Article

Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change.

Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive 0116, La Jolla, California 92093, USA.
Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 05/2012; 485(7399):494-7. DOI: 10.1038/nature11014
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Warming experiments are increasingly relied on to estimate plant responses to global climate change. For experiments to provide meaningful predictions of future responses, they should reflect the empirical record of responses to temperature variability and recent warming, including advances in the timing of flowering and leafing. We compared phenology (the timing of recurring life history events) in observational studies and warming experiments spanning four continents and 1,634 plant species using a common measure of temperature sensitivity (change in days per degree Celsius). We show that warming experiments underpredict advances in the timing of flowering and leafing by 8.5-fold and 4.0-fold, respectively, compared with long-term observations. For species that were common to both study types, the experimental results did not match the observational data in sign or magnitude. The observational data also showed that species that flower earliest in the spring have the highest temperature sensitivities, but this trend was not reflected in the experimental data. These significant mismatches seem to be unrelated to the study length or to the degree of manipulated warming in experiments. The discrepancy between experiments and observations, however, could arise from complex interactions among multiple drivers in the observational data, or it could arise from remediable artefacts in the experiments that result in lower irradiance and drier soils, thus dampening the phenological responses to manipulated warming. Our results introduce uncertainty into ecosystem models that are informed solely by experiments and suggest that responses to climate change that are predicted using such models should be re-evaluated.

Full-text

Available from: Susan J. Mazer, Jun 02, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
362 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimClimate change is expected to modify growth trends of forests around the world. However, this modification may vary in strength and intensity across a species' biogeographical range. Here, we study European populations of silver fir (Abies alba) across its southern distribution limits in Spain, Italy and Romania. We hypothesized that growth trends of silver fir will differ across its distribution range, with a marked decline in growth in drought-prone regions near the species' southernmost biogeographical limits.LocationEurope (Spain, Italy, Romania).Methods We collected tree-ring data from at least 1300 silver fir trees located in 111 sites. The dataset was used to assess and model growth trends, quantified as changes in basal area increment, and to determine how growth responds to climate.ResultsWe found contrasting patterns of basal area increments among countries and sites. Populations of silver fir located outside the Mediterranean area (e.g. northern Italy, Romania) have shown a clear increase in growth over the last two decades, whereas most populations in Spain and southern Italy have displayed a marked decline in growth since the 1980s. The growth of silver fir forests at the south-western distribution limit is severely constrained by low spring–summer water availability, whereas growth of silver fir forests in non-Mediterranean areas is limited by cold conditions in late winter to early spring.Main conclusionsClimate warming is distinctly modifying growth patterns and responses to climate in silver fir across most of the species' European distribution area. In south-western Europe the reduction in growth of many populations is related to an observed increase in aridity, whereas in more temperate areas warming is enhancing growth. Our results confirm a decline in the growth of silver fir at its south-western distribution limits as a consequence of climate warming.
    Journal of Biogeography 04/2015; 42(6). DOI:10.1111/jbi.12512 · 4.97 Impact Factor
  • Trees 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00468-015-1152-0 · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heat stress significantly accelerates senescence process during reproductive phase in rice, but the effects of heat stress are not yet well simulated by most of the existing crop models. Three-year experiments under different temperature levels and temperature durations at anthesis and 12 days after anthesis were carried out in phytotron using two japonica cultivars. Significant positive correlations were observed between the shortened grain growing days from anthesis to maturity (GD AM) and heat degree-days (HDD). The impact of post-anthesis heat stress on rice phenology was quantified by adding thermal effectiveness of heat stress to the original RiceGrow model. Performance of the improved model was tested with phenological data from different cultivars under post-anthesis heat stress of phytotron environments and field conditions. Validation results showed that root mean square error (RMSE), mean bias error (MBE) and variance of the distribution of differences (S 2 d) for the prediction of GD AM , decreased from 4.60 d, 2.65 d and 7.80 in the original model to 1.58 d, −0.16 d and 2.40 in the improved model, respectively, under post-anthesis heat stress conditions. The determination coefficient (R 2) and index of agreement (IA) between simulated and observed GD AM , increased from 68.5% and 0.71 in the original model to 93.5% and 0.92 in the improved model under post-anthesis heat stress conditions, respectively. Overall, the improved model gave better predictions of GD AM in different rice cultivars under different post-anthesis heat stress environments. Our study highlights the necessity of accurately simulating the heat stress effects on phenological processes in rice to forecast crop production for ensuring food security under climate change reliably.
    Field Crops Research 02/2015; 177:26-36. DOI:10.1016/j.fcr.2015.02.023 · 2.61 Impact Factor