From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Evaluation of Climate Proxy[edit]

In terms of discussing dendrochronology as a paleoclimate proxy, this article needs a lot of work. While it contains a lot of good information about the theory behind why and how tree rings work as a proxy, it doesn't explain the calibration well. Cronin's textbook mentions that calibration is one of the most important aspects of using proxies, and it is only briefly mentioned in the article. I took a class before where we did discuss the calibration curve of dendrochronology, but the article doesn't explain how or even why this needs to be done. It has the section on the dendrological equation, but this does not equate to the calibration, and when I finished the article, I did not understand this in the slightest.

Another major omission is the fact that the article does not discuss the pros/cons of dendrochronology. It does discuss the relative time-span the proxy covers, but it doesn't discuss other pros/cons. One question I had when I finished reading the article was, "How does this proxy compare to others?" The article should definitely have included more coverage on the strengths of dendrochronology, but also on its shortcomings, especially in comparison to other proxies. At looking at other comments on the talk page, I noticed that one person mentioned that the specific application on climatology is vague and minimum, and I couldn't agree more. After reading, I understand better the concept of tree rings and some of the finer details that complicate the issue (such as alternating poor/favorable conditions and "missing rings"), but I don't understand all of the applications to understanding past climates.

The sources used in the article are mostly peer-reviewed and seem relevant for the most part. There are a few particularly detailed, applicable peer-reviewed articles in the "growth rings" section, especially (Walker, 2013). However, the article doesn't do a good job of combining all of these sources into a detailed account of dendrochronology and its use as a climate proxy. It jumps around and briefly skirts by important topics; in fact, my biggest complaint is that the article needs to simply go more in depth on the real use of dendrochronology and establish a clear focus. As far as assumptions go, I couldn't really find much about this. Citations were used correctly, and there was nothing in the article that seemed "off" or made me really question its validity.

Yang, Bao, et al. "Temperature Changes On The Tibetan Plateau During The Past 600 Years Inferred From Ice Cores And Tree Rings." Global & Planetary Change 69.1/2 (2009): 71-78. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Feb. 2017. This article provides a heavily scientifically detailed analysis of a specific example of tree rings being used to reconstruct past climates.

2. Singh, J., R. R. Yadav, and M. Wilmking. "A 694-Year Tree-Ring Based Rainfall Reconstruction from Himachal Pradesh, India." Climate Dynamics 33.7-8 (2009): 1149-58. SCOPUS. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.

3. Hughes, M. K. "Dendrochronology in Climatology - the State of the Art." Dendrochronologia 20.1-2 (2002): 95-116. SCOPUS. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.

This article in particular is what I would have modeled the Wikipedia article after. It gives a detailed analysis of dendrochronology's applications to climatology as a proxy.

To improve this article, I would have broadened its scope. I would include more details about the calibration, the science of actually "reading" the tree rings, and more data about how different trees are affected by climate changes. I also would have provided some examples of dendrochronology actually being used, such as in the second article I cited above. Finally, the article's citations are good for the most part, but it needs to be more focused in (as I mentioned above) on the climatic aspects and give all of these topics equal weight. Anth1112 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

annual or annular[edit]

Do you mean "annual rings"? "annular rings" is redundant. -phma

I agree that many people use the term "annual rings".
However, many other people use the term "annular rings", so I added back that term, resulting in:
"Growth rings, also referred to as tree rings or annual rings or annular rings, can be seen..."
Do I need to pick one of the many Google results (tree "annular ring" width) as a reference?
-- (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The growth ring is the annular region consisting of the earlywood and the subsequent latewood, moving away from the wood center (pith). From AN INTERACTIVE IMAGE ANALYSIS SYSTEM FOR DENDROCHRONOLOGY by Giribalan Gopalan(talk) 12:53, Jclerman (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)9 November 2008 (UTC)
The Google polling approach is not scholar-wise. Tree sections show GROWTH RINGS which are the result of the intersection of trunk tranversal sections with volumetric ANNULAR GROWTH of wood. Dendrochronology is based on ANNUAL growth observed in tree cross-sections as an annulus or ring. Not all ANNULAR growth is ANNUAL. DENDROCHRONOLOGY is the study of ANNUAL rings (Cf chronos in its etimology) as needed for archaeology, paleoclimate, radiocarbon, etc. Instead. DENDROLOGY deals with all types of ANNULAR and other growth be it ANNUAL or not as needed for physiology, ecology, timber industry, etc. Please feel free to edit the article to make these points clear. Jclerman (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

radiocarbon calibration[edit]

