Selecting Populations for Non-Analogous Climate Conditions Using Universal Response Functions: The Case of Douglas-Fir in Central Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying populations within tree species potentially adapted to future climatic conditions is an important requirement for reforestation and assisted migration programmes. Such populations can be identified either by empirical response functions based on correlations of quantitative traits with climate variables or by climate envelope models that compare the climate of seed sources and potential growing areas. In the present study, we analyzed the intraspecific variation in climate growth response of Douglas-fir planted within the non-analogous climate conditions of Central and continental Europe. With data from 50 common garden trials, we developed Universal Response Functions (URF) for tree height and mean basal area and compared the growth performance of the selected best performing populations with that of populations identified through a climate envelope approach. Climate variables of the trial location were found to be stronger predictors of growth performance than climate variables of the population origin. Although the precipitation regime of the population sources varied strongly none of the precipitation related climate variables of population origin was found to be significant within the models. Overall, the URFs explained more than 88% of variation in growth performance. Populations identified by the URF models originate from western Cascades and coastal areas of Washington and Oregon and show significantly higher growth performance than populations identified by the climate envelope approach under both current and climate change scenarios. The URFs predict decreasing growth performance at low and middle elevations of the case study area, but increasing growth performance on high elevation sites. Our analysis suggests that population recommendations based on empirical approaches should be preferred and population selections by climate envelope models without considering climatic constrains of growth performance should be carefully appraised before transferring populations to planting locations with novel or dissimilar climate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".