A biologically based approach to modeling spring phenology in temperate deciduous trees

Pope, Katherine; Silva, David Da; Brown, Patrick H.; DeJong, Theodore M.

doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.07.009

Cited by 92 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of GDH quantification are highly variable between species, especially at different locations [34]). This could be due to both the model and the interaction between chill and heat accumulation [108][109][110].…”

Section: Concluding Remarks and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chilling and Heat Requirements of Temperate Stone Fruit Trees (Prunus sp.)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stone fruit trees of genus Prunus, like other temperate woody species, need to accumulate a cultivar-specific amount of chilling during endodormancy, and of heat during ecodormancy to flower properly in spring. Knowing the requirements of a cultivar can be critical in determining if it can be adapted to a particular area. Growers can use this information to anticipate the future performance of their orchards and the adaptation of new cultivars to their region. In this work, the available information on chilling-and heat-requirements of almond, apricot, plum, peach, and sweet cherry cultivars is reviewed. We pay special attention to the method used for the determination of breaking dormancy, the method used to quantify chilling and heat temperatures, and the place where experiments were conducted. The results reveal different gaps in the information available, both in the lack of information of cultivars with unknown requirements and in the methodologies used. The main emerging challenges are the standardization of the conditions of each methodology and the search for biological markers for dormancy. These will help to deal with the growing number of new cultivars and the reduction of winter cold in many areas due to global warming.Agronomy 2020, 10, 409 2 of 32 (2.4 million t in 0.4 million ha), almond (2.2 million t in 1.9 million ha) and sour cherry (1.2 million t in 0.2 million ha) [2].Stone fruit trees, like other temperate woody species, need to accumulate a cultivar-specific amount of chilling during winter to overcome dormancy and then experience warm temperatures to finally flower in spring [3][4][5]. These conditions the adaptation of species and cultivars to each region [6] and it is the main drawback for their extension to warmer latitudes [7]. Knowing the temperature requirements of a cultivar can be useful for growers to anticipate the future performance of their orchards and to design new orchards taking into account the predicted global warming [7][8][9]. In this work, the available information on chilling-and heat-requirements of cultivars of the most cultivated stone fruit crops (almond, apricot, peach, plum and cherry) is reviewed, paying special attention to the approach used for the determination of breaking dormancy, the method used to quantify chilling and heat temperatures, and the place where the experiments were conducted. There is extensive information available about chilling and heat requirements that has purposefully been omitted from this review. We have only included those studies that a) obtained results by using an experimental methodology (i.e., transferring shoots into a growth chamber sequentially during winter) or computational/statistical approaches that relate flowering dates to temperature data over a sufficiently long time series, and b) quantified chilling and heat temperatures using the common models (Chilling Hours model, Utah model or Dynamic model for chilling requirements, Growing Degree Hours for heat requirements). Dormancy: Definition and DescriptionStone fruit tr...

show abstract

Section: Concluding Remarks and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chilling and Heat Requirements of Temperate Stone Fruit Trees (Prunus sp.)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been several models developed in the last decades dedicated to predict the date of budbreak and flowering of several woody species (Erez et al ., ; Chuine, ; Yoon et al ., ; Luedeling et al ., ; Pope et al ., ), but few of them have been used to forecast the evolution of these dates following different climate change scenarios (Morin et al ., ; Vitasse et al ., ; Caffarra et al ., ). These models describe how buds respond to temperature and photoperiod during their development and mainly differ by the development phases they consider (either only ecodormancy, or both endo‐ and ecodormancy) and the reaction norms of bud development to temperature and photoperiod during each phase (Chuine et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can phenological models predict tree phenology accurately in the future? The unrevealed hurdle of endodormancy break

