Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/261739
Title:
A Comparison Between Response-Function Analysis and Other Regression Techniques
Author:
Fritts, Harold C.; Xiangding, Wu
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Department of Geography, Academia Sinica, Beijing, People's Republic of China
Issue Date:
1986
Rights:
Copyright © Tree-Ring Society. All rights reserved.
Collection Information:
This item is part of the Tree-Ring Research (formerly Tree-Ring Bulletin) archive. It was digitized from a physical copy provided by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring research at The University of Arizona. For more information about this peer-reviewed scholarly journal, please email the Editor of Tree-Ring Research at editor@treeringsociety.org.
Publisher:
Tree-Ring Society
Journal:
Tree-Ring Bulletin
Citation:
Fritts, H.C., Wu, X. 1986. A comparison between response-function analysis and other regression techniques. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:31-46.
Abstract:
Three different response-function programs are applied to three tree-ring chronologies, two of Pinus ponderosa Laws. and one of Juniperus occidentalis Hook. These data were analyzed before and after ARMA modeling was applied. The results are described and compared to one another as well as to those obtained from all-steps multiple regression, stepwise multiple regression, ridge regression, and simple correlation. In spite of methodological differences all multivariate methodsproduced remarkably similar results. The results from simple correlation differed the most. Some differences among the response functions were apparent, especially in the coefficients associated with prior growth. The response-function results have smaller error estimates than ridge regression. According to Cropper (1985) this error in the response-function results is underestimated by approximately 40 %. The rationale for the different response-function solutions is discussed.
Keywords:
Dendrochronology; Tree Rings; Dendroclimatology; Statistical Analysis
ISSN:
0041-2198
Additional Links:
http://www.treeringsociety.org

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleA Comparison Between Response-Function Analysis and Other Regression Techniquesen_US
dc.contributor.authorFritts, Harold C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorXiangding, Wuen_US
dc.contributor.departmentLaboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Geography, Academia Sinica, Beijing, People's Republic of Chinaen_US
dc.date.issued1986-
dc.rightsCopyright © Tree-Ring Society. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the Tree-Ring Research (formerly Tree-Ring Bulletin) archive. It was digitized from a physical copy provided by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring research at The University of Arizona. For more information about this peer-reviewed scholarly journal, please email the Editor of Tree-Ring Research at editor@treeringsociety.org.en_US
dc.publisherTree-Ring Societyen_US
dc.identifier.journalTree-Ring Bulletinen_US
dc.identifier.citationFritts, H.C., Wu, X. 1986. A comparison between response-function analysis and other regression techniques. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:31-46.en_US
dc.description.abstractThree different response-function programs are applied to three tree-ring chronologies, two of Pinus ponderosa Laws. and one of Juniperus occidentalis Hook. These data were analyzed before and after ARMA modeling was applied. The results are described and compared to one another as well as to those obtained from all-steps multiple regression, stepwise multiple regression, ridge regression, and simple correlation. In spite of methodological differences all multivariate methodsproduced remarkably similar results. The results from simple correlation differed the most. Some differences among the response functions were apparent, especially in the coefficients associated with prior growth. The response-function results have smaller error estimates than ridge regression. According to Cropper (1985) this error in the response-function results is underestimated by approximately 40 %. The rationale for the different response-function solutions is discussed.en_US
dc.subjectDendrochronologyen_US
dc.subjectTree Ringsen_US
dc.subjectDendroclimatologyen_US
dc.subjectStatistical Analysisen_US
dc.identifier.citationFritts, H.C., Wu, X. 1986. A comparison between response-function analysis and other regression techniques. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46:31-46.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0041-2198-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/261739-
dc.identifier.journalTree-Ring Bulletinen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.treeringsociety.orgen_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.