How does dendrochronolgy correlate with C14 dating? Ping 20:56, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dendrochronology is one method used to calibrate C-14 dating--Vsmith 17:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How is the fact that one of the more probable measurements of bristlecone pine ring thickness is ZERO factored into dendochronology using such measurements? (See tree ring thicknesses from Methuselah Walk) Wdanwatts 13:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bristlecone Pine tree ring widths.
Note the number of zero width measurements
Methuselah Walk, CA
Zero width is not a measurement. It means missing ring. From patterns in several cores they have so been inferred. Thus, the graph is not relevant to the discussion. Jclerman 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
For relevant information, with descriptions of the cross-correlation methods, chronology building, math and software used, and answers about dendrochronological methodology, including principles and results, see the following websites and links therein given:
Jclerman 22:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
For relevant info about the Methuselah chronology (eg, statistics describing the raw measurements file referenced in the graph, cross-correlations, etc) see:
For the chronology derived from the data referenced in the graph, see:
Jclerman 23:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
It looks like there are occassionally measurments where the rings are rather thin. This doesn't mean most of the measurments have zero thickness. Samboy 02:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The actual count on that file is 4258 of 213232 measurements were reported as 0 (2% of the total, while the most probable width, 19 units, is only 3.5% of the total, and less that twice as probable as 0). How many "spacer" values are needed to shim ring width sequences in order to "help" a correlation between two sets? Wdanwatts 22:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Surely this is all depends on what's being counted and how. How was the above dataset collected? Without knowing that, it's not possible to say that years with '0' values are included to aid comparison and correlation. I think the important thing to bear in mind is that dendro, like many other incremental dating techniques, can often lack precision (relatively) but still yield accurate results. In some ways the precision : accuracy relationship here is opposite to that of C14 dating (i.e. where measuring is precise, but results come with error margins that reduce accuracy). NickW 09:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is an excellent point! Is there any Wikipedian here who knows the requisite information? If so, would you care to enlighten us as to how these measurements were interpreted and used? Wdanwatts 13:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have any knowledge on how C. W. Ferguson came up with the number (and placement) of zero-width tree-rings? Dan Watts 20:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Two methods. First, a very slow-growing tree commonly only lays down a partial ring, covering say 60% of the circumference of the live wood of the tree. Thus a ring may be missing from one core sample, but present in a second core sample from the same tree at a different point on the trunk's circumference. Second, very rarely an exceptionally slow-growing tree will not lay down a ring at all on its trunk in a poor (cold, dry) year; this can be detected by comparison with the rings of neighbouring, faster-growing trees which do show a narrow ring for the bad year in question, or by comparison with branches higher in the crown of the same tree, where the ring will be produced. - MPF 11:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So the second method would be of no utility for a dead tree, and the first method could not be used particularly well if only a piece of a tree was available. Dan Watts 12:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No problem on the second; although wood is of course only produced by a tree while still alive, once dead, the old wood remains available for study until such time as it decays away. In the case of Great Basin Bristlecone Pines studied by Ferguson, this is a very long time; he found trees that had been dead for several thousand years and was still able to study the growing conditions they had been alive in. As for the first, normal proceedure is to take several cores at different points so as to get several readings. The existence of incomplete rings was known about long before Ferguson's studies started, so he was well aware of the potential for its occurrence. Some trees have much poorer circuit uniformity than others; pines are generally very good (most rings are complete), while e.g. junipers are notorious for producing partial rings, making them much harder to study accurately. - MPF 14:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. It brings to mind a number of other questions. Are you stating that Ferguson found whole trees dead for thousands of years? Not pieces? I thought Bristlecones, especially the very old ones, usually have a strip of bark, not nearly totally circumferential. That is what the typical pictures show. So are the 2% zero widths those measurements in which no core taken from a tree found a ring but nearby trees matched with a thin ring in the same place? How self-similar are these ring histories? (e.g. auto-correlation coefficient) Dan Watts 01:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whole fallen trunks with major branches still on, which comes inbetween the two I guess. Yes, correct about the narrowness of some of the strips of bark (as e.g. Image:Inyo10.jpg), though the non-living part of the circumference was once alive and can still provide useful data for the earlier part of the tree's life. "So are the 2% zero widths ..." - yes; and quite good, as far as I know. - MPF 19:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addition of Fossil Examples/ Analysis of Fossils w/Dendrochronology techniques[edit]

