Research on woody plant species highlights three major cues that shape spring phenological events: chilling, forcing and photoperiod. Increasing research on the phenological impacts of climate change has led to debate over whether chilling and/or photoperiod cues have slowed phenological responses to warming in recent years. Here we use a global meta-analysis of all published experiments to test the relative effects of these cues. Almost all species show strong responses to all three cues, with chilling being the strongest and photoperiod the weakest. Forecasts from our findings for Central Europe suggest that spring phenology will continue to advance, as stalling effects of chilling generally appear above 4 °C warming in this region. Our results unify both sides of the debate over phenological cues: while all species may respond to all cues strongly in experimental conditions, in current environmental conditions the dominant signal of climate change is from increased forcing.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The OSPREE budburst database used in this manuscript is publicly archived in the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity30.
The code for models used in this manuscript is publicly archived in the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity30.
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Miller-Rushing, A. J. & Primack, R. B. Global warming and flowering times in Thoreau’s Concord: a community perspective. Ecology 89, 332—341 (2008).
Menzel, A. et al. European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 1969–1976 (2006).
Cleland, E. E., Chuine, I., Menzel, A., Mooney, H. A. & Schwartz, M. D. Shifting plant phenology in response to global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 357–365 (2007).
Wolkovich, E. M. et al. Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change. Nature 485, 494–497 (2012).
Rutishauser, T., Luterbacher, J., Defila, C., Frank, D. & Wanner, H. Swiss spring plant phenology 2007: extremes, a multi-century perspective, and changes in temperature sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L05703 (2008).
Yu, H. Y., Luedeling, E. & Xu, J. C. Winter and spring warming result in delayed spring phenology on the Tibetan Plateau. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 22151–22156 (2010).
Wang, X. et al. No trends in spring and autumn phenology during the global warming hiatus. Nat. Commun. 10, 2389 (2019).
Fu, Y. S. H. et al. Declining global warming effects on the phenology of spring leaf unfolding. Nature 526, 104–107 (2015).
Chuine, I. et al. Can phenological models predict tree phenology accurately in the future? The unrevealed hurdle of endodormancy break. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3444–3460 (2016).
Harrington, C. A. & Gould, P. J. Tradeoffs between chilling and forcing in satisfying dormancy requirements for Pacific Northwest tree species. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 120 (2015).
Zohner, C. M., Benito, B. M., Svenning, J. C. & Renner, S. S. Day length unlikely to constrain climate-driven shifts in leaf-out times of northern woody plants. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1120–1123 (2016).
Basler, D. & Körner, C. Photoperiod and temperature responses of bud swelling and bud burst in four temperate forest tree species. Tree Physiol. 34, 377–388 (2014).
Caffarra, A., Donnelly, A., Chuine, I. & Jones, M. B. Modelling the timing of Betula pubescens bud-burst. I. Temperature and photoperiod: a conceptual model. Clim. Res. 46, 147–157 (2011).
Flynn, D. F. B. & Wolkovich, E. M. Temperature and photoperiod drive spring phenology across all species in a temperate forest community. New Phytol. 219, 1353–1362 (2018).
Caffarra, A., Donnelly, A. & Chuine, I. Modelling the timing of Betula pubescens budburst. II. Integrating complex effects of photoperiod into process-based models. Clim. Res. 46, 159–170 (2011).
Fraga, H., Pinto, J. G. & Santos, J. A. Climate Change projections for chilling and heat forcing conditions in European vineyards and olive orchards: a multi-model assessment. Climatic Change 152, 179–193 (2019).
Heide, O. Daylength and thermal time responses of budburst during dormancy release in some northern deciduous trees. Physiol. Plant. 88, 531–540 (1993).
Singh, R. K., Svystun, T., AlDahmash, B., Jönsson, A. M. & Bhalerao, R. P. Photoperiod- and temperature-mediated control of phenology in trees—a molecular perspective. New Phytol. 213, 511–524 (2017).
Vitasse, Y. & Basler, D. What role for photoperiod in the bud burst phenology of European beech. Eur. J. For. Res. 132, 1–8 (2013).
