Continental‐scale tree‐ring‐based projection of Douglas‐fir growth: Testing the limits of space‐for‐time substitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central challenge in global change research is the projection of the future behavior of a system based upon past observations. Tree-ring data have been used increasingly over the last decade to project tree growth and forest ecosystem vulnerability under future climate conditions. But how can the response of tree growth to past climate variation predict the future, when the future does not look like the past? Space-for-time substitution (SFTS) is one way to overcome the problem of extrapolation: the response at a given location in a warmer future is assumed to follow the response at a warmer location today. Here we evaluated an SFTS approach to projecting future growth of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), a species that occupies an exceptionally large environmental space in North America. We fit a hierarchical mixed-effects model to capture ring-width variability in response to spatial and temporal variation in climate. We found opposing gradients for productivity and climate sensitivity with highest growth rates and weakest response to interannual climate variation in the mesic coastal part of Douglas-fir's range; narrower rings and stronger climate sensitivity occurred across the semi-arid interior. Ring-width response to spatial versus temporal temperature variation was opposite in sign, suggesting that spatial variation in productivity, caused by local adaptation and other slow processes, cannot be used to anticipate changes in productivity caused by rapid climate change. We thus substituted only climate sensitivities when projecting future tree growth. Growth declines were projected across much of Douglas-fir's distribution, with largest relative decreases in the semiarid U.S. Interior West and smallest in the mesic Pacific Northwest. We further highlight the strengths of mixed-effects modeling for reviving a conceptual cornerstone of dendroecology, Cook's 1987 aggregate growth model, and the great potential to use tree-ring networks and results as a calibration target for next-generation vegetation models.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".