I know in some Geological periods the days were shorter. (Days are progressively getting longer in duration.) But the cyclicity of the days and the years still is the constant. I know nothing about Dendrochronology/Growth ring, Tree ring's applied to fossils.

I do realize all fossil trees are not gymnosperm/ angiosperm types. MMcAnnis,YumaAZ

, (a higher correlation value stands out amongst lower values).[edit]

Unless I didn't understand it, it seems a self evident tautology with little relevance to the paragraph. From Tucson AZ, Jclerman 05:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

significance of the correlations : discussion request[edit]

Wouldn't the "missing ring" mean that it was ASSUMED to be there in order to help correlation look better with other cores? Dan Watts 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have Core A with pattern 4 8 9 5 3 2, Core B with pattern 4 8 5 3 2, .... Core Z with pattern 4 8 9 5 3 2, you infer that in Core B the 3rd ring is missing. Note that the example with 5 rings is an oversimplification. One works with hundreds or thousands of rings. Jclerman 20:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
O.K. how does the autocorrelation function of core ring patterns look? (I.e. how many offsets allow reasonable matches?) Dan Watts 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Descriptions of the cross-correlation methods, chronology building, math and software used, and any other answers about dendrochronological methodology and results are given in the following references:
In this reference it says: "COFECHA Tip #13: So, what value of mean interseries correlation (first page in the box, and found in Part 7 at bottom) should you have? I consider a value of 0.40 the minimum a tree-ring data set should have. I've seen values much higher in the American Southwest (0.55 to 0.70) while data sets for eastern species may range from 0.45 to 0.60. Data sets with very long complacent series, however, may have values less than 0.40." [1] This would seem to indicate that there exist MANY possible correlation offsets other than the one published. Dan Watts 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This reference doesn't have the word correlation. Dan Watts 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Jclerman 21:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
In the Discussion page of Dendrochronology I've put a complete list of references to the stats and chronology of the graphed data. Jclerman 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Does the discussion cover the autocorrelation of the tree rings as shown in Methuselah Walk Tree Ring Width Autocorrelation.GIF and the associated Cross-correlation these trees have as shown in Methuselah Walk Ring Width Cross-correlation.GIF and what values are to be considered significant?

someone wanna put this in english?[edit]

really now :D how disputed are tree ring dates? and i got directed here from some link that was talking about 18 yrs without treerings anywhere on earth... or somethin to that affect - what's that about?

curious :D
  1. The article is in English, read it.
  2. The article has plenty of references, read some of them.
  3. If you still have questions, contact the sites referenced and submit your questions. 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The plots above show the correlation of the Bristlecone pine tree ring widths measured in the Methuselah walk area. The correlations are between different trees and each tree's autocorrelation (a measure of how repeatable the ring width history is). These noticably large correlations mean that the tree ring histories could (just as easily) be put together with different temporal offsets than the ones chosen. This would produce a different calibration curve for radiocarbon dating (or increase the uncertainty associated with the published curve.) Dan Watts 01:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a one-sided point of view not validated by peer reviewed publications based on the original measurements and analyses. The specialists literature and databases reliably validate the correlations used for dating either by dendrochronology or by the radiocarbon calibrated scale. 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The descriptions of the cross-correlation methods, chronology building, math and software used by the expert researchers, and any other answers about dendrochronological methodology and results are given in the following references:
For relevant info about the Methuselah chronology (eg, statistics describing the raw measurements file referenced in the graph, cross-correlations, etc) see:
For the chronology derived from the data referenced in the graph, see:
This discussion has been undertaken in the previous sections, above this one. 03:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
While the above references give correlations for the chronology chosen, I have not seen where they address the question of what measure/method was used to choose this particular chronology and how robust the given solution is when compared to some other chronology. Dan Watts 14:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
18 years of no tree rings: someone snapped their fingers, the earth stood still for 18 years. No rotation of axis: annnddd.... NO-one noticed! !..(From the SonoranDesert[a participant in making changes(minor) to this article)])- ...-Mmcannis 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam discussion for User:Jclerman[edit]

