Size matters—a comparison of three methods to assess age- and size-dependent climate sensitivity of trees
Changes in tree’s climate sensitivity during their ontogenetic development is best assessed with stem diameter classes, which can be calculated retrospectively from the cumulative ring width.
Climate affects tree growth but the effect size can be modulated by other variables, including tree’s age and size. To assess how climate sensitivity changes over the life of a tree, previous studies mostly stratified trees into age classes, while cambial ring-age stratification (age-band decomposition) was less frequently used. However, trees do not age as other organisms and arguably age is mainly a proxy for size, which in contrast to age has been shown to affect wood anatomy and physiology. Stem diameter classes, calculated from cumulative ring width, could thus facilitate a more direct assessment of size effects. Here we compare these three methods, which differ regarding how they stratify data into age/size classes. We found that using age-band decomposition and cumulative ring-width classes had major advantages over the tree-age method: (a) age and size are decoupled from other temporal changes, like atmospheric CO2 concentration or nitrogen deposition, which excludes potential biases. (b) Shifts in climate sensitivity occur earlier than estimated by the tree-age method. (c) Younger/smaller classes can be assessed. Furthermore, direct comparison supports that size, rather than age, alters climate sensitivity. Therefore, the cumulative ring-width method appears to be the best approach to assess the effect of ontogenetic changes on a tree’s climate sensitivity. Understanding how climate sensitivity changes when trees get older and larger is important for forest ecology and management, climate reconstructions, global carbon models and can help to study age and height limitations of trees.
KeywordsDendrochronology Climate sensitivity Tree age Tree height Hydraulic limitation hypothesis
This project was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Research Training Group RESPONSE (DFG RTG 2010). We would like to thank Glenn Juday, Ryan Jess, and Jamie Hollingsworth for supporting our work and their expertise. Furthermore, we thank Jelena Lange, Renate Hefner, Franziska Eichhorn and Brook Anderson for their assistance during fieldwork, and two anonymous reviewers for comments that helped improving an earlier version of this manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
All data will be uploaded to the international tree-ring database (ITRDB).
- Beguería S, Vicente-Serrano SM (2013) SPEI: calculation of the standardised precipitation-evapotranspiration index. R Package Version 1Google Scholar
- Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078%5B1958:CAFASA%5D2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carrer M, von Arx G, Castagneri D, Petit G (2015) Distilling allometric and environmental information from time series of conduit size: the standardization issue and its relationship to tree hydraulic architecture. Tree Physiol 35:27–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpu108 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cook ER, Kairiukstis LA (eds) (1990) Methods of dendrochronology. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Eusemann P, Schnittler M, Nilsson RH et al (2016) Habitat conditions and phenological tree traits overrule the influence of tree genotype in the needle mycobiome—Picea glauca system at an arctic treeline ecotone. New Phytol 211:1221–1231. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13988 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fritts HC (1976) Tree rings and climate. The Blackburn Press, CaldwellGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Sanio K (1872) Uber die Grosse der Holzzellen bei der gemeinen Kiefer (Pinus silvestris). Jb Wiss Bot 8:401–420Google Scholar
- SNAP (2016) Scenarios network for Alaska and arctic planning. http://ckan.snap.uaf.edu/dataset. Accessed 28 July 2016
- Vaganov EA, Hughes MK, Shashkin AV (2006) Growth dynamics of conifer tree rings: images of past and future environments. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar