0zpc8hz.yaml): the claims file now names S1, S2 and S3 for negative starch, sugar and Asat values as for increments; S3 (negative values dropped) is new. No MR against C contrast of starch or sugar is significant in either species or year under any of the twelve readings (smallest adjusted p 0.059, beech sugar 2021 on campaign values under T2 and S3). Variant WMR against C, one of 96 significant (beech starch 2020 on campaign values under T1 and S3, raw -3.80 %, p 0.028). Same outcome as the first run.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; this is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept).", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "disc-beech-asat-more-impaired", "statement": "Low soil moisture impaired Asat more strongly in beech than in oak.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph 5; Figure 4E and 4F", "quote": "However, while both species were negatively impacted by low soil moisture, beech Asat was more strongly impaired (Fig. 4)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Mean Asat of monoculture tree-year means. The reduction is larger in beech in 6 of 12 readings: 2021 under r1 and r2 (MR, relative 0.72 against 0.30, absolute 5.9 against 3.4), and both years pooled under r1 only; in 2020 it is larger in oak (MR, 0.47 against 0.48 and 1.6 against 5.0). The readings differ.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables6-no-seasonal-variation", "statement": "Asat, starch and sugar did not vary among the three campaigns of the growing season.", "source": "Methods, Statistical analysis, paragraph 2; Supplemental Table S6", "quote": "As leaf-level responses (assimilation and starch and sugar concentrations) did not vary during the growing season, we averaged them per year before the analyses (Supplemental Table S6)", "statistics": [ { "about": "season effect, starch", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 2.64", "p": 0.074 }, { "about": "season effect, sugar", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 1.56", "p": 0.213 }, { "about": "season effect, Asat", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 2.03", "p": 0.134 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on the years and F tests: the criterion now names the years (y1 2019 to 2021, y2 2020 and 2021) and the F tests (F1 sequential, F2 marginal) as readings, with S1 to S3 for negative values. Season term of lme((W + MR + season)^3) on campaign values. Under F1, at least one of starch, sugar and Asat has p <= 0.05 under all 24 readings (Asat p <= 0.043 under every one). Under F2, all three have p > 0.05 under 3 of 24 readings (y2, monocultures, both species pooled, S1 to S3; starch p 0.12 to 0.26, sugar 0.17 to 0.32, Asat 0.070 to 0.12). The readings differ, so the claim is blocked; the first run, which read the tests as sequential with marginal tests a variant, recorded it as not reproduced. Raw campaign means, early to late, starch 5.76, 4.71, 3.99 %, Asat 5.36, 7.10, 5.07. Set against the paper's 12 F values (season and its three interactions, three traits), the closest readings are y2, monocultures, both species pooled, F2, under S2 and S1 (largest difference 0.99 and 1.01; 3.1 under S3), the readings under which the absence holds. No reading matches exactly, so the claim stays blocked.", "deviations": [ "Reading (b), per species, is taken to hold when all three traits have p > 0.05 in each species.", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables2-phenology-no-interaction", "statement": "Species mixture did not change phenology in either species, except a development duration about 2 days shorter in oak mixtures than monocultures under lower moisture, whose net biodiversity effect was not significant.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 1; Supplemental Table S2", "quote": "In both species, no impact of species interactions on phenology was found in any treatment, except in oak where we observed a slightly shorter development duration of 2 d in mixtures compared to the monocultures under lower moisture (Supplemental Table S2), but the net biodiversity effect was not significant", "statistics": [ { "about": "year by interaction, oak development duration", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 9.37", "p": 0.003 }, { "about": "moisture reduction by year by interaction, oak development duration", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 11.21", "p": 0.001 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on the years of the interaction model: the criteria now use Y1 (bud swelling and development duration on 2020 and 2021, the other traits on 2019 to 2021), with Y2 (2020 and 2021) as a variant, in place of the first run's T1 and T2; S3 is also new for negative values. Under Y1, oak development duration under MR, mixture minus monoculture -0.83 (2020), -1.67 (2021), -1.25 (both years) days, not significant (p 0.14 to 0.67). Other significant phenology contrasts, 6 per reading under