Table 1.
Apparent and shuffled growth trends, and age–growth and age–calendar year relationships by species. For details on how shuffled trends were estimated, see main text and Text S1. Note that we excluded from the main analysis the three species that were identified by Groenendijk et al. (2015) to have mortality biases, but results for these three species are shown at the bottom of the table in italic. Values in black are significant at P < 0.05
| Species | Recruitment patterna | Biasesb | Canopy trees (27 cm) | Understory trees (8 cm) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trends (% per decade) | Age–growth | Age–calendar year | Trends (% per decade) | Age–growth | Age–calendar year | |||||||||
| Apparent | Shuffled | Pearson's r | P | Pearson's r | P | Apparent | Shuffled | Pearson's r | P | Pearson's r | P | |||
| Ampelocera ruizii | Logistic decline | −7.60% | −2.45% | −0.38 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.71 | 14.55% | −5.12% | −0.32 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.50 | |
| Brachystegia cynometroides | Unimodal | −6.30% | −4.27% | −0.40 | 0.00 | 0.65 | 0.00 | 0.18% | −2.83% | −0.33 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 0.01 | |
| Brachystegia eurycoma | Unimodal | −0.84% | −1.32% | −0.17 | 0.15 | 0.28 | 0.01 | −3.65% | −2.28% | −0.34 | 0.00 | 0.52 | 0.00 | |
| Cariniana ianeirensis | Logistic decline | 2.53% | −0.70% | −0.20 | 0.13 | −0.01 | 0.93 | 0.00% | −0.63% | −0.41 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.95 | |
| Chukrasia tabularis | Unimodal | 1.37% | −1.67% | −0.27 | 0.05 | 0.43 | 0.00 | −1.94% | −2.33% | −0.14 | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.02 | |
| Daniellia ogea | Unimodal | 2.66% | −0.80% | −0.24 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 2.80% | 0.00% | 0.11 | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.53 | |
| Hura crepitans | Exponential decline | 2.79% | −1.20% | −0.51 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.77 | 0.42% | −0.62% | −0.27 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.59 | |
| Terminalia ivorensis | Unimodalc | 3.37% | −0.62% | −0.45 | 0.00 | −0.19 | 0.07 | 1.92% | −0.52% | −0.61 | 0.00 | −0.02 | 0.83 | |
| Toona ciliata | Unimodal | −0.53% | −0.69% | −0.20 | 0.17 | −0.02 | 0.87 | −14.54% | −0.93% | −0.11 | 0.45 | 0.23 | 0.11 | |
| Melia azedarach | Unimodal | Predeath b | −7.24% | −2.41% | −0.53 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.12 | −9.16% | −2.01% | −0.47 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.12 |
| Sweetia fruticosa | Exponential decline | Predeath b | −7.67% | −0.81% | −0.17 | 0.28 | −0.22 | 0.17 | −1.41% | −0.98% | −0.35 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.64 |
| Afzelia xylocarpa | Unimodal | Juvenile selection b | 1.00% | −0.21% | −0.33 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 1.65% | −0.85% | −0.55 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.37 |
Recruitment pattern classification is from Vlam (2014).
Biases identified by Groenendijk et al. (2015), but results for these three species are shown at the bottom of the table in italic. Values in black are significant at P < 0.05.
Rrecruitment pattern of Vlam (2014) differs from the data set used by van der Sleen et al. (2014), which consisted of two cohorts.
Data for the three species with biases according to Groenendijk et al. (2015) are in italic, and values in black are significant at P < 0.05.