Dendroecological reconstructions of forest disturbance history using time-series analysis with intervention detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection of release events in the annual growth increments of trees has become a central and widely applied method for reconstructing the disturbance history of forests. While numerous approaches have been developed for identifying release events, the preponderance of these methods relies on running means that compare the percent change in growth rates. These methods do not explicitly account for the autocorrelation present within tree-ring width measurements and may introduce spurious events. This paper utilizes autoregressive integrated moving-average (ARIMA) processes to model tree-ring time series and incorporates intervention detection to identify pulse and step outliers as well as changes in trends indicative of a deterministic exogenous influence on past growth. This approach is evaluated by applying it to three chronologies from the Forest Responses to Anthropogenic Stress (FORAST) project that were impacted by prior disturbance events. The examples include a hemlock (Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrière) chronology from New Hampshire, a white pine (Pinus strobus L.) chronology from Pennsylvania, and an American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.) chronology from Virginia. All three chronologies exhibit a clustering of step, pulse, and trend interventions subsequent to a known or likely disturbance event. Time-series analysis offers an alternative approach for identifying prior forest disturbances via tree rings based on statistical methods applicable across species and disturbance regimes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".