I1 and 2 under I2, for example oak development duration under C in 2021, +5.5 days (p 0.0018) and oak onset of senescence under W in 2020, +18.8 days (p 0.0008); Y2 gives 3 and 2. The NBE of oak development duration under MR does not differ from zero (p 0.055 to 0.52), as claimed. Measured is the 2021 monoculture minus mixture difference (I1). Same outcome as the first run. Adjusted over the model's contrasts (A2), the oak development duration contrast under MR has p 0.63 to 1.0, and 2 other contrasts are significant under I1 and 2 under I2 (Y1); the outcome is the same under A1 and A2.", "deviations": [ "The claims file does not name the family over which the mixture against monoculture contrasts are adjusted; both readings are run, A1 (each contrast alone) and A2 (single-step over the model's eight treatment and year contrasts, or four treatment contrasts over both years), and a question asks about it.", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables3-beech-warming-no-interaction", "statement": "Under warming, species mixture did not change beech leaf-level carbon relations or growth in 2020 and 2021, and beech showed no net biodiversity effect on these traits in 2021.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 2; Supplemental Table S3; Figure 5", "quote": "In beech, no impact of species interactions on leaf-level carbon relations or growth was found under the warming treatment in 2020 and 2021 (Supplemental Table S3). Consequently, beech did not show any impact of net biodiversity in response to warming in terms of leaf-level carbon relations or growth in 2021 (Fig. 5)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on the years of the interaction model: the criteria now use Y1 (bud swelling and development duration on 2020 and 2021, the other traits on 2019 to 2021), with Y2 (2020 and 2021) as a variant, in place of the first run's T1 and T2; S3 is also new for negative values. Under Y1 the absence holds under 3 of 24 readings (I2 with B2 on yearly tree means, S1 to S3). Otherwise a contrast is significant (beech starch under W in 2020, mixture higher by 3.6 %, p 0.018 to 0.045 under I1) or a 2021 NBE differs from zero (Asat, -60 under B1, p 0.019 yearly and 0.0002 campaign; -67 under B2 on campaigns, p 0.0074; p 0.078 under B2 on yearly means). Y2 gives 2 of 24. 2020 NBEs, reported, starch p 0.021 and 0.013 on campaign values. Blocked as in the first run. With contrasts adjusted over the model's contrasts (A2), no beech contrast under W is significant, and the absence holds under 6 of 24 Y1 readings (B2 on yearly means, I1 or I2), against 3 of 24 with each contrast alone (A1); Y2 gives 2 (A1) and 6 (A2).", "deviations": [ "Under B2, a mixture tree whose chamber has two monoculture trees of its species is compared with their mean (standard choice).", "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; the difference over all rows is also printed. This is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept), and a question asks about it.", "The claims file does not name the family over which the mixture against monoculture contrasts are adjusted; both readings are run, A1 (each contrast alone) and A2 (single-step over the model's eight treatment and year contrasts, or four treatment contrasts over both years), and a question asks about it.", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs2-beech-asat-selection-warming", "statement": "Under warming, beech Asat showed a positive selection effect, too weak to change the net biodiversity effect.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 2; Supplemental Figure S2E", "quote": "However, we observed a positive selection effect on beech Asat under warming (Supplemental Fig. S2), suggesting positive interactions in the mixtures; although, this effect was not strong enough to influence the overall net biodiversity effect", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Beech Asat under W. The selection effect is not positive and significant in 2020 or 2021 under any reading: mean 0 under B1 on yearly means (by construction), 11.6 and 3.3 (p 0.81, 0.81) under B1 on campaigns, -15.0 and -18.3 (p 0.82, 0.51) and -0.3 and -19.2 (p 0.996, 0.32) under B2. The NBE is not significant in 2020 (p 0.64 to 0.90) and is negative in 2021 (p 0.0002 to 0.078). Under B1 on yearly means the claims file's reading of Eq. 4 makes the SE 0 by construction, so only the other three readings can show a selection effect; a question asks about this reading.", "deviations": [ "Under B2, a mixture tree whose chamber has two monoculture trees of its species is compared with their mean (standard choice).", "Equation 4 read as in Loreau and Hector (2001), as the claims file says." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables3-oak-warming-diameter", "statement": "Under warming, oak in mixtures had a diameter increment about 0.3 cm per year lower than in monocultures, and no other difference between mixtures and monocultures.