Article

Global warming and flowering times in Thoreau's Concord: a community perspective.

Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Ecology (Impact Factor: 5). 03/2008; 89(2):332-41. DOI: 10.1890/07-0068.1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As a result of climate change, many plants are now flowering measurably earlier than they did in the past. However, some species' flowering times have changed much more than others. Data at the community level can clarify the variation in flowering responses to climate change. In order to determine how North American species' flowering times respond to climate, we analyzed a series of previously unstudied records of the dates of first flowering for over 500 plant taxa in Concord, Massachusetts, USA. These records began with six years of observations by the famous naturalist Henry David Thoreau from 1852 to 1858, continued with 16 years of observations by the botanist Alfred Hosmer in 1878 and 1888-1902, and concluded with our own observations in 2004, 2005, and 2006. From 1852 through 2006, Concord warmed by 2.4 degrees C due to global climate change and urbanization. Using a subset of 43 common species, we determined that plants are now flowering seven days earlier on average than they did in Thoreau's times. Plant flowering times were most correlated with mean temperatures in the one or two months just before flowering and were also correlated with January temperatures. Summer-flowering species showed more interannual variation in flowering time than did spring-flowering species, but the flowering times of spring-flowering species correlated more strongly to mean monthly temperatures. In many cases, such as within the genera Betula and Solidago, closely related, co-occurring species responded to climate very differently from one another. The differences in flowering responses to warming could affect relationships in plant communities as warming continues. Common St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) are particularly responsive to changes in climate, are common across much of the United States, and could serve as indicators of biological responses to climate change. We discuss the need for researchers to be aware, when using data sets involving multiple observers, of how varying methodologies, sample sizes, and sampling intensities affect the results. Finally, we emphasize the importance of using historical observations, like those of Thoreau and Hosmer, as sources of long-term data and to increase public awareness of biological responses to climate change.

1 Follower
 · 
138 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Premise of research. Flowering times are sensitive indicators of climate change. This study explores important methodological issues in the use of samples of phenological records, quantifies change in flowering times, and examines causes of variability among species. Methodology. I used Monte Carlo simulations to explore effects of sample size on estimates of phenological statistics. I documented 60 yr of change in temperature and flowering times of forbs in Worcester County, Massachusetts, a largely nonurban area, using a combination of herbarium specimens and observations, and I tested several hypotheses using these data. I also compared changes in flowering times in eastern North America from several published studies. Pivotal results. Average spring temperatures increased 1.4°C (0.24°C/decade) during the last 60 yr. Mean and median flowering dates were most robust for small sample sizes, while early and late flowering dates and ranges were least stable. Mean flowering time advanced 2.9 d (0.4°C/decade), with greatest advances in early-flowering species. The predicted advance for a spring-flowering species was 4-10 d (0.6°-1.5°C/decade) using different models, corresponding to 2.5-6.3 d/°C of springtime warming. Flowering advanced more in species with shorter blooming periods than in species with longer blooming periods. Flowering advance was unaffected by a species’ native status and by whether it was locally increasing or declining. Phenological advances reported for the same species in different studies showed no significant correlation. Conclusions. Advances in flowering times were comparable to those in other north temperate studies, as was the large change in spring-flowering species. Contrary to other studies, phenological changes were unrelated to a species’ native status and to changes in species frequency. Results of simulations and comparisons across studies suggest that sampling error may contribute substantially to reported variation among species.
    International Journal of Plant Sciences 02/2015; 176(2):107-119. DOI:10.1086/679619 · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Environmental conditions associated with climate change, such as earlier snowmelt, warmer spring temperatures, and increased soil mineralization, have resulted in shifts in the timing of plant phenological events. We assessed the effects of fertilizer and herbivory on the phenology of 7 plant species from a boreal forest understory using long-term experimental plots in the southwest Yukon. Fertilizer and fencing treatments were initiated in 1990, and discontinued in half of each plot in 2000. There were few effects on phenology of either fertilizer or fencing. In some species, fertilizer affected the final phenological stage reached, but the presence and direction of the effect was species-dependent. Epilobium angustifolium was the only species where the timing of phenological stages responded to fertilization; early phenological stages were advanced with fertilizer. First leaf expansion for Arctostaphylos uva-ursi occurred earlier in fenced plots, although this effect disappeared in plots where the fencing treatment had been discontinued. We conclude that previously observed changes in species abundance with fertilizer treatments are likely not caused by changes in the phenology of these species, and are more likely due to fertilization imposed changes in vegetative growth.
    Arctic Antarctic and Alpine Research 08/2011; 43:389-396. DOI:10.1657/1938-4246-43.3.389 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    01/2013; 122(4):628-637. DOI:10.5026/jgeography.122.628

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from