I'm a spam fighter and I've been cleaning up the mess left by a mass spammer. User:Jclerman reverted my edit and requested with this diff [2] that the merits of the linkspam be discussed here. This spammer has used multiple accounts to add about 200 linkspams in the past month. Here is the evidence:

The domain is going to be blacklisted and this will lock editting for any article that has that link. I hereby request that the spam link be deleted from this article so that further disruption is avoided. Thank you. (Requestion 06:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

I have replaced it with a link per User talk:Requestion/Archive_1#The original source for those links. This is a legitimate cable channel hosted by the University of Washington. Graham87 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Replacing the links with links isn't a good idea because when is blacklisted so will all of its mirrors. A blacklisted link will lock out all editing of an article until it is removed. This wiki-behavior frustrates lots of new editors who have never experienced it before. (Requestion 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC))
Linda is a well known bona fide scientist. You shouldn't block references to her work. Or you don't believe in global warming? Jclerman 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, you seem to know more than I do. Help me here please. Is Linda the one who added 200 external linkspams to Wikipedia? Or was it someone else? (Requestion 08:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC))
No, and I don't see why she would do that. Many of the videos on that site are unrelated to her work. I've said more on your talk page. Graham87 12:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Growth rings"--?[edit]

Doesn't anybody else get it, that "growth rings" are in:

  1. bones
  2. teeth
  3. shelled creatures,
  4. and many: etc's....
  5. oh, yeah, and TRee-types, (but not All tree types)(I think)

a note from the SonoranDesert/Ariz. --Mmcannis 21:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Sentence[edit]

Hello, I'm a passing reader and notice that the sentence starting "Adequate moisture and .." is repeated.

effects of location on dating[edit]

The current article (2008-06-30) states that:

it [dendrochronology] can also match location because the climate across Europe is not consistent

I can see how you could match for age based on location or location if you knew the age by linking in with studied artefacts (cores, etc.) that were dated by other means. But, I can't see how you could take a sample and match it to a date and a location. Surely local variations mean that the rings in a tree are markedly different to those in another. Trees on one side of a hill get more sunlight and produce larger rings; trees get different moisture levels. One tree is shaded by a larger one, another isn't, the larger tree dies, the unshaded tree gets shaded by a faster growing neighbour. One tree competes for moisture in dense woodland whilst another stands alone in pasture land. Hence missing rings could occur in one tree but not in another in the same geographic locality. The article states that even different branches have different ring patterns, how does one cross-correlate then? How are such things accounted for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary and disrespectful redactive edits[edit]

I am a retired professor and spent hours the other day making extensive editorial efforts to clarify and better organize content. The article was poorly structured had content misplaced in sections, had content that was conflicting, and had content that was unclear as to meaning; in addition to these issues, the article was all but devoid of proper scientific sourcing.

I spent hours working on this, and at the end, tagged the sections and sentences that contained factual content that needed supporting citation. In addition, I tagged the content where the sources were primary, rather than review -- a clear WP policy directive says editors are to report sparingly from scientific primary sources, and are to instead rely on secondary and tertiary reports in the sciences. An editor, taking umbrage with the tagging, reverted all the constructive structural, factual, and clarifying edits. I take issue with this, both in principle, and in specific.

In general, if the issue is with tagging, the tagging should be specifically addressed -- rather than reverting and destroying other work because the broad reversion is easy. Spend as much time as I did.

In terms of the specifics, I am willing and able to argue every specific content edit I made -- and I explain each in the edit summary that appears in the edit history. If the specific content changes I made are a source of concern, they should be addressed one at a time, so that the reasons for further, future edits appear in the edit summaries, so editors can tell why the redaction/reversion was done.

Bottom line, it is not acceptable practice either to remove large portions of editing, without talk, and with an edit summary tag that does not cover the real scope and intent of the reversions.

Change this slowly, over a period of hours, explaining each substantive change (as others did before my edits, and as I did in mine).