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 2; Supplemental Table S3", "quote": "For oak, no differences between mixtures and monocultures were found under warming, except for lower diameter increment of approximately 0.3 cm per year in mixtures compared to monocultures (Supplemental Table S3)", "statistics": [ { "about": "warming by year by interaction, oak diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 4.15", "p": 0.016 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on the years of the interaction model: the criteria now use Y1 (bud swelling and development duration on 2020 and 2021, the other traits on 2019 to 2021), with Y2 (2020 and 2021) as a variant, in place of the first run's T1 and T2; S3 is also new for negative values. Oak under W, diameter increment mixture minus monoculture -0.22 (2020, p 0.20 to 0.45), +0.34 (2021; +0.68 on the rows S3 keeps), +0.06 (both years); never significantly lower in mixtures, and not within 0.3 +- 0.03 or 0.03 +- 0.003. Other oak contrasts are significant (AGWB increment, -8.9 g in 2020, p 0.012 under Y1). Measured is the 2020 monoculture minus mixture difference, the only year with mixtures lower. Same outcome as the first run. The values above are for contrasts taken alone (A1); adjusted over the model's contrasts (A2) the diameter contrast is still never significantly lower, and the AGWB increment over both years is -8.3 g (p 0.039 under Y1).", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; the difference over all rows is also printed. This is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept), and a question asks about it.", "The claims file does not name the family over which the mixture against monoculture contrasts are adjusted; both readings are run, A1 (each contrast alone) and A2 (single-step over the model's eight treatment and year contrasts, or four treatment contrasts over both years), and a question asks about it.", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig5-oak-agwb-nbe-warming-2020", "statement": "Under warming in 2020, oak showed a negative net biodiversity effect on AGWB increment, explained by a negative complementarity effect.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 2; Figure 5L; Supplemental Figure S3L", "quote": "Moreover, oak trees showed a negative net biodiversity effect for the AGWB increment in response to warming in 2020 (Fig. 5), explained by a negative complementarity effect (Supplemental Fig. S3)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Oak AGWB increment under W in 2020. Under B1 NBE -446 (p 0.0016) and CE -893 (p 0.0016), both negative and significant; under B2 NBE -316 and CE -632 (p 0.066). The readings differ. CE is twice the NBE for every tree with Eq. 3 as printed, so the sign found for complementarity is negative, as the Results say. A question asks whether Eq. 3, read so that CE is twice the NBE, is the paper's computation.", "deviations": [ "Under B2, a mixture tree whose chamber has two monoculture trees of its species is compared with their mean (standard choice)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables3-beech-mr-diameter", "statement": "Under lower soil moisture, beech in mixtures had a smaller diameter increment than in monocultures.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 3; Supplemental Table S3", "quote": "Under lower soil moisture, we found a reduced diameter increment in mixtures compared to the monocultures in beech (Supplemental Table S3)", "statistics": [ { "about": "moisture reduction by year by interaction, beech diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 15.06", "p": 0.001, "p_relation": "<" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on the years of the interaction model: the criteria now use Y1 (bud swelling and development duration on 2020 and 2021, the other traits on 2019 to 2021), with Y2 (2020 and 2021) as a variant, in place of the first run's T1 and T2; S3 is also new for negative values. Beech under MR, diameter increment mixture minus monoculture -0.20 in 2020 (p 0.46 to 0.58); in 2021 +0.67 under S1 and S2 (p 0.018 to 0.082, mixtures larger) and -0.17 on the rows S3 keeps (p 0.65, 0.82); over both years +0.22 (S1, S2, p 0.28 to 0.53) or -0.22 (S3, p 0.87, 0.93). No reading finds it significantly lower in mixtures. Same outcome as the first run. The p values above are for contrasts taken alone (A1); adjusted over the model's contrasts (A2) the 2021 difference has p 0.13 to 0.47 under S1 and S2.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; the difference over all rows is also printed. This is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept), and a question asks about it.", "The claims file does not name the family over which the mixture against monoculture contrasts are adjusted; both readings are run, A1 (each contrast alone) and A2 (single-step over the model's eight treatment and year contrasts, or four treatment contrasts over both years), and a question asks about it.", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig5-beech-sugar-nbe-mr", "statement": "Under low soil moisture, beech showed a negative net biodiversity effect on sugar concentration, driven by a negative complementarity effect.