Search

Tree‐ring records provide global high‐resolution information on tree‐species responses to global change, forest carbon and water dynamics, and past climate variability and extremes. The underlying assumption is a stationary (time‐stable), quasi‐linear relationship between tree growth and environment, which however conflicts with basic ecological and evolutionary theory. Indeed, our global assessment of the relevant tree‐ring literature demonstrates non‐stationarity in the majority of tested cases, not limited to specific proxies, environmental parameters, regions or species. Non‐stationarity likely represents the general nature of the relationship between tree‐growth proxies and environment. Studies assuming stationarity however score two times more citations influencing other fields of science and the science–policy interface. To reconcile ecological reality with the application of tree‐ring proxies for climate or environmental estimates, we provide a clarification of the stationarity concept, propose a simple confidence framework for the re‐evaluation of existing studies and recommend the use of a new statistical tool to detect non‐stationarity in tree‐ring proxies. Our contribution is meant to stimulate and facilitate discussion in light of our results to help increase confidence in tree‐ring‐based climate and environmental estimates for science, the public and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Tree core samples of larch (Larix sibirica Ledeb.), spruce (Picea obovata Ledeb.) and pine (Pinus sibirica Du-Tour.) from the northern taiga of West Siberia were collected to assess their potential for summer temperature reconstructions in the Ob River region. Bootstrapped response functions showed that annual growth was mainly influenced by May to June temperatures in pine and by June to July temperatures in spruce and larch. Spruce and pine chronologies showed high positive correlations with previous October temperature. June–July temperatures were reconstructed based on spruce (1795–1996) and larch (1615–1999) tree ring chronologies. The pine chronology could not be used for a reliable temperature reconstruction, due to low values of explained May–June temperature variance (11–15%) but the species has a high potential to help clarify the May–June and October climatic influence on ring width observed in all three species. We explained the effect of the early vegetation period (May–July) and the differences in the temperature signals between spruce and larch tree ring chronologies with the influence of previous September and October temperature on tree growth with the warming effect of the Ob River and differences of the species’ photosynthetic possibilities and the activity of chloroplasts and bud meristem tissues. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]