4.7 Article

Warming-induced radial growth reduction in Betula albosinensis, eastern Qilian Mountains, China

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106956

关键词

Winter warming; Betula albosinensis; Tree-ring; eastern Qilian mountains; Radial growth reduction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41701048, 41701216]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [lzujbky-2019-30, lzujbky-2017-41]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals that radial growth of Betula albosinensis in the eastern Qilian Mountains is mainly limited by winter temperature, not by moisture. Winter temperature may affect growth by increasing metabolic stress and leading to earlier bud break.
To improve our understanding of how climate change is impacting forest ecosystems in the semi-arid regions of northwestern China, we developed a ring-width chronology for Betula albosinensis growing in the eastern Qilian mountains. We assessed recent radial growth trends and the response of radial growth to climatic factors. The ring width chronology and the basal area increment (BAI) indicate that radial growth of Betula albosinensis has decreased since 1986 CE. Our results show that radial growth is negatively correlated with winter temperature, but that correlations between tree growth and monthly scPDSI from previous June to current September are not significant. Thus, the radial growth of Betula albosinensis from the eastern Qilian Mountains is mainly limited by winter temperature, not by moisture. Winter temperature may affect growth in several ways; for example, higher winter temperatures can increase metabolic stress and lead to earlier bud break, thereby increasing the risk of spring frost damage. In the context of future climate warming, our findings indicate that it is essential to assess growth responses of different tree species growing in arid and semi-arid areas to better predict changes in forest dynamics and carbon cycling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据