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 3; Figure 5C; Supplemental Figure S3C", "quote": "Similarly, a negative net biodiversity effect on sugar concentration in response to low soil moisture was found in beech (Fig. 5), driven by a negative complementarity effect (Supplemental Fig. S3)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Beech sugar under MR in 2020, NBE -95 (B1, p 0.0072 yearly, 0.024 campaign) and -94 (B2, p 0.0025, 0.036), negative and significant under all four readings; CE is twice the NBE, so it is negative and significant too. 2021 NBE near zero (p >= 0.71). The year found is 2020 (as the Discussion says) and the complementarity effect is negative (as the Results say). With Eq. 3 read as in the claims file, CE is exactly twice the NBE, so the complementarity part is not tested apart from the NBE; a question asks whether this is the paper's computation.", "deviations": [ "Under B2, a mixture tree whose chamber has two monoculture trees of its species is compared with their mean (standard choice)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "oak-mr-no-interaction", "statement": "Under low soil moisture alone, oak showed no effect of species interactions and no net biodiversity effect.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 3; Supplemental Table S3; Figure 5", "quote": "In contrast, we observed no impact of species interactions and net biodiversity effect in oak (Supplemental Table S3, Fig. 5)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on the years of the interaction model: the criteria now use Y1 (bud swelling and development duration on 2020 and 2021, the other traits on 2019 to 2021), with Y2 (2020 and 2021) as a variant, in place of the first run's T1 and T2; S3 is also new for negative values. Under Y1 the absence holds under 3 of 24 readings (I1 with B2 on yearly means, S1 to S3); Y2 also gives 3 of 24. Over both years (I2) oak Asat under MR is higher in mixtures (+2.18, p 0.0047 to 0.036 under every reading); NBEs differ from zero under B1 or on campaigns (Asat 2021 +114, p 0.031 and 0.013 under B1; Asat 2020 +104 and +178 on campaigns, p 0.024 and 0.013; sugar 2020 -28, p 0.030 under B1 on yearly means). Blocked as in the first run. With contrasts adjusted over the model's contrasts (A2), oak Asat over both years has p 0.019 to 0.048 under 6 of 12 readings, and the absence holds under 3 of 24 Y1 readings (as with A1) and 6 of 24 Y2 readings.", "deviations": [ "Under B2, a mixture tree whose chamber has two monoculture trees of its species is compared with their mean (standard choice).", "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; the difference over all rows is also printed. This is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept), and a question asks about it.", "The claims file does not name the family over which the mixture against monoculture contrasts are adjusted; both readings are run, A1 (each contrast alone) and A2 (single-step over the model's eight treatment and year contrasts, or four treatment contrasts over both years), and a question asks about it.", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables3-beech-wmr-height", "statement": "Under combined warming and lower moisture, beech height increment was about 2 cm per year larger in monocultures than in mixtures.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 4; Supplemental Table S3", "quote": "Under combined warming and lower moisture, a larger height increment by approximately 2 cm per year was found in monocultures compared to the mixtures in beech (Supplemental Table S3)", "statistics": [ { "about": "warming by interaction, beech height increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 6.80", "p": 0.009 }, { "about": "warming by moisture reduction by interaction, beech height increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 11.91", "p": 0.001 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Answer to the question on the years of the interaction model: the criteria now use Y1 (bud swelling and development duration on 2020 and 2021, the other traits on 2019 to 2021), with Y2 (2020 and 2021) as a variant, in place of the first run's T1 and T2; S3 is also new for negative values. Beech under WMR, height increment monoculture minus mixture 0.92 (2020), 3.08 (2021) and 2.00 cm over both years (0.35 on the rows S3 keeps); no contrast is significant under any reading (p 0.23 to 0.61). Measured is the value over both years (I2, S1), the one within tolerance. Same outcome as the first run. The p values are for contrasts taken alone (A1); adjusted over the model's contrasts (A2) they are higher.