Large apparent growth increases in boreal forests inferred from tree-rings are an artefact of sampling biases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tree rings are thought to be a powerful tool to reconstruct historical growth changes and have been widely used to assess tree responses to global warming. Demographic inferences suggest, however, that typical sampling procedures induce spurious trends in growth reconstructions. Here we use the world’s largest single tree-ring dataset (283,536 trees from 136,621 sites) from Quebec, Canada, to assess to what extent growth reconstructions based on these - and thus any similar - data might be affected by this problem. Indeed, straightforward growth rate reconstructions based on these data suggest a six-fold increase in radial growth of black spruce ( Picea mariana ) from ~0.5 mm yr −1 in 1800 to ~2.5 mm yr −1 in 1990. While the strong correlation (R 2 = 0.98) between this increase and that of atmospheric CO 2 could suggest a causal relationship, we here unambiguously demonstrate that this growth trend is an artefact of sampling biases caused by the absence of old, fast-growing trees (cf. “ slow-grower survivorship bias ”) and of young, slow-growing trees (cf. “ big-tree selection bias ”) in the dataset. At the moment, we cannot envision how to remedy the issue of incomplete representation of cohorts in existing large-scale tree-ring datasets. Thus, innovation will be needed before such datasets can be used for growth rate reconstructions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".