Ruiz_2005_vsca study- biomass values

[teixeirak]

@CookPatton , the Ruiz et al. 2005 study (10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00070.x; GROA studyID=8257) doesn't report biomass. I don't know where those values come from, but they're not reasonable biomass values.

[CookPatton]

@teixeirak - Ruiz et al. 2005 is included in the Poorter dataset so the latter must have acquired the original dataset. I included the data under Ruiz et al. 2005 because I acquired additional variables from Ruiz et al. 2005 to complement the biomass data. What do you mean by not reasonable?

[teixeirak]

It included a value for an ~50 yr stand that was much greater than the max trusted value in ForC (1053, from Keith 2009):

Others were also unreasonably high. The units must be off.