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; the difference over all rows is also printed. This is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept), and a question asks about it.", "The claims file does not name the family over which the mixture against monoculture contrasts are adjusted; both readings are run, A1 (each contrast alone) and A2 (single-step over the model's eight treatment and year contrasts, or four treatment contrasts over both years), and a question asks about it.", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables3-oak-wmr-diameter", "statement": "Under combined warming and lower moisture, oak diameter increment was 1.4 cm larger in mixtures than in monocultures.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 4; Supplemental Table S3", "quote": "In oak, diameter increment was larger by 1.4 cm in mixtures compared to the monocultures (Supplemental Table S3)", "statistics": [ { "about": "warming by year by interaction, oak diameter increment", "test": "linear mixed-effects model ANOVA", "statistic": "F = 4.15", "p": 0.016 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "methods_underspecified", "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Changed after verification round 1 from reproduced. Under WMR in 2021, with each contrast taken alone (A1), oak diameter increment is significantly larger in mixtures under every Y1 reading (p 0.0002 to 0.023). The difference is within 1.4 +- 0.14 only under Y1 with S3 and only on the tree-years the S3 model keeps (+1.38, 9 of 144 negative increments dropped, p 0.023). Over all trees the 2021 difference is +1.69 under every reading, outside tolerance under both unit readings, and over both years +0.83. Adjusted over the model's eight treatment and year contrasts (A2), the S3 contrast has p 0.16, while under S1 and S2 the 2021 contrast stays significant (p 0.0017 to 0.0096) at +1.69. Under Y2 with S3 the 2021 difference of 1.38 has p 0.051 (A1). The claim holds only for one choice of two details the claims file does not fix (the family of the contrasts, and the rows of the difference under S3); a question asks about both.", "deviations": [ "Under S3 the raw differences are those of the rows the model keeps, without the dropped negative values; the difference over all rows is also printed. This is not fixed by the claims file (under S1 and S2 all rows are kept), and a question asks about it.", "The claims file does not name the family over which the mixture against monoculture contrasts are adjusted; both readings are run, A1 (each contrast alone) and A2 (single-step over the model's eight treatment and year contrasts, or four treatment contrasts over both years), and a question asks about it.", "Mixed models fitted in Python (statsmodels MixedLM, REML) with the fixed-effect covariance of nlme and multcomp-style single-step contrasts computed in the helper, not with R's nlme and multcomp.", "35 exact duplicate rows were counted once, and the two different rows of tree 144 for campaign 5 of 2020 were averaged." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig5-oak-asat-nbe-wmr-2021", "statement": "Under combined warming and drier soils in 2021, oak showed a positive net biodiversity effect on Asat, explained by complementarity.", "source": "Results, Impact of species interactions, paragraph 4; Figure 5F; Supplemental Figure S3F", "quote": "We also observed a positive net biodiversity effect for Asat in 2021 in oak (Fig. 5). This effect was explained by complementarity effects, indicating a resource complementarity under warmer air and drier soils (Supplemental Fig. S3)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Oak Asat under WMR in 2021, NBE +193 (B1, p 0.028 yearly, 0.0020 campaign) and +194 (B2, p 0.0022, 0.0003), positive and significant under all four readings, with CE twice the NBE. With Eq. 3 read as in the claims file, the complementarity part is therefore not tested apart from the NBE; a question asks whether this is the paper's computation.", "deviations": [ "Under B2, a mixture tree whose chamber has two monoculture trees of its species is compared with their mean (standard choice)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "methods-treatment-magnitudes", "statement": "The treatments raised air temperature by 5.19 C (W) and 5.02 C (WMR) and reduced soil moisture by 52.77% (MR) and 51.96% (WMR) relative to the control.", "source": "Materials and methods, Experimental set-up, paragraph 2; Figure 6", "quote": "an air warming treatment with an increase of around 5 \u00b0C (i.e. +5.19 \u00b1 0.2 \u00b0C) relative to the (ambient) air temperature in the control (W) ... a soil moisture reduction treatment with a reduction of soil moisture of around 50% (i.e. \u221252.77 \u00b1 9.7%) relative to the control ... (WMR, i.e. +5.02 \u00b1 0.2 \u00b0C and \u221251.96 \u00b1 10.3%, Fig. 6, Supplemental Table S5)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "The dataset has no chamber records and no soil moisture, so the soil moisture reductions cannot be computed. The only air temperatures are annual treatment means (Tannual); W minus C is 5.18 (2020) and 5.20 (2021) and WMR minus C 5.01 and 5.03, means 5.19 and 5.02, which agree with the paper's air values; these decide no outcome as the criterion asks for daily means from the chamber records and all four values.