Tree rings provide no evidence of a CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization effect in old‐growth subalpine forests of western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now 1.7 times higher than the preindustrial values. Although photosynthetic rates are hypothesized to increase in response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, results from in situ experiments are inconsistent in supporting a CO2 fertilization effect of tree growth. Tree‐ring data provide a historical record of tree‐level productivity that can be used to evaluate long‐term responses of tree growth. We use tree‐ring data from old‐growth, subalpine forests of western Canada that have not had a stand‐replacing disturbance for hundreds of years to determine if growth has increased over 19th and 20th centuries. Our sample consisted of 5,858 trees belonging to five species distributed over two sites in the coastal zone and two in the continental climate of the interior. We calculated annual increments in tree basal area, adjusted these increments for tree size and age, and tested whether there was a detectable temporal trend in tree growth over the 19th and 20th centuries. We found a similar pattern in 20th century growth trends among all species at all sites. Growth during the 19th century was mostly stable or increasing, with the exception of one of the coastal sites, where tree growth was slightly decreasing; whereas growth during the 20th century consistently decreased. The unexpected decrease in growth during the 20th century indicates that there was no CO2 fertilization effect on photosynthesis. We compared the growth trends from our four sites to the trends simulated by seven Earth System Models, and saw that most of the models did not predict these growth declines. Overall, our results indicate that these old‐growth forests are unlikely to increase their carbon storage capacity in response to rising atmospheric CO2, and thus are unlikely to contribute substantially to offsetting future carbon emissions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".