Abstract
The paper presents new experimental data and reveals the regular variability of the formation of density fluctuations, frost and fallen annual rings in mossy (Pinetum pleurozium) and ledum (Pinetum ledosum) pine forests. The main statistical characteristics of generalized tree-ring chronologies are analyzed, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in the average, maximum and minimum width of annual rings depending on the type of forest are established. It has been experimentally established that in ledum pine forests the number of anomalies is 3.34 times greater than in mossy pine forests. There were 229 density fluctuations in mossy pine, 530 in ledum, frost damage – 28 and 159, fallen tree rings – 10 and 202, in compliance. The most unfavorable years, which were reflected in the radial growth of mossy pine forests, were 1979 and 1980; the maximum number of detected anomalies (91,4%) occurred in 1907, 1928, 1958, 1971, 1985, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2010 and 2017. The most unfavorable years, which were reflected in the radial growth of ledum pine forests, were 1906 and 1940 ; the maximum number of detected anomalies (89.7%) occurred in 1928, 1937, 1944, 1946, 1963, 1965, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1991, 2000 and 2016. There are no coincidences of the formation of anomalies and minima of growth in mossy and ledum pine forests, as far as the degree of responses to changes in external conditions in these types of forests is different. The conducted studies have shown that the structure of annual rings of common pine can be considered as a reflection of the features of seasonal growth of trees, while the formation of anomalies of the structure is largely determined by soil-hydrological conditions of growth.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Average, maximum and minimum annual ring widths differed significantly by forest type.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in the average, maximum and minimum width of annual rings depending on the type of forest”
Claim · model-written summary
Ledum pine forests had 3.34 times as many anomalies as mossy pine forests.
PinusOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in ledum pine forests the number of anomalies is 3.34 times greater than in mossy pine forests”
Claim · model-written summary
Mossy pine forests had 229 density fluctuations.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were 229 density fluctuations in mossy pine, 530 in ledum”
Claim · model-written summary
Ledum pine forests had 530 density fluctuations.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were 229 density fluctuations in mossy pine, 530 in ledum”
Claim · model-written summary
Frost damage counts were 28 in mossy pine and 159 in ledum.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“frost damage – 28 and 159”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallen tree rings numbered 10 in mossy pine and 202 in ledum.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“fallen tree rings – 10 and 202”
Claim · model-written summary
The most unfavorable radial growth years for mossy pine were 1979 and 1980.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most unfavorable years, which were reflected in the radial growth of mossy pine forests, were 1979 and 1980”
Claim · model-written summary
The most unfavorable radial growth years for ledum pine were 1906 and 1940.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most unfavorable years, which were reflected in the radial growth of ledum pine forests, were 1906 and 1940”
Claim · model-written summary
Mossy pine anomaly maxima occurred in eleven listed years and accounted for 91,4%.
- Outcome
- detected anomaliese0
- Value
- 91,4%e0
- Qualifier
- 1907, 1928, 1958, 1971, 1985, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2010 and 2017e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the maximum number of detected anomalies (91,4%) occurred in 1907, 1928, 1958, 1971, 1985, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2010 and 2017”
Claim · model-written summary
Ledum pine anomaly maxima occurred in thirteen listed years and accounted for 89.7%.
- Outcome
- detected anomaliese0
- Value
- 89.7%e0
- Qualifier
- 1928, 1937, 1944, 1946, 1963, 1965, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1991, 2000 and 2016e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the maximum number of detected anomalies (89.7%) occurred in 1928, 1937, 1944, 1946, 1963, 1965, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1991, 2000 and 2016”
Claim · model-written summary
The timing of anomalies and growth minima did not coincide between the two pine forest types.
- Outcome
- no coincidences of the formation of anomalies and minima of growthe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There are no coincidences of the formation of anomalies and minima of growth in mossy and ledum pine forests”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual ring structure reflects seasonal growth of common pine.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“the structure of annual rings of common pine can be considered as a reflection of the features of seasonal growth of trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil hydrology largely determines pine ring structural anomalies.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the formation of anomalies of the structure is largely determined by soil-hydrological conditions of growth”