Abstract
Ongoing climate change can shift organism phenology in ways that vary depending on species, habitats and climate factors studied. To probe for large-scale patterns in associated phenological change, we use 70,709 observations from six decades of systematic monitoring across the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Among 110 phenological events related to plants, birds, insects, amphibians and fungi, we find a mosaic of change, defying simple predictions of earlier springs, later autumns and stronger changes at higher latitudes and elevations. Site mean temperature emerged as a strong predictor of local phenology, but the magnitude and direction of change varied with trophic level and the relative timing of an event. Beyond temperature-associated variation, we uncover high variation among both sites and years, with some sites being characterized by disproportionately long seasons and others by short ones. Our findings emphasize concerns regarding ecosystem integrity and highlight the difficulty of predicting climate change outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available in refs. 38,39, with the exact subset of the data used in the present analyses available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3774386.
Code availability
The code needed to replicate the current analyses, from data extraction to parameter estimates presented, is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3774386.
References
Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).
Parmesan, C., Yohe, G. & Andrus, J. E. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).
Thackeray, S. J. et al. Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 3304–3313 (2010).
Root, T. L. et al. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421, 57–60 (2003).
Burrows, M. T. et al. The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science 334, 652–655 (2011).
IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Pau, S. et al. Predicting phenology by integrating ecology, evolution and climate science. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3633–3643 (2011).
Parmesan, C. Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1860–1872 (2007).
Both, C., van Asch, M., Bijlsma, R. G., van den Burg, A. B. & Visser, M. E. Climate change and unequal phenological changes across four trophic levels: constraints or adaptations? J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 73–83 (2009).
Cook, B. I., Wolkovich, E. M. & Parmesan, C. Divergent responses to spring and winter warming drive community level flowering trends. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9000–9005 (2012).
Voigt, W. et al. Trophic levels are differentially sensitive to climate. Ecology 84, 2444–2453 (2003).
Thackeray, S. J. et al. Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels. Nature 535, 241–245 (2016).
Cohen, J. M., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Rohr, J. R. A global synthesis of animal phenological responses to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 224–228 (2018).
Høye, T. T., Post, E., Meltofte, H., Schmidt, N. M. & Forchhammer, M. C. Rapid advancement of spring in the High Arctic. Curr. Biol. 17, R449–R451 (2007).
Menzel, A., Sparks, T. H., Estrella, N. & Roy, D. B. Altered geographic and temporal variability in phenology in response to climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15, 498–504 (2006).
Primack, R. B. et al. Spatial and interspecific variability in phenological responses to warming temperatures. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2569–2577 (2009).
Delgado, M. M. et al. Differences in spatial versus temporal reaction norms for spring and autumn phenological events. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 31249–31258 (2020).
Renner, S. S. & Zohner, C. M. Climate change and phenological mismatch in trophic interactions among plants, insects, and vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 49, 165–182 (2018).
Ackerly, D. D. et al. The geography of climate change: implications for conservation biogeography. Divers. Distrib. 16, 476–487 (2010).
Zohner, C. M., Benito, B. M., Fridley, J. D., Svenning, J. C. & Renner, S. S. Spring predictability explains different leaf-out strategies in the woody floras of North America, Europe and East Asia. Ecol. Lett. 20, 452–460 (2017).
Loarie, S. R. et al. The velocity of climate change. Nature 462, 1052–1055 (2009).
Visser, M. E. & Both, C. Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 2561–2569 (2005).
Hurlbert, A. H. & Liang, Z. Spatiotemporal variation in avian migration phenology: citizen science reveals effects of climate change. PLoS ONE 7, e31662 (2012).
Rubolini, D., Møller, A. P., Rainio, K. & Lehikoinen, E. Intraspecific consistency and geographic variability in temporal trends of spring migration phenology among European bird species. Clim. Res. 35, 135–146 (2007).
Geng, X. et al. Climate warming increases spring phenological differences among temperate trees. Glob. Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.15301 (2020).
Both, C. et al. Large-scale geographical variation confirms that climate change causes birds to lay earlier. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, 1657–1662 (2004).
Menzel, A. & Fabian, P. Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397, 659 (1999).
Körner, C. & Basler, D. Phenology under global warming. Science 327, 1461–1462 (2010).
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).
Ovaskainen, O. et al. Community-level phenological response to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13434–13439 (2013).