Vitasse, Y. & Basler, D. Is the use of cuttings a good proxy to explore phenological responses of temperate forests in warming and photoperiod experiments? Tree Physiol. 34, 174–183 (2014).
Laube, J. et al. Chilling outweighs photoperiod in preventing precocious spring development. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 170–182 (2014).
Basler, D. & Körner, C. Photoperiod sensitivity of bud burst in 14 temperate forest tree species. Agric. For. Meteorol. 165, 73–81 (2012).
Caffarra, A. & Donnelly, A. The ecological significance of phenology in four different tree species: effects of light and temperature on bud burst. Int. J. Biometeorol. 55, 711–721 (2011).
Ohlemüller, R., Gritti, E. S., Sykes, M. T. & Thomas, C. D. Towards European climate risk surfaces: the extent and distribution of analogous and non-analogous climates 1931–2100. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15, 395–405 (2006).
Williams, J. W. & Jackson, S. T. Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 475–482 (2007).
Williams, J. W., Jackson, S. T. & Kutzbacht, J. E. Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5738–5742 (2007).
IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Xu, Y., Ramanathan, V. & Victor, D. G. Global warming will happen faster than we think. Nature 564, 30–32 (2018).
Wolkovich, E. M. et al. Observed Spring Phenology Responses in Experimental Environments (OSPREE) (Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity, 2019); https://doi.org/10.5063/F1CZ35KB
Richardson, E. A model for estimating the completion of rest for ‘Redhaven’ and ’Elberta’ peach trees. HortScience 9, 331–332 (1974).
Dennis, F. Problems in standardizing methods for evaluating the chilling requirements for the breaking of dormancy in buds of woody plants. HortScience 38, 347–350 (2003).
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
Fu, Y. H. et al. Short photoperiod reduces the temperature sensitivity of leaf-out in saplings of Fagus sylvatica but not in horse chestnut. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1696–1703 (2019).
Bradley, N. L., Leopold, A. C., Ross, J. & Huffaker, W. Phenological changes reflect climate change in Wisconsin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9701–9704 (1999).
Gauzere, J., Lucas, C., Ronce, O., Davi, H. & Chuine, I. Sensitivity analysis of tree phenology models reveals increasing sensitivity of their predictions to winter chilling temperature and photoperiod with warming climate. Ecol. Model. 441, 108805 (2019).
Heide, O. & Prestrud, A. Low temperature, but not photoperiod, controls growth cessation and dormancy induction and release in apple and pear. Tree Physiol. 25, 109–114 (2005).
van der Schoot, C., Paul, L. K. & Rinne, P. L. H. The embryonic shoot: a lifeline through winter. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 1699–1712 (2014).
Fishman, S., Erez, A. & Couvillon, G. The temperature dependence of dormancy breaking in plants: mathematical analysis of a two-step model involving a cooperative transition. J. Theor. Biol. 124, 473–483 (1987).
Weinberger, J. H. et al. Chilling requirements of peach varieties. Proc. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 56, 122–128 (1950).
Polgar, C. A., Primack, R. B., Williams, E. H., Stichter, S. & Hitchcock, C. Climate effects on the flight period of Lycaenid butterflies in Massachusetts. Biol. Conserv. 160, 25–31 (2013).
Vitasse, Y. Ontogenic changes rather than difference in temperature cause understory trees to leaf out earlier. New Phytol. 198, 149–155 (2013).
Laube, J., Sparks, T. H., Estrella, N. & Menzel, A. Does humidity trigger tree phenology? Proposal for an air humidity based framework for bud development in spring. New Phytol. 202, 350–355 (2014).
Li, C., Stevens, B. & Marotzke, J. Eurasian winter cooling in the warming hiatus of 1998–2012. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 8131–8139 (2015).
Balling, R. C. J., Michaels, P. J. & Knappenberger, P. C. Analysis of winter and summer warming rates in gridded temperature time series. Clim. Res. 9, 175–181 (1998).
Hänninen, H. Effects of climatic change on trees from cool and temperate regions: an ecophysiological approach to modelling of bud burst phenology. Can. J. Bot. 73, 183–199 (1995).
Güsewell, S., Furrer, R., Gehrig, R. & Pietragalla, B. Changes in temperature sensitivity of spring phenology with recent climate warming in Switzerland are related to shifts of the preseason. Glob. Change Biol.23, 5189–5202 (2017).
