MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322011374 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8464

Fraxinus pennsylvanica trees growing along the central Assiniboine river floodplain, Central Canada: Flood rings, quantitative wood anatomy and blue intensity.

2023· preprint· en· W4322011374 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacques Tardif, France Conciatori, David L. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythFloodplainDendrochronologyFraxinusHydrology (agriculture)GeologyGeographyWatershedPhysical geographyForestryArchaeologyEcologyBiologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades, visual identification of flood rings (event years) has been successfully used to document historic high-magnitude spring floods. In Fraxinus spp., flood rings usually have more numerous earlywood vessels and/or earlywood vessels with smaller cross-sectional area than observed in "normal" years. Visual identification of flood rings has also shown to be reproductible. In more recent times, quantitative wood anatomy of earlywood features (continuous time series) has, among other, been successfully used to reconstruct spring flow and associated flood conditions. In Interior North America, most paleoflood studies have focused on visually identifying flood rings in bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.) trees growing along river terraces; the idea being that in these “high” elevation sites only high-magnitude floods may be recorded. In this study, we reexamined tree-ring samples collected in 2004-2005 from 87 green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.) trees growing in four floodplain sites (~20 trees per site) located in the central Assiniboine river watershed i.e., in Spruce Wood Provincial Park, Manitoba. Flood rings were visually searched in all samples and compiled during the crossdating procedure. Earlywood vessels (area ≥ 1000 µ2) were measured in five trees selected from each of the four floodplain sites. In addition, we determined from a subset of these trees the blue intensity from high-resolution scans of tree-rings and compared them, among others, to the earlywood vessel characteristics. Developed chronologies were compared to both regional climate and hydrological records. They were also compared to former flood-ring studies using bur oak trees growing on terraces in the upper Assiniboine river and/or the lower and upper Red river. Results indicated that visual identification of flood rings in F. pennsylvanica was reproductible. Both the relative frequency of flood rings and earlywood mean vessel area were significantly associated with winter precipitations, spring snow cover, spring temperatures and spring runoff records. Some of the years recording the most flood rings were 1948, 1955, 1956, 1976 and 1995. These years corresponded to documented major floods for the central Assiniboine river. They, however, poorly coincided to those observed in bur oak trees growing on terraces along the upper Assiniboine river and the Red river (e.g., 1950, 1979, 1997). These results highlight, among others, the differences between tree species, habitat selection as well as between the rivers’ flood dynamics. We argue that floodplain trees compared to terrace trees, and especially when old individuals are available, may provide a clearer overall picture of flood dynamics and of long-term hydroclimatic changes as they capture conditions leading to both small and large floods. At this time, blue intensity analyses of the floodplain trees remain to be completed. Given than flood rings have been associated with low density earlywood, it is hypothesized that blue intensity (a proxy for tree-ring density) may yield potential in paleoflood studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTree-ring climate responses→French-language works237,207→