Phenological responses of Icelandic subarctic grasslands to short‐term and long‐term natural soil warming

Leblans, Niki I. W.; Sigurðsson, Bjarni D.; Vicca, Sara; Fu, Yongshuo H.; Peñuelas, Josep; Janssens, Ivan A.

doi:10.1111/gcb.13749

Cited by 55 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 79 publications

(158 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have suggested that the response of flowering time to temperature is mainly due to phenotypic plasticity, which is controlled by plant physiology, and thus can be relatively rapid (De Frenne et al, ; Frei et al, ). The earlier flowering phenology at warmer microsites along the temperature gradient observed in this study is in agreement with a reported advancement in the start of the growing season in response to warming at a nearby site (Leblans et al, ). Previous studies with northern plant species have shown that the physiological control mechanisms of the start of the growing season are to a larger extent driven by heat accumulation (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

A natural heating experiment: Phenotypic and genotypic responses of plant phenology to geothermal soil warming

Valdés

Marteinsdóttir

Ehrlén

2018

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under global warming, the survival of many populations of sedentary organisms in seasonal environments will largely depend on their ability to cope with warming in situ by means of phenotypic plasticity or adaptive evolution. This is particularly true in high‐latitude environments, where current growing seasons are short, and expected temperature increases large. In such short‐growing season environments, the timing of growth and reproduction is critical to survival. Here, we use the unique setting provided by a natural geothermal soil warming gradient (Hengill geothermal area, Iceland) to study the response of Cerastium fontanum flowering phenology to temperature. We hypothesized that trait expression and phenotypic selection on flowering phenology are related to soil temperature, and tested the hypothesis that temperature‐driven differences in selection on phenology have resulted in genetic differentiation using a common garden experiment. In the field, phenology was related to soil temperature, with plants in warmer microsites flowering earlier than plants at colder microsites. In the common garden, plants responded to spring warming in a counter‐gradient fashion; plants originating from warmer microsites flowered relatively later than those originating from colder microsites. A likely explanation for this pattern is that plants from colder microsites have been selected to compensate for the shorter growing season by starting development at lower temperatures. However, in our study we did not find evidence of variation in phenotypic selection on phenology in relation to temperature, but selection consistently favoured early flowering. Our results show that soil temperature influences trait expression and suggest the existence of genetically based variation in flowering phenology leading to counter‐gradient local adaptation along a gradient of soil temperatures. An important implication of our results is that observed phenotypic responses of phenology to global warming might often be a combination of short‐term plastic responses and long‐term evolutionary responses, acting in different directions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

A natural heating experiment: Phenotypic and genotypic responses of plant phenology to geothermal soil warming

Valdés

Marteinsdóttir

Ehrlén

2018

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The base temperature is similar to a previous study in subarctic grassland (Leblans et al. )

HAC = {false\sum}_{0}^{ph} false| T_{t} - T_{base} false|, if T_{t} > T_{base}

CAC = {false\sum}_{0}^{ph} false| T_{t} - T_{base} false|, if T_{t} < T_{base}

RMSE = \frac{\sqrt{\sum_{i = 1}^{N} {()(, {obs}_{i} - {pre}_{i})}^{2}}}{normalN}

…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 82%

“…, Leblans et al. ). We found that the base temperature is ~ −2°C for T MAX and T MIN on an alpine meadow in the Tibetan Plateau.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opposite effects of winter day and night temperature changes on early phenophases

Meng

Zhang

et al. 2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes in day (maximum temperature, TMAX) and night temperature (minimum temperature, TMIN) in the preseason (e.g., winter and spring) may have opposite effects on early phenophases (e.g., leafing and flowering) due to changing requirements of chilling accumulations (CAC) and heating accumulations (HAC), which could cause advance, delay or no change in early phenophases. However, their relative effects on phenology are largely unexplored, especially on the Tibetan Plateau. Here, observations were performed using a warming and cooling experiment in situ through reciprocal transplantation (2008–2010) on the Tibetan Plateau. We found that winter minimum temperature (TMIN) warming significantly delayed mean early phenophases by 8.60 d/°C, but winter maximum temperature (TMAX) warming advanced them by 12.06 d/°C across six common species. Thus, winter mean temperature warming resulted in a net advance of 3.46 d/°C in early phenophases. In contrast, winter TMIN cooling, on average, significantly advanced early phenophases by 5.12 d/°C, but winter TMAX cooling delayed them by 7.40 d/°C across six common species, resulting in a net delay of 2.28 d/°C for winter mean temperature cooling. The opposing effects of TMAX and TMIN warming on the early phenophases may be mainly caused by decreased CAC due to TMIN warming (5.29 times greater than TMAX) and increased HAC due to TMAX warming (3.25 times greater than TMIN), and similar processes apply to TMAX and TMIN cooling. Therefore, our study provides another insight into why some plant phenophases remain unchanged or delayed under climate change.

show abstract

“…The timing of leaf senescence simulated by cooling degree days-based models has been compared in earlier studies with in situ observations (Archetti, Richardson, O'Keefe, & Delpierre, 2013;Delpierre et al, 2009;Jolly, Nemani, & Running, 2005;Vitasse et al, 2011). In addition, recent studies have reported a positive correlation between spring leaf-out and leaf senescence dates in trees (Fu et al, 2014;Signarbieux et al, 2017), delayed senescence following exceptionally late spring greening in subarctic grasslands (Leblans et al, 2017), and the performance of senescence models was substantially improved by incorporating this legacy effect. Furthermore, good model performances were found in boreal tree species (Koski & Siev€ anen, 1985;Partanen, 2004; Viher€ a-Aarnio, H€ akkinen, Partanen, Luomajoki, & Koski, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Larger temperature response of autumn leaf senescence than spring leaf‐out phenology

Piao

Delpierre

et al. 2018

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate warming is substantially shifting the leaf phenological events of plants, and thereby impacting on their individual fitness and also on the structure and functioning of ecosystems. Previous studies have largely focused on the climate impact on spring phenology, and to date the processes underlying leaf senescence and their associated environmental drivers remain poorly understood. In this study, experiments with temperature gradients imposed during the summer and autumn were conducted on saplings of European beech to explore the temperature responses of leaf senescence. An additional warming experiment during winter enabled us to assess the differences in temperature responses of spring leaf-out and autumn leaf senescence. We found that warming significantly delayed the dates of leaf senescence both during summer and autumn warming, with similar temperature sensitivities (6-8 days delay per °C warming), suggesting that, in the absence of water and nutrient limitation, temperature may be a dominant factor controlling the leaf senescence in European beech. Interestingly, we found a significantly larger temperature response of autumn leaf senescence than of spring leaf-out. This suggests a possible larger contribution of delays in autumn senescence, than of the advancement in spring leaf-out, to extending the growing season under future warmer conditions.

show abstract

Phenological responses of Icelandic subarctic grasslands to short‐term and long‐term natural soil warming

Cited by 55 publications

References 79 publications

A natural heating experiment: Phenotypic and genotypic responses of plant phenology to geothermal soil warming

A natural heating experiment: Phenotypic and genotypic responses of plant phenology to geothermal soil warming

Opposite effects of winter day and night temperature changes on early phenophases

Larger temperature response of autumn leaf senescence than spring leaf‐out phenology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About