A Machine Learning Approach To Analyzing The Relationship Between Temperatures And Multi-Proxy Tree-Ring Records
Name:
JevšenakLevaničTRRv74n2-2018.pdf
Size:
967.1Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Published Version
Name:
JevšenakLevaničTRR2017-16Sup ...
Size:
35.46Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Supplementary Material Table 1
Name:
LevanicTRR2017-16R1Supplementa ...
Size:
71.73Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Supplementary Material R Code
Issue Date
2018-07Keywords
multiple linear regressionmachine learning
random forests
bagging
model trees
artificial neural networks
dendroclimatology
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Jernej Jevšenak, Sašo Džeroski, Saša Zavadlav, and Tom Levanič "A Machine Learning Approach to Analyzing the Relationship Between Temperatures and Multi-Proxy Tree-Ring Records," Tree-Ring Research 74(2), 210-224, (1 July 2018). https://doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-74.2.210Publisher
Tree-Ring SocietyJournal
Tree-Ring ResearchAdditional Links
https://www.treeringsociety.org/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 (delta C-13, r = 0.72, p < 0.001), stable oxygen (delta O-18, r = isotope 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.Type
Articletext
ISSN
1536-1098EISSN
2162-4585ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.3959/1536-1098-74.2.210