Finally, one substantive objection raise in an edit summary -- that the primary sources tag is for other article subject areas, and not for the science -- is clearly incorrect, and I have noted this at the editor's personal talk page.

Note, I am traveling, and not logged, and this should have no bearing on the reception of my substantive, scholarly edits. (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Further improvement to structure needed[edit]

There is a further disjuncture between the article lede and structure that I have not time or expertise to address. The lede speaks of "three main areas of application: [1] paleoecology… [2] archaeology and the history of art and architecture… and [3] radiocarbon dating" where I have added the numbering for clarity.

The article structure, on the other hand, lists the Applications as "5.1 Climatology... 5.2 Art history… [and] 5.3 Building history".

The correspondence between these lists is confusing (to this specialist, and so almost certainly to nonspecialists), and so I propose, with regard to the "Applications" content of the article, that either the article lede change to mirror the article (easy, and the minimal required by WP policy), or that the article content should be edited to parallel the structure indicated by the lede. (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Detailed outline and explanation of earlier professorial edits[edit]

Here is a list of the recent edits made, with brief reasoning. ALL CAPS ARE ADDED TO DISTINGUISH PROPOSALS FOR ATTENTION FROM WORK ALREADY DONE, and not to "shout". (This Talk being pasted in, from text editor, in haste, to avoid further editorial misunderstanding, and so without leisure of careful formatting.)

The review of the edits contains points that expand on what already appears in edit summaries; they are gathered here for sake of other interested editors. I particular, the edits now appear "top down", and so can be an easily followed guide to recent changes at my hand made in several steps, over several sessions. As noted, I also intersperse brief comments about article incongruities that I believe remain to be addressed.


  • Any content in lede not in article duplicated and placed in appropriate later article sections.
  • Some important content in article not in lede duplicated and moved up.
  • Citations in lede moved to corresponding information in main body.

[Note, see talk, the process of making the lede and article structures congruous is not yet done.]


  • No changes, except to add tag that the section is altogether without citations.

[This section is in need of a scholarly re-write. It is both too narrow in scope, and without attribution.]

Growth Rings


  • The "early wood" sentence slightly restructured to move preferred name to the fore, and some sidebar material moved to an endnote.
  • Need for a better botanical source noted; this section is rich on generalities, but poor on the anatomical information most directly relevant to the specialist content of the article. See for instance, the later poorly developed "missing rings" and "ants" issues content, and the lack of any anatomical underpinning for these specific content statements.
  • Paragraphs on "one growth ring per year" and "several rings forming" were edited to gather related material and remove redundancies.
  • Introductory or segue sentences were added as necessary, to mark the change in direction of content.
  • Some material unrelated to this basic section were moved to lower more relevant or new sections, see below.
  • Cross-dating and replication information concentrated in this section, perhaps for later separation into a "Methodology" section. This cannot be done without some expert attention to flesh out the methods used, and so it is left here for now.
  • Despite lack of secondary sources, the three reports from Radiocarbon are left in, as the data are solid, but these interpretations of the primary scientific literature by WP editors should be replaced by secondary sources making these statements. (The fact that the data are published does not make them widely accepted as the preponderant scientific view; the secondary and tertiary sourcing establishes this.)
  • A primary source tag is added to the foregoing sentences, until corresponding better sources can appear, to make clear where the issue was within the paragraph; the section was also annotated with a primary source section tag.

Sampling and Dating

  • This paragraph restructured, so most general content appears first, and on to content of increasing detail.
  • Since "dating" is in section title, calibration content was moved to this section.
  • The poorly written, and overly detailed INTCAL04 content, which appears to relate directly to calibration, was moved to follow the general calibration content, and edited to make it (to the best of my ability) accurate to the information that appeared. THESE SENTENCES SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY A SPECIALIST, FOR ERROR.
  • The "12,410… 14,700" sentence that appeared heretofore was undecipherable to this specialist, and so was rewritten in a way that made sense in context and based on full article reading. NEVERTHELESS, THIS SENTENCE SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY A SPECIALIST, FOR ERROR.
  • The "obstacles… ants" sentence is both unsourced, and is relatively inane in comparison to what should appear, in terms of the challenges and uncertainties that apply in this field of study. THIS CONTENT NEEDS EXPANSION, WITH THIS SENTENCE BEING SOURCED OR REMOVED.

