Global forests are influenced by the legacies of past inter-annual temperature variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inter-annual climate variability (hereafter climate variability) is increasing in many forested regions due to climate change. This variability could have larger near-term impacts on forests than decadal shifts in mean climate, but how forests will respond remains poorly resolved, particularly at broad scales. Individual trees, and even forest communities, often have traits and ecological strategies—the legacies of exposure to past variable conditions—that confer tolerance to subsequent climate variability. However, whether local legacies also shape global forest responses is unknown. Our objective was to assess how past and current climate variability influences global forest productivity. We hypothesized that forests exposed to large climate variability in the past would better tolerate current climate variability than forests for which past climate was relatively stable. We used historical (1950–1969) and contemporary (2000–2019) temperature, precipitation, and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and the remotely sensed enhanced vegetation index (EVI) to quantify how historical and contemporary climate variability relate to patterns of contemporary forest productivity. Consistent with our hypothesis, forests exposed to large temperature variability in the past were more tolerant of contemporary temperature variability than forests where past temperatures were less variable. Forests were 19-fold times less sensitive to contemporary temperature variability where historical inter-annual temperature variability was 0.66 °C (two standard deviations) greater than the global average historical temperature variability. We also found that larger increases in temperature variability between the two study periods often eroded the tolerance conferred by the legacy effects of historical temperature variability. However, the hypothesis was not supported in the case of precipitation and VPD variability, potentially due to physiological tradeoffs inherent in how trees cope with dry conditions. We conclude that the sensitivity of forest productivity to imminent increases in temperature variability may be partially predictable based on the legacies of past conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".