Chuine

Bonhomme

Legave

et al. 2016

Global Change Biology

196

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The onset of the growing season of trees has been earlier by 2.3 days per decade during the last 40 years in temperate Europe because of global warming. The effect of temperature on plant phenology is, however, not linear because temperature has a dual effect on bud development. On one hand, low temperatures are necessary to break bud endodormancy, and, on the other hand, higher temperatures are necessary to promote bud cell growth afterward. Different process-based models have been developed in the last decades to predict the date of budbreak of woody species. They predict that global warming should delay or compromise endodormancy break at the species equatorward range limits leading to a delay or even impossibility to flower or set new leaves. These models are classically parameterized with flowering or budbreak dates only, with no information on the endodormancy break date because this information is very scarce. Here, we evaluated the efficiency of a set of phenological models to accurately predict the endodormancy break dates of three fruit trees. Our results show that models calibrated solely with budbreak dates usually do not accurately predict the endodormancy break date. Providing endodormancy break date for the model parameterization results in much more accurate prediction of this latter, with, however, a higher error than that on budbreak dates. Most importantly, we show that models not calibrated with endodormancy break dates can generate large discrepancies in forecasted budbreak dates when using climate scenarios as compared to models calibrated with endodormancy break dates. This discrepancy increases with mean annual temperature and is therefore the strongest after 2050 in the southernmost regions. Our results claim for the urgent need of massive measurements of endodormancy break dates in forest and fruit trees to yield more robust projections of phenological changes in a near future.

show abstract

“…In terms of RMSE, the prediction of bloom dates is of similar quality to that in the literature [20,47,55], which is commonly judged as acceptable [8]. However, when the values were compared to the variability of the dependent variable (date of bloom), using the RPIQ the performance of both models appears weak in the majority of cases (~RPIQ < 3) since this implies the natural variability of the phenomenon is less than three times larger than the RMSE.…”

Section: Evaluation Of the Phenological Modelsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Comparing Apple and Pear Phenology and Model Performance: What Seven Decades of Observations Reveal

Drepper

Gobin

Remy³

et al. 2020

Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on observations for the beginning of the flowering stage of Malus domestica (apple) and Pyrus communis (pear) for the 1950-2018 period, phenological trends in north-eastern Belgium were investigated in function of temperatures during dormancy. Moreover, two different phenological models were adapted and evaluated. Median flowering dates of apple were on average 9.5 days earlier following warm dormancy periods, and 11.5 days for pear, but the relationship between bloom date and temperature was found not to be linear, suggesting delayed fulfilment of dormancy requirements due to increased temperatures during the chilling period. After warm chilling periods, an average delay of 5.0 and 10.6 days in the occurrence date of dormancy break was predicted by the phenological models while the PLSR reveals mixed signals regarding the beginning of flowering. Our results suggest overlapping chilling and forcing processes in a transition phase. Regarding the beginning of flowering, a dynamic chill model coupled to a growing degree days estimation yielded significantly lower prediction errors (on average 5.0 days) than a continuous chill-forcing model (6.0 days), at 99% confidence level. Model performance was sensitive to the applied parametrization method and limitations for the application of both models outside the past temperature ranges became apparent.Other weather-related hazards were several light frost nights, frequent local hailstorms, and three heatwaves in 2019, an extensive drought period for more than two months in combination with a heat wave in 2018, water excess and storms in 2016, and a devastating summer storm in 2011. The consequences of extreme weather in addition to the Russian embargo on fruit imports since 2014 led the entire Belgian fruit sector into an officially recognized crisis, to the extent that federal and regional governments are preparing policies to increase resilience in the face of more frequent extreme weather events and in the context of a changing climate in general.Therefore, a better understanding is needed of the impacts of warming on phenology in the specific case of apple and pear cultivation in Flanders. By means of adapted phenological models, variations in flowering and the related frost-sensitive stage can be estimated across temporal and spatial scales, which can support decision-making regarding (new) orchard locations and cultivar selection.Following [3], the part of the growth cycle between late summer and budburst is conceptualized as dormancy period, and can be decomposed in a sequence of paradormancy, endodormancy, and ecodormancy phases. Endodormancy, i.e., 'chilling period', is induced by lower temperatures in late fall. The moment that a species' specific exposure to cold temperatures has been fulfilled, ecodormancy is induced and the accumulation of growing degree hours becomes the determining process for further phenological development [4], i.e., 'forcing period'. From then onwards, warmer temperatures favor earlier and no longer later bloom. Insolation and tem...

show abstract

A biologically based approach to modeling spring phenology in temperate deciduous trees

Cited by 92 publications

References 37 publications

Chilling and Heat Requirements of Temperate Stone Fruit Trees (Prunus sp.)

Chilling and Heat Requirements of Temperate Stone Fruit Trees (Prunus sp.)

Can phenological models predict tree phenology accurately in the future? The unrevealed hurdle of endodormancy break

Comparing Apple and Pear Phenology and Model Performance: What Seven Decades of Observations Reveal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About