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig6-soil-moisture-mr-equals-wmr", "statement": "Soil moisture at 25 cm did not differ between the single and the combined treatments.", "source": "Discussion, paragraph 6; Figure 6E and 6F", "quote": "We found no differences in soil moisture conditions at 25 cm depth between single and combined treatments (Fig. 6)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "No soil moisture variable is in the dataset; the paper names no other archive for the chamber records.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables5-annual-climate", "statement": "Annual mean air temperature was about 12 C without warming and 16 to 17 C with warming, and annual soil moisture about 10% without and 5% with moisture reduction, in 2020 and 2021.", "source": "Supplemental Table S5", "quote": "", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "Numbers from Supplemental Table S5 (annual rows, 2020 and 2021); no sentence states them except the Discussion's maximum of 17 C in the warmed treatments in 2020.", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "Annual soil moisture (8 of the 16 values) is not in the dataset. The 8 annual air temperatures are (Tannual) 11.72, 11.99, 16.90, 16.73 in 2020 and 10.47, 10.72, 15.67, 15.50 in 2021 (C, MR, W, WMR), all within 0.4 of Table S5, shown in the notebook's last data check; with 8 of 16 values testable the criterion (all 16, or 10 to 15 for partial) cannot be met or failed.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "tables4-initial-sizes-similar", "statement": "Before the treatments began, tree height and diameter did not differ among the four climatic treatments in either species.", "source": "Materials and methods, Experimental set-up, paragraph 2; Supplemental Table S4", "quote": "Tree sizes were statistically similar when delivered and planted (Supplemental Table S4)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "data_missing", "notebook": null, "notes": "The dataset holds only height and diameter increments, not the heights and diameters of spring 2019 that Table S4 gives.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null } ], "findings": [ { "kind": "metadata_error", "statement": "Metadata.csv and the README sheet give the treatment codes as C, W, MR and WMR; the Treatment column holds C, D, H and HD. The Warming and Soil moisture reduction columns map them one to one (H is W, D is MR, HD is WMR).", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "other", "statement": "The 'Total Data' sheet has 35 rows that repeat another row exactly (trees 17, 35, 45 and 144; tree 35 has 24 rows in place of 9), and tree 144 has two rows for campaign 5 of 2020 with different sugar (7.71 and 6.69 %) and starch (4.99 and 9.99 %) values.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "other", "statement": "Starch (77 tree-campaign rows, down to -6.28 %), sugar (3, down to -4.06 %) and Asat (5, down to -0.29) have negative values, which a concentration or a light-saturated assimilation rate cannot have; the paper takes their square root.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "metadata_error", "statement": "Growth_length ('growing season length') never equals onset of senescence minus bud swelling (Senes_10 - Flush_S1), the Methods' definition: it is a median 55 days longer, and 2 to 33 days longer than the end of senescence (Senes_10 + Senes_time) minus bud swelling. Its definition is not given.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "metadata_error", "statement": "Diameter_growth is labelled cm, but its values (median 0.42, up to 4.46 a year) on stems of 5.2 to 6.1 mm at planting (Table S4) are consistent with mm.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "data_missing", "statement": "The soil moisture (Mspring, Mfall, Mannual), the chamber climate records (air temperature, relative humidity, VPD, soil temperature and water content at 10 min) and the initial heights and diameters (Table S4) are not deposited; five claims rest on them.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "metadata_insufficient", "statement": "Tspring, Tfall and Tannual are one value per treatment and year (the same in the four chambers of a treatment), and the sensor height (50 cm or 2 m) they come from is not stated; GDD and Chill_days are given per tree without the records they were computed from, and the GDD description does not say whether the excess over 5 C or the daily mean is summed.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "other", "statement": "Four compartments (6 in chambers A3, A4, B3 and B4) hold a beech monoculture tree and an oak mixture tree, which the design (a compartment holds a monoculture or a mixture) does not allow.