Log in

Size matters—a comparison of three methods to assess age- and size-dependent climate sensitivity of trees

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Trees Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Key message

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.

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Trouillier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Data archiving

All data will be uploaded to the international tree-ring database (ITRDB).

Additional information

Communicated by Wieser.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 3598 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trouillier, M., van der Maaten-Theunissen, M., Scharnweber, T. et al. Size matters—a comparison of three methods to assess age- and size-dependent climate sensitivity of trees. Trees 33, 183–192 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-018-1767-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-018-1767-z

Keywords

Navigation