Linear trend and climate response of five-needle pines in the western United States related to treeline proximity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five-needle pines provide some of the world’s longest chronologies of paleoclimate interest. We examined 66 five-needle pine growth chronologies from 1896 to their end years using linear trend, correlation, and cluster analyses. Chronologies were categorized based on the sites’ proximity to upper treeline. A significant positive trend in ring width over the post-1896 interval was most common in upper treeline chronologies, but positive linear trend was found in all elevational proximity classes and all species. Cluster analysis of climate response patterns identified four groups exhibiting strong associations with (i) positive response to previous autumn, winter, and spring precipitation, (ii) positive response to spring and (or) summer precipitation coupled with an inverse relationship with summer temperature, (iii) positive response to winter and (or) spring precipitation coupled with an inverse relationship with spring temperature, and (iv) positive associations with temperature in all seasons except spring and no appreciative precipitation response. Most chronologies positively associated with temperatures were from sites located near upper treeline and also contain significant positive linear trend. Our results suggest that some five-needle pine treeline chronologies may be reliable predictors of past temperatures, but careful site selection is required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".