Doi, H. & Takahashi, M. Latitudinal patterns in the phenological responses of leaf colouring and leaf fall to climate change in Japan. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 17, 556–561 (2008).
Elzinga, J. A. et al. Time after time: flowering phenology and biotic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 432–439 (2007).
Vilela, A. A., del Claro, V. T. S., Torezan-Silingardi, H. M. & Del-Claro, K. Climate changes affecting biotic interactions, phenology, and reproductive success in a savanna community over a 10-year period. Arthropod Plant Interact. 12, 215–227 (2018).
Kharouba, H. M. & Wolkovich, E. M. Disconnects between ecological theory and data in phenological mismatch research. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 406–415 (2020).
Walther, G.-R. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395 (2002).
Ge, Q., Wang, H., Rutishauser, T. & Dai, J. Phenological response to climate change in China: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 265–274 (2015).
Gallinat, A. S., Primack, R. B. & Wagner, D. L. Autumn, the neglected season in climate change research. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 169–176 (2015).
Ovaskainen, O. et al. Chronicles of nature calendar, a long-term and large-scale multitaxon database on phenology. Sci. Data 7, 47 (2020).
Ovaskainen, O. et al. Chronicles of nature calendar, a long-term and large-scale multitaxon database on phenology. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607556 (2020).
Ovaskainen, O. et al. How to make more out of community data? A conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. Ecol. Lett. 20, 561–576 (2017).
Tikhonov, G. et al. Joint species distribution modelling with the R-package HMSC. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 442–447 (2019).
Ovaskainen, O. & Abrego, N. Joint Species Distribution Modelling With Applications in R (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).
Phillimore, A. B., Hadfield, J. D., Jones, O. R. & Smithers, R. J. Differences in spawning date between populations of common frog reveal local adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8292–8297 (2010).
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araújo, M. B. Multiple dimensions of climate change and their implications for biodiversity. Science 344, 1247579 (2014).
Kudo, G. & Hirao, A. S. Habitat-specific responses in the flowering phenology and seed set of alpine plants to climate variation: implications for global-change impacts. Popul. Ecol. 48, 49–58 (2006).
Altermatt, F. Temperature-related shifts in butterfly phenology depend on the habitat. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2429–2438 (2012).
Neil, K. & Wu, J. Effects of urbanization on plant flowering phenology: a review. Urban Ecosyst. 9, 243–257 (2006).
Shen, M., Piao, S., Cong, N., Zhang, G. & Jassens, I. A. Precipitation impacts on vegetation spring phenology on the Tibetan Plateau. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3647–3656 (2015).
Zhang, J. et al. Rapid shifts of peak flowering phenology in 12 species under the effects of extreme climate events in Macao. Sci. Rep. 8, 13950 (2018).
Chuine, I. Why does phenology drive species distribution? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 3149–3160 (2010).
Radchuk, V. et al. Adaptive responses of animals to climate change are most likely insufficient. Nat. Commun. 10, 3109 (2019).
Harrington, R., Woiwod, I. & Sparks, T. Climate change and trophic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 146–150 (1999).
Carter, S. K., Saenz, D. & Rudolf, V. H. W. Shifts in phenological distributions reshape interaction potential in natural communities. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1143–1151 (2018).
Rudolf, V. H. W. The role of seasonal timing and phenological shifts for species coexistence. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1324–1338 (2019).
Kharouba, H. M. et al. Global shifts in the phenological synchrony of species interactions over recent decades. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 5211–5216 (2018).
Høye, T. T., Post, E., Schmidt, N. M., Trøjelsgaard, K. & Forchhammer, M. C. Shorter flowering seasons and declining abundance of flower visitors in a warmer Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 759–763 (2013).
Schmidt, N. M. et al. An ecological function in crisis? The temporal overlap between plant flowering and pollinator function shrinks as the Arctic warms. Ecography 39, 1250–1252 (2016).
Meyke, E. When data management meets project management. Biodivers. Inf. Sci. Stand. 3, e37224 (2019).
Chmura, H. E. et al. The mechanisms of phenology: the patterns and processes of phenological shifts. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01337 (2019).
Willig, M. R. & Presley, S. J. in Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene Vol. 3 (eds DellaSala, D. A. & Goldstein, M. I.) 13–19 (Elsevier, 2017).
C3S ERA5-Land Reanalysis (Copernicus Climate Change Service, accessed 12 July); https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/home
Hersbach, H. et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803 (2020).
