Topographic influences on ring widths of trees and shrubs across alpine treelines in southwest Yukon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth responses of trees and shrubs to climate often exhibit unexplained variation in alpine regions, making it difficult to predict how they will respond to future changes in climate. We sought to characterize and explain this variability in southwest Yukon, a topographically complex region of subarctic Canada. We collected cores and sections from 360 spruce trees and 480 willow shrubs across treelines on north and south aspects in six valleys spanning two mountain ranges. We compared growth rates, growth patterns, and climate-growth responses between species and topographic factors. South aspects had wider tree rings and higher tree and shrub interseries correlations than north aspects, likely because of shallow active layers on the latter. Growth patterns and responses to climate did not vary between aspects or elevations but differed slightly between mountain ranges, likely because of differences in spring soil moisture content between ranges. Growth responses of both species to summer temperature were positive, but tree growth was negatively correlated to spring temperature and shrub growth was negatively correlated to summer precipitation, both of which are projected to increase along with summer temperature. Future changes in climate could therefore reduce the growth of one or both species in southwest Yukon.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".