Roberts, A. M., Tansey, C., Smithers, R. J. & Phillimore, A. B. Predicting a change in the order of spring phenology in temperate forests. Glob. Change Biol.21, 2603–2611 (2015).
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 264–269 (2009).
Kicinski, M. Publication bias in recent meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 8, e81823 (2013).
Gurevitch, J., Morrow, L. L., Wallace, A. & Walsh, J. S. A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am. Nat. 140, 539–572 (1992).
Gurevitch, J. & Hedges, L. V. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80, 1142–1149 (1999).
Lin, L. F. & Chu, H. T. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 74, 785–794 (2018).
Luedeling, E. & Brown, P. H. A global analysis of the comparability of winter chill models for fruit and nut trees. Int. J. Biometeorol. 55, 411–421 (2011).
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).
Luedeling, E. chillR: statistical methods for phenology analysis in temperate fruit trees. R package version 0.70.17 (2019).
Cornes, R. C., van der Schrier, G., van den Besselaar, E. J. & Jones, P. D. An ensemble version of the E-OBS temperature and precipitation data sets. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 9391–9409 (2018).
Livneh, B.et al. A spatially comprehensive, hydrometeorological data set for Mexico, the US, and Southern Canada 1950–2013. Sci. Data 2, 150042 (2015).
Harrington, C. A., Gould, P. J. & St Clair, J. B. Modeling the effects of winter environment on dormancy release of Douglas-fir. For. Ecol. Manag. 259, 798–808 (2010).
Carpenter, B. et al. Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01(2017).
Stan Development Team. RStan: the R interface to Stan. R package version 2.17.3 (2018).
Gelman, A. et al. Bayesian Data Analysis (CRC Press, 2014).
Gauzere, J. et al. Integrating interactive effects of chilling and photoperiod in phenological process-based models. A case study with two European tree species: Fagus sylvatica and Quercus petraea. Agric. For. Meteorol. 244, 9–20 (2017).
Saikkonen, K. et al. Climate change-driven species’ range shifts filtered by photoperiodism. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 239 (2012).
Way, D. A. & Montgomery, R. A. Photoperiod constraints on tree phenology, performance and migration in a warming world. Plant Cell Environ. 38, 1725–1736 (2015).
Chuine, I., Garcia de Cortazar Atauri, I., Hanninen, H. & Kramer, K. in Phenology: An Integrative Environmental Science (ed. Schwartz M.) 275–293 (Springer, 2013).
Stan Development Team Stan User’s Guide v.2.19 (Stan, 2019).
We thank the many researchers who conducted the experiments synthesized in this manuscript. We thank B. Cook for help with climate data, E. Forrestel for assisting with data scraping and C. Zohner for sharing tables. We also thank J. Davies, S. Elmendorf and J. HilleRisLambers for helpful comments that improved the manuscript. The National Science Foundation (grant no. DBI 14-01854 to A.K.E.), NSERC Discovery Award (grant no. RGPIN-05038 to E.M.W.), Canada Research Chair in Temporal Ecology (E.M.W.) and Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation (grant no. CGL2017-86926-P and PID2019/109711RJ-I00 to I.M.-C.) provided funding. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Albert Phillimore, Constantin Zohner and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Legend shows each dataset included in the main OSPREE model with all species and treatments (Supplementary Tables 5, 6); symbols outlined in black represent datasets included in the main budburst model; triangles represent studies in which chilling was manipulated experimentally or through multiple field sample dates; circles represent studies that did not manipulate chilling. See Supplementary Table 1 for the reference associated with each dataset.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Map of maximum and minimum chilling, forcing, and photoperiod treatments, across all data included in our main model, and the locations where each experiment was conducted.
We did not find strong positive spatial autocorrelation—that is, indicating higher similarity in the treatments applied to experiments in nearby locations- in either minimum (A,C,E) or maximum (B,D,F) treatments, as measured by Moran’s I (shown here for European sites). Insets show relationship of each cue’s treatment level with the latitude of the experiment.
