2017
DOI: 10.3390/f9010001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Site- and Species-Specific Influences on Sub-Alpine Conifer Growth in Mt. Rainier National Park, USA

Abstract: Abstract:Identifying the factors that influence the climate sensitivity of treeline species is critical to understanding carbon sequestration, forest dynamics, and conservation in high elevation forest/meadow ecotones. Using tree cores from four sub-alpine conifer species collected from three sides of Mt. Rainier, WA, USA, we investigated the influences of species identity and sites with different local climates on radial growth-climate relationships. We created chronologies for each species at each site, dete… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among the five climate variables examined, JULT and MINWT had the strongest influences on basal area increment at all sites; many tree-ring studies in temperate forests (using various methods) find these two aspects of climate to be key drivers of tree growth (e.g., Biondi et al 1999, Briffa et al 2002, McCoullough et al 2017. Given the findings of other North American studies in subalpine forests (Buechling et al 2017, Legendre-Fixx et al 2018, we anticipated that warmer-than-average current-year JULT would increase basal area increment, but at two of our four sites (one coastal and one interior site), we found a negative relationship between basal area increment and JULT. Many subalpine tree-ring studies report reductions in annual growth on warm, dry sites due to summer moisture stress (e.g., Peterson et al 2002, Büntgen et al 2006, Nakawatase and Peterson 2006, Kelsey et al 2018) but moisture stress can also reduce growth on some mesic sites (Splechtna et al 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Among the five climate variables examined, JULT and MINWT had the strongest influences on basal area increment at all sites; many tree-ring studies in temperate forests (using various methods) find these two aspects of climate to be key drivers of tree growth (e.g., Biondi et al 1999, Briffa et al 2002, McCoullough et al 2017. Given the findings of other North American studies in subalpine forests (Buechling et al 2017, Legendre-Fixx et al 2018, we anticipated that warmer-than-average current-year JULT would increase basal area increment, but at two of our four sites (one coastal and one interior site), we found a negative relationship between basal area increment and JULT. Many subalpine tree-ring studies report reductions in annual growth on warm, dry sites due to summer moisture stress (e.g., Peterson et al 2002, Büntgen et al 2006, Nakawatase and Peterson 2006, Kelsey et al 2018) but moisture stress can also reduce growth on some mesic sites (Splechtna et al 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…None of the species we examined in closed‐canopy forests were near their geographic or edaphic distributional limits, where we might expect them to be most sensitive to interannual fluctuations in climate parameters (Buechling et al 2017, Klesse et al 2018). However, other tree‐ring studies in closed‐canopy subalpine and coastal montane forests of western North America report somewhat larger climate influences on interannual growth variability (Buechling et al 2017, Kelsey et al 2018, Legendre‐Fixx et al 2018). Such differences in climate influences among studies could be due to differences in site conditions, species studied, and various methodological factors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Species-specific climatic drivers have been identified and their influence has been quantified. Also, the geographical variations in climate influences have been highlighted [23,[30][31][32]. However, tree-ring chronology classical procedures include standardizations to remove biological trends and non-climate signals in tree-ring measurements by transforming growth width into growth indices [33][34][35].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tree growth responses to climate vary among species (e.g. Rehfeldt et al 1999, Miyamoto et al 2010, Messaoud and Chen 2011, Legendre-Fixx et al 2017. Some species are more sensitive to climate or combinations of climatic variables than others (Clark et al 2012).…”
Section: Tree and Forest Responses To Climatementioning
confidence: 99%