{"title":"A Machine Learning Approach to Analyzing the Relationship Between Temperatures and Multi-Proxy Tree-Ring Records","authors":"J. Jevšenak, S. Džeroski, S. Zavadlav, T. Levanič","doi":"10.3959/1536-1098-74.2.210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Machine learning (ML) is a widely unexplored field in dendroclimatology, but it is a powerful tool that might improve the accuracy of climate reconstructions. In this paper, different ML algorithms are compared to climate reconstruction from tree-ring proxies. The algorithms considered are multiple linear regression (MLR), artificial neural networks (ANN), model trees (MT), bagging of model trees (BMT), and random forests of regression trees (RF). April-May mean temperature at a Quercus robur stand in Slovenia is predicted with mean vessel area (MVA, correlation coefficient with April-May mean temperature, r = 0.70, p < 0.001) and earlywood width (EW, r = –0.28, p < 0.05). Similarly, June-August mean temperature is predicted with stable carbon isotope (δ13C, r = 0.72, p < 0.001), stable oxygen isotope (δ18O, r = 0.32, p < 0.05) and tree-ring width (TRW, r = 0.11, p > 0.05 (ns)) chronologies. The predictive performance of ML algorithms was estimated by 3-fold cross-validation repeated 100 times. In both spring and summer temperature models, BMT performed best respectively in 62% and 52% of the 100 repetitions. The second-best method was ANN. Although BMT gave the best validation results, the differences in the models’ performances were minor. We therefore recommend always comparing different ML regression techniques and selecting the optimal one for applications in dendroclimatology.","PeriodicalId":54416,"journal":{"name":"Tree-Ring Research","volume":"74 1","pages":"210 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3959/1536-1098-74.2.210","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tree-Ring Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-74.2.210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML) is a widely unexplored field in dendroclimatology, but it is a powerful tool that might improve the accuracy of climate reconstructions. In this paper, different ML algorithms are compared to climate reconstruction from tree-ring proxies. The algorithms considered are multiple linear regression (MLR), artificial neural networks (ANN), model trees (MT), bagging of model trees (BMT), and random forests of regression trees (RF). April-May mean temperature at a Quercus robur stand in Slovenia is predicted with mean vessel area (MVA, correlation coefficient with April-May mean temperature, r = 0.70, p < 0.001) and earlywood width (EW, r = –0.28, p < 0.05). Similarly, June-August mean temperature is predicted with stable carbon isotope (δ13C, r = 0.72, p < 0.001), stable oxygen isotope (δ18O, r = 0.32, p < 0.05) and tree-ring width (TRW, r = 0.11, p > 0.05 (ns)) chronologies. The predictive performance of ML algorithms was estimated by 3-fold cross-validation repeated 100 times. In both spring and summer temperature models, BMT performed best respectively in 62% and 52% of the 100 repetitions. The second-best method was ANN. Although BMT gave the best validation results, the differences in the models’ performances were minor. We therefore recommend always comparing different ML regression techniques and selecting the optimal one for applications in dendroclimatology.
期刊介绍:
Tree-Ring Research (TRR) is devoted to papers dealing with the growth rings of trees and the applications of tree-ring research in a wide variety of fields, including but not limited to archaeology, geology, ecology, hydrology, climatology, forestry, and botany. Papers involving research results, new techniques of data acquisition or analysis, and regional or subject-oriented reviews or syntheses are considered for publication.
Scientific papers usually fall into two main categories. Articles should not exceed 5000 words, or approximately 20 double-spaced typewritten pages, including tables, references, and an abstract of 200 words or fewer. All manuscripts submitted as Articles are reviewed by at least two referees. Research Reports, which are usually reviewed by at least one outside referee, should not exceed 1500 words or include more than two figures. Research Reports address technical developments, describe well-documented but preliminary research results, or present findings for which the Article format is not appropriate. Book or monograph Reviews of 500 words or less are also considered. Other categories of papers are occasionally published. All papers are published only in English. Abstracts of the Articles or Reports may be printed in other languages if supplied by the author(s) with English translations.