Reference sequences




  • First subsection on climatology is nearly completely devoid of serious content, so Expand tag added.
  • First subsection is completely devoid of sources, so section tag added.
  • Third subsection on building history has one poor (web, non-scholarly) source, so section tag added.

Related chronologies

  • This section created anew, see next bullet.
  • These three topics heretofore appeared inserted in other sections of unrelated material. They were gathered and moved here, with some editing to separate and clarify content.
  • Since the material is entirely unsourced, a section tag was added.


  • In footnote 11, the nuance regarding the difference between using tree rings to calibrate C-14 based radiodating, and constructing the IntCal04 extrapolation based on C-14 data, is noted. It was done because there is otherwise an apparent circularity, of using one data type to calibrate the other, then using the calibrated data to in turn extend the usability of the first data type. This was apparent to me, as it all be to others, and so some comment was needed. THIS FOOTNOTE SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY A SPECIALIST.


"Herbchronology" - made-up word, please remove redirect[edit]

"Herbchronology" - made-up word, please remove redirect. Almost no results on Google Books and Google Scholar. (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know - the Dietz and Ullman paper cited in the Herbchronology has 52 citations, which isn't too bad for a paper in anatomy. That said, I would like to see some secondary or tertiary sources supporting the idea that it's a real thing. Guettarda (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dendrochronology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Climate Data Evaluation[edit]

Specifically looking at this page's description of dendrochronology in terms of climate, the page needs significant expansion. The history section describes the efficacy of dendrochronology as a climate proxy effectively, but the specific application section on climatology is vague and minimal. For example, this section does not describe how tree rings are affected by different climates, it just mentions that they are affected in some capacity. The article fails to mention the specific types of data collected when looking at tree rings: ring width, density, resin duct density, ray cells per unit area, etc (Wazny 2001). These factors are crucial in understanding the methodology by which dendochronology can be used to analyze climate change. This page also fails to mention the strengths, weaknesses, and assumptions of using dendrochronology. For example, strengths include a wide understanding of ecological mechanisms that influence tree ring sizes, a precision in determining the age of certain tree rings, and an ability to demonstrate yearly weather variability over time in a particular area (Hughes, 2002). Weaknesses include the fact that dendrochronology only shows a small window of the entirety of natural weather variability over time, the variables recorded by tree rings are of little use to climatologists, and the strong assumption that weather patterns have influenced tree rings in the past via the same mechanisms by which they influence tree rings during the present day (Hughes, 2002). None of these types of information are found in the article, indicating the need for expansion.

Many of the sources listed are peer reviewed, however these articles are not specifically related to dendrochronology. Articles cited, such as (Reimer, 2013) are useful in showing the application of dendrochronology as a tool of radiocarbon dating, but do not explain the usefulness of tree rings to measure climate change specifically. None of the sources listed below are cited in the wikipedia article, however they provide detailed explanations accounts of the relevance of tree ring dating in modern science. Biondi, 2001, is a study that specifically uses dendrochronology to determine climate variably on a decade-wide scale for roughly four centuries.

Wazny, T. (2001). Wood as a Biological Time Capsule. The Korean Journal of Quaternary Research , 15(2), 119-127. Retrieved February 17, 2017.

Hughes, M. K. (January 01, 2002). Dendrochronology in climatology - the state of the art. Dendrochronologia, 20, 1, 95-116.

Biondi, F., Gershunov, A., & Cayan, D. R. (2001). North Pacific Decadal Climate Variability since 1661. Journal of Climate, 14(1), 5-10. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<0005:npdcvs>;2

In order to improve this wikipedia article, content needs to be equally distributed among the various topics mentioned. Details regarding the actual science behind how data is collected should be added, its efficacy as a climate proxy should be described, and the science of dendroclimatology should be explained in greater detail. (Steiner.260 19:00, 17 Feb 2017 (UTC))

You want Dendroclimatology William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique[edit]

(1) How well does the article explain the use of proxy in understanding past climate?

