Trends in tropical tree growth

re-analyses confirm earlier findings

Peter van der Sleen*, Peter Groenendijk, Mart Vlam, Niels P.R. Anten, Frans Bongers, Pieter A. Zuidema

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterAcademicpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a recent Opinion article, Brienen et al. (2016) raise doubts about our finding that tropical tree growth has not increased during 150 years of CO2 rise (Groenendijk et al., 2015; van der Sleen et al., 2015). They claim that our tree-ring data contain evidence for historical growth stimulation that was concealed due to failing regeneration in several species. Here we show that (i) the correction method proposed by Brienen et al. induces a bias towards finding positive growth trends, (ii) the results of Brienen et al. rest on selective removal of species, (iii) there is a simple and effective way to accommodate effects of recruitment failure by subsetting data, and (iv) the application of this method confirms our earlier findings. Thus, our results are robust to effects of recruitment failure and our conclusions remain unchanged: we find no evidence for historical growth changes in our studied tree species.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1761-1762
JournalGlobal Change Biology
Volume23
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

tree ring
regeneration
trend
effect
method
removal
opinion

Cite this

@article{74cb7a8c07b445699b58ee8d4b572e79,
title = "Trends in tropical tree growth: re-analyses confirm earlier findings",
abstract = "In a recent Opinion article, Brienen et al. (2016) raise doubts about our finding that tropical tree growth has not increased during 150 years of CO2 rise (Groenendijk et al., 2015; van der Sleen et al., 2015). They claim that our tree-ring data contain evidence for historical growth stimulation that was concealed due to failing regeneration in several species. Here we show that (i) the correction method proposed by Brienen et al. induces a bias towards finding positive growth trends, (ii) the results of Brienen et al. rest on selective removal of species, (iii) there is a simple and effective way to accommodate effects of recruitment failure by subsetting data, and (iv) the application of this method confirms our earlier findings. Thus, our results are robust to effects of recruitment failure and our conclusions remain unchanged: we find no evidence for historical growth changes in our studied tree species.",
author = "{van der Sleen}, Peter and Peter Groenendijk and Mart Vlam and Anten, {Niels P.R.} and Frans Bongers and Zuidema, {Pieter A.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1111/gcb.13572",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "1761--1762",
journal = "Global Change Biology",
issn = "1354-1013",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "5",

}

Trends in tropical tree growth : re-analyses confirm earlier findings. / van der Sleen, Peter; Groenendijk, Peter; Vlam, Mart; Anten, Niels P.R.; Bongers, Frans; Zuidema, Pieter A.

In: Global Change Biology, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2017, p. 1761-1762.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trends in tropical tree growth

T2 - re-analyses confirm earlier findings

AU - van der Sleen, Peter

AU - Groenendijk, Peter

AU - Vlam, Mart

AU - Anten, Niels P.R.

AU - Bongers, Frans

AU - Zuidema, Pieter A.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - In a recent Opinion article, Brienen et al. (2016) raise doubts about our finding that tropical tree growth has not increased during 150 years of CO2 rise (Groenendijk et al., 2015; van der Sleen et al., 2015). They claim that our tree-ring data contain evidence for historical growth stimulation that was concealed due to failing regeneration in several species. Here we show that (i) the correction method proposed by Brienen et al. induces a bias towards finding positive growth trends, (ii) the results of Brienen et al. rest on selective removal of species, (iii) there is a simple and effective way to accommodate effects of recruitment failure by subsetting data, and (iv) the application of this method confirms our earlier findings. Thus, our results are robust to effects of recruitment failure and our conclusions remain unchanged: we find no evidence for historical growth changes in our studied tree species.

AB - In a recent Opinion article, Brienen et al. (2016) raise doubts about our finding that tropical tree growth has not increased during 150 years of CO2 rise (Groenendijk et al., 2015; van der Sleen et al., 2015). They claim that our tree-ring data contain evidence for historical growth stimulation that was concealed due to failing regeneration in several species. Here we show that (i) the correction method proposed by Brienen et al. induces a bias towards finding positive growth trends, (ii) the results of Brienen et al. rest on selective removal of species, (iii) there is a simple and effective way to accommodate effects of recruitment failure by subsetting data, and (iv) the application of this method confirms our earlier findings. Thus, our results are robust to effects of recruitment failure and our conclusions remain unchanged: we find no evidence for historical growth changes in our studied tree species.

U2 - 10.1111/gcb.13572

DO - 10.1111/gcb.13572

M3 - Letter

VL - 23

SP - 1761

EP - 1762

JO - Global Change Biology

JF - Global Change Biology

SN - 1354-1013

IS - 5

ER -