4.8 Article

The influence of local spring temperature variance on temperature sensitivity of spring phenology

期刊

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 1473-1480

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12509

关键词

temperature variance; PEP725; spring phenology; temperature sensitivity

资金

  1. French ANR CLASSIQUE project
  2. Office of Integrative Activities
  3. Office Of The Director [1443108] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of climate warming on the advancement of plant spring phenology has been heavily investigated over the last decade and there exists great variability among plants in their phenological sensitivity to temperature. However, few studies have explicitly linked phenological sensitivity to local climate variance. Here, we set out to test the hypothesis that the strength of phenological sensitivity declines with increased local spring temperature variance, by synthesizing results across ground observations. We assemble ground-based long-term (20-50years) spring phenology database (PEP725 database) and the corresponding climate dataset. We find a prevalent decline in the strength of phenological sensitivity with increasing local spring temperature variance at the species level from ground observations. It suggests that plants might be less likely to track climatic warming at locations with larger local spring temperature variance. This might be related to the possibility that the frost risk could be higher in a larger local spring temperature variance and plants adapt to avoid this risk by relying more on other cues (e.g., high chill requirements, photoperiod) for spring phenology, thus suppressing phenological responses to spring warming. This study illuminates that local spring temperature variance is an understudied source in the study of phenological sensitivity and highlight the necessity of incorporating this factor to improve the predictability of plant responses to anthropogenic climate change in future studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据