 Data analyses; Solid data from credible sources. Provides general knowledge that can be understood easily, but also displays a careful formula, THE DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL EQUATION for more knowledgeable scholars. Good overview of growth rings as well as sampling methods.  
 Assumptions; Dendrochronology is a scientific method accepted by those who study Paleoclimatology. Can only measure living trees. Width of growth rings from year to year aids in the understanding of what climate was like that year (small width = cooler ... larger width = warmer).  
 Strengths and weaknesses of the proxy method; Reliable way to date upwards of ~ 13,000 - ~14,000 years if tree is old enough. Provides consistent data in which correlates with other Paleoclimate proxy's... Good way to cross check other dating methods as well. Can be used in warmer climates lacking an ocean and/or glacial ice, where oceanic proxy's and ice core samples cannot be obtained. A weakness is that it doesn't provide information long ago. Due to this method being effective with living trees, the amount of time one can go back is limited to how long the tree has been alive.    

(2) Are the peer-reviewed articles listed current and appropriate to demonstrate the use of the proxy?

All but 2 articles have effective links. Article number 34: "Dendrochronology (Tree-Ring Dating) of Panel Paintings" and article 42: "The Royal Lineage - The Danish Monarchy" both do not provide valid pages upon selection of article title. All other articles are recent and apply to the subject of Dendrochronology.

(3) Make at least two recommendations for improving the Wikipedia article

1. As mentioned above, 2 articles do not provide valid links when selecting the title.
2. More information under section "Reference Sequences" is needed. Section is to bare and slightly vague.
- Sheasby45 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC) -

Article Critique-Geography 3900[edit]

The dendrochronology article gives a decent overview of the topic, however, it lacks any substantial details about how exactly trees grow their rings. Such information would be valuable in understanding how this proxy works more fully. other proxies such as ice cores. The article does do a good job explaining the advantages and disadvantages of using this method, but I do think it could use some more details. A lack of detail though is an issue I have noticed throughout the article; I understand that there may not be as much interest in this topic, but I do think the subject matter should be expounded upon a bit. I did find the section on art history to be out of place with the overall article. I think this was too much time to spend discussing art history in a shorter scientific article, so unless more details are added to the science side then the art history section should be shorten. The rest of the article is very scientific in nature, but this sections devotes an unusual amount of time to the arts. The article does not appear to make any blatant assumptions about dendrochronology, but it should also be noted that the article's citations need additional verification, so some of the information is likely not accurate. As a reader from this article I understand why ring cores are used as climate proxies, but I do not have the understanding from the article about they are formed that I do for I found a peer reviewed article written by the F Martin Brown on dendrochronology written in 1937. While this article is outdated in a sense, it does provide one with an idea of dendrochronology’s history, which is covered in the main article. Brown’s article is not cited for this Wikipedia article. I also identified another peer reviewed article entitled “Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating at the Millennium” by S E Nash, which discusses various contributions that dendrochronology has contributed to scientific research. This article is not featured on the Wikipedia article’s citations section. Brown, F. M. (1937). Dendrochronology. Antiquity, 11, 409. Retrieved from Nash, S. E. (2002). Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating at the Millennium. Journal Of Archaeological Research, 10(3), 243-275. Lyle1995 (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique[edit]

Information on data analyses for dendrochronology is fairly well covered and explained in the article. Much of the article lists referenced facts and remains unbiased. The article does a good job of sharing many strengths and weaknesses of the dendrochronology method, however, it says there are many obstacles faced by this method but only lists one and does not discuss this obstacle in detail. It also does not provide a link to a page with more info on obstacles. List more obstacles to the dendrochronology practice at the end of the sampling and dating section or in a whole new section. Also in the Applications section under Climatology, the article refers the reader to another article without discussing anything on the climatology topic with respect to dendrochronology. A short description or summary of that topic would be a little more convenient. One of the peer-reviewed articles I found titled, Dendroclimatology and Dendroecology by Harold C. Fritz, does a nice job of covering the function and usefulness of dendrochronology. However, this article was published in 1971 so it is not recent but still provides relevant and accurate information. This article was also not used in the dendrochronology Wikipedia article. The second article I found, Dendroclimatology: extracting climate from trees by Paul R. Sheppard, was published in 2010 so not extremely recent but far more recent than the previous article. This article also provides a substantial amount of information on the dendrochronology topic and its usefulness as a method. This article was also not referenced in the Wikipedia article. --Ekorte331 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dendrochronology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)