Can trees at high elevations compensate for growth reductions at low elevations due to climate warming?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radial tree stem growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and stone pine (Pinus cembra L.) was monitored from 2012 to 2015 across sites in Austria with high-resolution dendrometers. Seasonal cumulative diameter increment was modeled using a hierarchical nonlinear mixed-effects model framework based on a logistic growth curve. In the dry and warm year 2015, the average annual diameter increment of 0.30 cm decreased by 50% on lower elevation sites and by 10% on higher elevation sites. In the cool and moist year 2014, Norway spruce achieved a higher annual diameter increment than European beech, whereas the opposite occurred in the dry and warm years 2013 and 2015. In the mixed beech–spruce stand, beech’s consumptive water-use strategy has obviously caused intensified stress for spruce in these drought periods. On higher elevation sites, Norway spruce reacted more sensitively to climate fluctuation compared with stone pine, but overall reactions were only weak. Productivity varied strongly depending on the social status of the tree, with dominant and intermediate trees suffering more from drought. As warming and drought lowers increment rates on lower elevation sites and as trees on higher elevation sites react less flexibly, productivity losses are expected for Austrian forests due to climate warming.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".