What do tree-growth archives tell us about anthropogenic pressures and their mitigations in the Atlantic Forest?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Atlantic Forest is a complex and heterogeneous biome, reflecting significant biodiversity that has historically been threatened by anthropogenic pressures. In this sense, solutions to these issues are needed and growth rings could represent an opportunity for this. This review aimed to compile studies addressing growth rings in the Atlantic Forest. We sought to answer whether these studies are contributing to an understanding of the impacts of environmental problems on trees and the implementation of environmental solutions. From 105 articles published on growth rings in the Atlantic Forest, most have contributed to exploring the climatic responses of trees. Compiling the results of these studies, we show a similar tendency for tree growth in the biome to be positively influenced by water conditions. However, it is important to highlight that few papers have focused on issues such as land degradation, climate change, biological invasions, and restoration approaches. Although it has been shown that dendrochronology is a collaborative science among researchers, there is a gap in studies and research groups in the northeast and southwest regions and with the applications of multiproxy research. There are studies worldwide that address environmental problems using different growth ring approaches to evaluate matters including climate change, pollution, tree health, carbon sequestration, and environmental monitoring. In this sense, there is a need and opportunity for tree-ring research in the Atlantic Forest biome on these issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".