Palaeoclimate and fossil woods—is the use of mean sensitivity sensible?

The growth rings of fossil wood provide valuable data on tree ecology. As many of the parameters controlling width are climatic, it is tempting to use these rings as an indicator of climate. This is what has been done, with great success, by dendrochronological studies of archaeological wood. For...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: MARC PHILIPPE
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Institute of Paleobiology PAS 2023-12-01
Series:Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app68/app011082023.pdf
_version_ 1797344891611643904
author MARC PHILIPPE
author_facet MARC PHILIPPE
author_sort MARC PHILIPPE
collection DOAJ
description The growth rings of fossil wood provide valuable data on tree ecology. As many of the parameters controlling width are climatic, it is tempting to use these rings as an indicator of climate. This is what has been done, with great success, by dendrochronological studies of archaeological wood. For wood dating from before the Pleistocene, however, the task is more uncertain. Since around 1980, researchers have relied mainly on a statistical parameter, the mean sensitivity, an average of the difference in width between two consecutive rings. However, there has never been a critical examination of utility and significance of this parameter for fossil wood. I compiled 63 studies that used mean sensitivity for palaeoclimatological inferences. An analysis of this compilation is presented here. Despite its ups and downs since the 1980’s, mean sensitivity is increasingly used by palaeobotanists. However, it has been used in very different ways. The values obtained for the same fossil can vary greatly from one researcher to another, but also according to the radii of the woody axis considered. Within fossil wood assemblages, average sensitivity varies widely, but rarely consistently. Overall, mean sensitivity values are continuously, normally and unimodally distributed, and therefore are unsuitable for characterising discrete climate classes. Finally, it seems that the most recent studies are also the least cautious when it comes to interpreting the values obtained.
first_indexed 2024-03-08T11:09:29Z
format Article
id doaj.art-89e08949d1a841f1b6067d1cbffd2a09
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0567-7920
1732-2421
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-08T11:09:29Z
publishDate 2023-12-01
publisher Institute of Paleobiology PAS
record_format Article
series Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
spelling doaj.art-89e08949d1a841f1b6067d1cbffd2a092024-01-26T12:45:36ZengInstitute of Paleobiology PASActa Palaeontologica Polonica0567-79201732-24212023-12-0168456156910.4202/app.01108.2023Palaeoclimate and fossil woods—is the use of mean sensitivity sensible?MARC PHILIPPE0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4658-617XUniv Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS, ENTPE, UMR 5023 LEHNA, F-69622, Villeurbanne, France.The growth rings of fossil wood provide valuable data on tree ecology. As many of the parameters controlling width are climatic, it is tempting to use these rings as an indicator of climate. This is what has been done, with great success, by dendrochronological studies of archaeological wood. For wood dating from before the Pleistocene, however, the task is more uncertain. Since around 1980, researchers have relied mainly on a statistical parameter, the mean sensitivity, an average of the difference in width between two consecutive rings. However, there has never been a critical examination of utility and significance of this parameter for fossil wood. I compiled 63 studies that used mean sensitivity for palaeoclimatological inferences. An analysis of this compilation is presented here. Despite its ups and downs since the 1980’s, mean sensitivity is increasingly used by palaeobotanists. However, it has been used in very different ways. The values obtained for the same fossil can vary greatly from one researcher to another, but also according to the radii of the woody axis considered. Within fossil wood assemblages, average sensitivity varies widely, but rarely consistently. Overall, mean sensitivity values are continuously, normally and unimodally distributed, and therefore are unsuitable for characterising discrete climate classes. Finally, it seems that the most recent studies are also the least cautious when it comes to interpreting the values obtained.https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app68/app011082023.pdfclimate proxygrowth ringpalaeobotanypalaeoecologytree
spellingShingle MARC PHILIPPE
Palaeoclimate and fossil woods—is the use of mean sensitivity sensible?
Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
climate proxy
growth ring
palaeobotany
palaeoecology
tree
title Palaeoclimate and fossil woods—is the use of mean sensitivity sensible?
title_full Palaeoclimate and fossil woods—is the use of mean sensitivity sensible?
title_fullStr Palaeoclimate and fossil woods—is the use of mean sensitivity sensible?
title_full_unstemmed Palaeoclimate and fossil woods—is the use of mean sensitivity sensible?
title_short Palaeoclimate and fossil woods—is the use of mean sensitivity sensible?
title_sort palaeoclimate and fossil woods is the use of mean sensitivity sensible
topic climate proxy
growth ring
palaeobotany
palaeoecology
tree
url https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app68/app011082023.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT marcphilippe palaeoclimateandfossilwoodsistheuseofmeansensitivitysensible