Heatmaps show the range and commonness of different forcing (x-axis in all panels) by photoperiod (y-axis in all panels) combinations and with which chilling they were combined. In (A, top and bottom) we show our estimated chill units, which integrate across field (B, top and bottom) and experimental chilling (C, top and bottom). The top row shows all data included in the full model with 203 species, while the bottom row shows the data included in the main model with a subset of species well-represented across treatments and studies. Grey squares indicate a treatment was not applied (that is, the prevalence of grey squares in (C) highlights how few studies include experimental chilling). Field sample dates are counted as any reported sampling dates more than 14 days apart.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Chilling accumulates differently in experiments with constant temperatures versus natural systems, in which temperature is more strongly correlated with chilling.
See ‘Estimating chilling’ in Methods for a detailed description of ‘Field’ climate data, for which we use historical climate data from Europe. Fig. 3 uses ‘Field’ relationships (that is, climate data and relationships from field chilling conditions to convert chill temperature to total chilling), whereas Supplementary Fig. 2 uses ‘Constant temperature’ conditions (analogous to most experimental conditions) to estimate total chilling.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Estimates for effects of chilling exceeded estimates for forcing, photoperiod, provenance latitude, and the interaction between latitude and photoperiod, for most species, in the latitude budburst model.
Using Utah units for chilling (Supplementary Table 10) and standardized predictor variables, which allow comparisons across cues, we show that, as with the main budburst model (Fig. 2), most species (smaller symbols) are responsive to most cues. Chilling is the strongest cue when considering overall estimates across species (larger, dark blue circles).
Extended Data Fig. 6 Forecasted changes in chilling and spring phenology vary with amount of warming across European locations included in the PEP725 database.
Changes in chilling (top panel) and budburst for Betula pendula (bottom panel) are calculated relative to the mean chilling and leafout dates during a prewarming time period (1951-1960) for each location. Arrows indicate sites shown in Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 4A (latitude = 46.8∘N, longitude = 12.8∘E, 659 m above sea level) and Fig. 4b and Supplementary Fig. 4B (latitude = 48.3∘N, longitude = 15.8∘E, 210 m above sea level).
Extended Data Fig. 7 Budburst is affected by climate change induced shifts in photoperiod, especially at high latitudes, although effects vary by site and are minor compared to effects of warming.
We show forecasted effects of varying levels of warming on Fagus sylvatica, the most photoperiod-sensitive species in our database, across three latitudes within its range, as predicted by the latitude model. The low latitude site (A) is located at 46.8∘N, 15.7∘E; the mid-latitude site (B) is located at 47.7∘N, 16.3∘E; and the high-latitude (C) site is located at 48.8∘N, 15.4∘E.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Declining sensitivities observed in long-term European data for a suite of common trees may be explained by a statistical artefact.
We compared the sensitivity estimated from linear regressions of day of leafout versus mean spring temperature (estimated thus as days/°C) from PEP725 data for Betula pendula from 45 sites (‘European data’) with estimated declines using simulations where the cues were held constant but spring temperatures warmed by 1-4°C (‘Simulations’) and found the estimated temperature sensitivity measured as days/°C declined even though the underlying cues had not changed. See Potential statistical artefacts in declines of temperature sensitivity in observational long-term data in the Supplementary Information for further details.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Day of leafout varies with chilling, growing degree-days, and mean spring temperature.
These relationships are shown prewarming (left panels, 1951-1960) and post-warming (right panels, 2000-2010) for PEP725 sites in Germany where Betula pendula phenology has been monitored for decades.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Growing degree days (GDD) versus chill units at the time of budburst from the OSPREE database for common species in the PEP725 long-term phenological database.
The black line shows the range of chilling (10-90% quantiles) accumulated from 1 September to 1 March for 45 sites for Betula pendula (see also Potential statistical artefacts in declines of temperature sensitivity in observational long-term data in the Supplementary Information). We calculated GDD here as the average daily forcing temperature multiplied by days to budburst.
About this article
Cite this article
Ettinger, A.K., Chamberlain, C.J., Morales-Castilla, I. et al. Winter temperatures predominate in spring phenological responses to warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 1137–1142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00917-3
Establishing the twig method for investigations on pollen characteristics of allergenic tree species
International Journal of Biometeorology (2021)
Nature Communications (2021)