|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|6458949||1421197||2017||3 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود کنید|
This commentary highlights a regularly occurring misinterpretation of the widely used expressed population signal (EPS). Based on thorough examination of the scientific article introducing EPS, I show that I) EPS was not meant to be a measure for the suitability of tree-ring data for climate reconstruction, and II) that the frequently used - but arbitrarily chosen - threshold of 0.85 was not meant to be used in combination with EPS. Instead, the less frequently used subsample signal strength (SSS) was intended for a respective application, i.e. as a measure of decreasing predictive power of transfer functions due to reductions in the sample size of underlying tree-ring series back in time. I conclude that classical transfer function quality statistics should be preferred over the erroneous application of EPS in the context of evaluating the suitability of dendrochronological data for climate reconstructions.
Journal: Dendrochronologia - Volume 44, June 2017, Pages 130-132