Growth responses of three coexisting conifer species to climate variables across a range of climate conditions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree ring analyses and an interpolated climate model (ClimateBC) were used to compare radial growth responses to climate variables among three coexisting, ecologically distinct conifer species, including interior spruce (Picea glauca x Picea Engelmannii), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) across a range of climate conditions in western Canada, and altitudinal treelines in the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir forests in central British Columbia (BC). Ring-width chronologies were developed and correlated with site-specific climate data in the past 50 years from 1953-2002. June-July temperature appeared to be the dominant climate factor influencing radial growth of spruce across the sample sites, and the relationships changed from positive to negative as summer site temperature increased. Growth-climate relationships of lodgepole pine and subalpine fir varied within species. October-March temperatures appeared to be important for growth of lodgepole pine and subalpine fir at colder sites in BC. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation during October and March was also important for pine and fir at altitudinal treelines. Given the species- and site-specific growth responses to climate, future climate change will likely alter interactions among coexisting species, potentially leading to changes in species dominance, compositions and distribution of forest communities.--P.ii.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".