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "other", "statement": "AGB_growth (estimated AGWB increment) is exactly 0 in 57 of 191 tree-years of 2020 and 2021, whose median height increment is 5 cm, and is never negative; how it was bounded is not described.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "other", "statement": "Refitting the paper's treatment model on the dataset with marginal F tests gives Supplemental Table S1's F values for oak AGWB increment exactly and for beech Asat within 0.25, which links the deposited table to the paper's analysis; other traits match less closely.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "paper_inconsistency", "statement": "The Methods say the treatments started in June 2019, after the first leaf flushing and measurement campaign, and that 2019 is not included in the study, yet the treatment model has year 2019 to 2021 as a fixed effect (Table S1's F and p pairs for terms with year fit two numerator df, as the claims file notes). Under reading T1, which follows that model, the 2019 yearly means (L1) and the 2019 campaign values (L2) include the first campaign, measured before the treatments began.", "found": null, "status": null } ], "reconciliation": null, "verifications": [ { "date": "2026-10-27", "kind": "agent", "by": "Independent agent run by CatalystNeuro (same harness, separate context, did not write the notebook)", "reviewed": "Round 1. The executed notebook of the author-answers run with the conclusion cells and the summary removed, the helper module and the claims file, with the paper. The verifier tested the helpers on synthetic inputs and could not re-run the notebook on the data. Its report had no attempt record and gave its own outcome for each of the 39 claims; all agree with the record as it then stood. Its general points, not tied to one claim, were answered as follows. B5 (Table S1 F tests read as sequential, marginal tests reproduce them): already asked and answered in the first round of questions; no outcome rests on these F tests. B9 (negative starch values, mixed compartments, zero AGWB increments, diameter units, the pre-treatment 2019 campaign under T1): the first four are recorded as findings; the pre-treatment campaign was recorded as a finding only after round 2. No outcome changes. B11 (cell 0 still held an outcome table): the header table now says only which claims are tested and which blocked.", "agreed": 39, "of": 39, "disagreements": [] }, { "date": "2026-10-27", "kind": "agent", "by": "Independent agent run by CatalystNeuro (same harness, separate context, did not write the notebook)", "reviewed": "Round 2. The full executed notebook of the author-revise-1 run, with its conclusions and summary, the attempt record, the helper module and the claims file, with the paper. The verifier agreed with all 39 outcomes. Its points not tied to one claim were answered as follows. The README and the summary (cell 123) said the refit reproduces Table S1 for some traits exactly, while only oak AGWB is exact (0.00; oak midday 0.02, beech AGWB 0.21, beech Asat 0.25, cell 10): both now say so. Cell 4 named trees 17, 35 and 45 for the exact duplicate rows, while cell 3 prints trees 17, 35, 45 and 144: corrected. The round-1 record said B9, including the pre-treatment 2019 campaign under T1, was recorded as findings or deviations, while nothing in the record mentioned that campaign: a paper_inconsistency finding now records it, and the round-1 text says it was added only now. Resolved, in the verifier's words, B1, B2, B6, B8 (variant added), B11, B3 in part, and B5, B7, B9 and B10 needing no change. Still open and bearing on a conclusion, B3, B4 and B1, which wait on the three questions in questions/dryad-4j0zpc8hz.yaml, and B8, which the claims file's P1 decides. No outcome changes and none is proposed.", "agreed": 39, "of": 39, "disagreements": [] } ] } ], "entries": [ { "name": "dryad-4j0zpc8hz-didion-gency-2024", "type": "reproduction", "title": "Chronic warming and dry soils in beech and oak (Didion-Gency et al. 2024)", "description": "Tests the findings of Didion-Gency, Vitasse, Buchmann, Gessler, Gisler, Schaub and Grossiord (2024) on Dryad dataset 4j0zpc8hz, one table of 96 beech and oak trees grown in open-top chambers under warming and soil moisture reduction, in monocultures and mixtures, from 2019 to 2021. It tests the phenology regressions on air temperature, the treatment effects on leaf water potential, carbon relations and growth, and the effects of species mixture. The soil moisture and chamber climate records are not in the dataset.", "datasets": [ "dryad:4j0zpc8hz" ], "papers": [ "10.1093/plphys/kiad565" ], "derived_from": [], "notebooks": [ { "path": "reproduce_didion_gency_2024.ipynb", "title": "Reproducing Didion-Gency et al. (2024) from Dryad dataset 4j0zpc8hz", "executed": "notebooks/dryad-4j0zpc8hz-didion-gency-2024/reproduce_didion_gency_2024.html" } ] } ] }