Responses to Responses about R-T responses

After publishing on the new Global Polynomial Model of the short-term temperature response of respiration, based on 231 species' response curves measured at high resolution, we (the author team) received responses through email and more recently through a letter to PNAS on alternatives to our findings and conclusions. The response by Adams et al (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/10/03/1608562113?trendmd-shared=0) used our open data on the model fit parameters and applied these to an alternative R-T response model based on an Arrhenius fit. The authors found similar convergence in the response across Biomes and PFTS - confirming our major finding that the response of respiration to temperature is conserved across diverse species and climates. The authors suggest an alternative, more 'mechanistic' approach to modeling this response in addition, or as an alternative to the model we presented. 

We responded to this response (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/10/03/1612904113?trendmd-shared=0) with an acknowledgement of their modeling approach, though a disagreement in what we view as mechanistic/process vs. phenomenological model. For instance, the use of a 'activation energy' does not necessarily make a model a process model (say, compared to the Farquhar equation), as there are so many overlapping processes involved in respiration, that this activation energy actually describes a suite of reactions. I was encouraged by the convergent finding, and the gracious and supportive discourse about models and how they are applied at different scales. This interaction was not competitive, ego-driven, or angry, as can be the case in science, but rather driven by ideas, competing hypotheses (not labs!) and used data to back up arguments. I appreciated the challenge, and the opportunity to reframe ideas to emphasize our main points in the first paper. Kudos to Adams et al for bringing alternatives to the party, and opening this discussion.