1 APPENDIX S1. Methodology for reconstructing tree age in cores without pith.

3Published methods for reconstructing tree age from increment cores without any visible pith

4generally follow geometric/graphical methods (e.g. Rozas 2003) or a regression approach (e.g.

5Rohner et al. 2013). Graphical methods require measuring the curvature of the innermost rings or

6direction of parenchyma rays, a type of information not always available, especially in old datasets.

7Regression methods require establishing a size-age relationship, which is generally unreliable in

8late-successional old-growth forests (Piovesan et al. 2005).

9The estimation method we used to estimate pith location is based on the initial growth rate from an

10increment core, and follows the approach that Rozas (2003) found most effective for beech cores

11lacking the arcs of inner rings. We modified Rozas approach so that it could be applied to tree-ring

12measurements even without having access to the actual cores. The method was based upon three

13conditions: (1) cores from a certain tree should not be excessively short in relation to its stem DBH

14(Norton et al. 1987); (2) initial growth rates were derived using the first 20 years (Rozas 2003); (3)

15the number of years to be added should not exceed 10% of the maximum age observed amongst all

16sampled forests pertaining to the same bioclimatic belt.

17The first step consisted in identifying, for each forest, the number of increment cores where pith

18was present. Then, to estimate the number of missing rings in the remaining incomplete cores of

19each forest, we started to assemble the following variables:

20 Measured stem DBH.

21 Reconstructed stem DBH (DBHrec): twice the sum of available ring-widths (RWs).

22 Initial ring-width (irw20) of the increment core: average width of the first 20 rings in a core.

23 Median Initial Ring-Width of the Forest ( IRW20): for each forest, the median width of the

24 first 20 rings, using exclusively cores with the pith. When comparing different forests, the

25 median was preferred to the mean as it is less affected by outliers.

1 1
2
26 Maximum tolerated Number of Missing Rings (NMRbelt) added to reach the pith: valid for all

27 forests within a belt, set to 10% of the maximum lifespan observed within each belt (Table

28 1).

29 Maximum Tolerated Missing Radius (TMRbelt): valid for all forests within a belt, it was the

30 lowest integer value among all the i forests of a belt obtained when applying the formula:

31 IRW20i*0.1(Maximum Age)I . According to this formula, the tolerated missing radius at each

32 site depends on the growth rates and the maximum lifespan, both connected to site

33 productivity. As before (see NMR calculations), the threshold used for the number of rings

34 was 10% of the maximum lifespan observed. Finally, TMRbelt was 3 cm for high-mountain

35 forests, 4 cm for mountain and low-elevation forests (Table 1).

36

37 We then proceeded for each stand as follows:

38 1. First selection step: choose cores according to their length. For each tree, we calculated the

39 missing radius (MR) as: MR = (Measured DBH)-DBHrec. Trees with MR < TMRbelt were

40 excluded.

41 2. Second selection step: choose cores according to the missing number of years to the pith. In

42 the remaining trees, we divided their missing radius (MR) by the core irw20 to estimate the

43 number of missing rings. Cores with an estimated number of missing rings above the

44 tolerated number of Missing Rings to Pith (MRPbelt) were excluded.

45 3. Calculate tree age by summing the number of visible rings and the estimated number of

46 missing rings.

47For each site, the final dataset contained trees with observed or reconstructed age.

48

3 2
4
49TABLE 1. Summary of cores with/without pith and statistics used for calculating the Maximum

50Tolerated Missing Radius (TMRbelt) and the Maximum tolerated number of Missing Rings to Pith

51(MRPbelt).

52

53

54On average, only 66% cored trees had a visible pith (Table 1). We thus tested our method using only

55cores containing the pith. According to the belt of pertinence, we removed from each core an initial

56portion equal to TMRbelt and, using the irw20 of the remaining radius we estimated the number of

57missing rings to the pith. The absolute and relative errors were generally low (less than 10-20 years;

58Table 2), and comparable to those found on beech by Rozas (2003). For all belts, the reconstruction

59method generally underestimated the effective number of years (Fig. 1), and the overestimation was

60always below 20 years. Often, age in old-growth forests could be underestimated due to periods of

61initial suppression (Rozas 2003). Most trees showed errors within 50 years, and in many cases the

62error was lower than 20 years.

5 3
6
63Considering the objectives of our paper, the selected approach revealed to be fairly simple and

64conservative enough. Thanks to it, we were able to recover an extra 6% trees, so that the final

65usable sample was on average 72% of the original coring (Table 3). Within each belt, managed

66forests had often a higher percentage of used trees, probably in connection to the widespread

67presence of younger trees with simpler growth trajectories (i.e. lower errors in reconstructing pith).

68Age estimation was generally in line with observed data on trees with pith and, generally, the

69maximum age at each site was observed rather than reconstructed (Table 3). The reconstructed age

70was higher than the observed only at the site ORI, but the difference was only 9 years. COP was an

71exception, since the oldest tree didnt reach the pith and cannot be recovered because it didnt pass

72the MRP threshold (estimated number of missing rings 10% of the maximum age observed within

73the belt).

74

75TABLE 2. Absolute and percentage error for each bioclimatic belt, using only trees with pith. On

76each core TMRbelt by each trees irw20. (Left) N* vs. N. Dotted line: slope=1; filled circles are

77trees with N* maximum tolerated number of missing rings to pith (MRP, corresponding to 10% of

78the maximum age observed within the belt).

79

80

81

7 4
8
82

83FIGURE 1. Comparison of reconstructed (N*) vs. actual (N) number of years on cores containing

84pith within each bioclimatic belt (Alps and Apennines merged together to simplify the analyses). N*

85obtained by dividing TMRbelt by each trees irw20. (Left) N* vs. N. Dotted line: slope=1; filled

86circles are trees with N* maximum tolerated number of missing rings to pith (MRP,

87corresponding to 10% of the maximum age observed within the belt). (Right) Frequency

88distribution of the observed absolute errors.

9 5
10
 89TABLE 3. Number of trees recovered by the age estimation method and maximum age

90observed/estimated within each study forest. Discarded trees: cores with estimated missing rings

9150. (Used refers to trees with DBH 37.5 cm, used in the final analyses)

92

93

94

95REFERENCES

96Norton D.A., Palmer J.G., Ogden J. (1987). Dendroecological studies in New Zealand. An

97evaluation of age estimates based on increment cores. New Zealand Journal of Botany 25, 373383.

98Piovesan G., Di Filippo A., Alessandrini A., Biondi F., Schirone B. (2005). Structure, dynamics and

99dendroecology of an old-growth Fagus forest in the Apennines. Journal of Vegetation Science 10,

1001328.

11 6
12
101Rohner B., Bugmann H., Bigler C. (2013). Towards non-destructive estimation of tree age. Forest

102Ecology and Management 304, 286-295.

103Rozas V. (2003) Tree age estimates in Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur: testing previous and

104improved methods. Plant Ecology 16, 193212.

13 7
14