Hijmans, R. J., Williams, E. & Vennes, C. geosphere: Spherical Trigonometry. R package version 1.5-10 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).
R Core Team R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).
Gelman, A. et al. Bayesian Data Analysis (2013).
Acknowledgements
The field work was conducted as part of the monitoring programme of nature reserves, Chronicles of Nature. The work was financially supported by the Academy of Finland, grants 250243 (O.O.), 284601 (O.O.), 309581 (O.O.); the European Research Council, ERC Starting Grant 205905 (O.O.) and Synergy Grant 856506 – LIFEPLAN (to O.O. and T.R.); Nordic Environment Finance Corporation Grant (O.O.); Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation Grant (O.O., T.R., M.H., L.A.); University of Helsinki HiLIFE Fellow Grant 2017–2020 (O.O.); and the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence Funding Scheme (223257) to O.O. via Centre for Biodiversity Dynamics; the Kone Foundation 44-6977 (M.D.) and 55-14839 (G.T.); a Spanish Ramon y Cajal grant RYC-2014-16263 (M.D.); the Federal Budget for the Forest Research Institute of Karelian Research Centre Russian Academy of Sciences 220-2017-0003, 0220-2017-0005 (L.V., S.S. and J.K.); the Russian Foundation for Basic Research Grant 16-08-00510 (L.K.), and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation 0017-2019-0009 (Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences) (N.I., M. Shashkov). We also thank additional colleagues contributing to data collection, especially A. Beshkarev, G. Bushmakova, T. Butorina, L. Chrevova, A. Esipov, N. Gordienko, E. Kireeva, V. Koltsova, I. Kurakina, V. Likhvar, I. Likhvar, D. Mirsaitov, M. Nanynets, L. Ovcharenko, L. Rassohina, E. Romanova, A. Shelekhov, N. Shirshova, D. Sizhko, I. Sorokin, H. Subota, V. Syzhko, G. Talanova, P. Valizer and A. Zakusov.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The data were collected by the 195 authors starting from M.A. and ending with T.Z. in the author list. J.K., E.M., C.L., G.T. and E.G. contributed to the establishment and coordination of the collaborative network and to the compilation and curation of the resulting dataset. T.R., O.O., L.A., M.H. and M.d.M.D. conceived the idea behind the current study and wrote the first draft of the paper, with O.O. conducting the analyses. All authors provided useful comments on earlier drafts.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Hideyuki Doi, Amanda Gallinat 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.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Variance partitioning of alternative HMSC-models.
Plots show the partitioning of the overall variance of the data into the model components identified in the figure legend. Individual panels show results for models with identical structure but using alternative climatic descriptors of the sampling sites; note that the top-left panel corresponds to Fig. 2b of the main text. Silhouettes adapted from https://thenounproject.com.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Explanatory power of alternative HMSC-models.
Plots show the degree of determination (R2) as a function of the timing of the event (mean day of the year when the event occurs) and the trophic level of the organism expressing the event (different colours). Curves show second-order models fitted to groups with at least 5 events; continuous lines show mean model prediction and dashed lines ± one standard error. Individual panels show results for models with identical structure but using alternative climatic descriptors of the sampling sites; note that the top-left panel corresponds to Fig. 2a of the main text. Silhouettes adapted from https://thenounproject.com.
Extended Data Fig. 3 The sign of responses of phenological events to the fixed effects included in the HMSC model.
Plots show cases for which the response is positive (red) or negative (blue) with at least 95% posterior probability. Events have been ordered according to their mean date (increasing from top to bottom). The covariates have been normalized to have zero mean, so that the main effect of the climatic descriptor relates to a data point collected at the middle of the study period, and the main effect of the year relates to a site with an average value of the climatic descriptor. Individual panels show results for models with identical structure but using alternative climatic descriptors of the sampling sites; note that the top-left panel corresponds to Fig. 3a of the main text. Silhouettes adapted from https://thenounproject.com.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Dependency of event-specific responses on phenological timing and on the trophic level of the organism expressing the event.
Individual sections show results for models with identical structure but using alternative climatic descriptors of the sampling sites; note that the top-left section corresponds to Fig. 3b–e of the main text. Within each section, that is for each model, individual panels show the dependency of event-specific responses on phenological timing (mean day of the year when the event occurs) and on the trophic level of the organism expressing the event (shown by curves in different colours for those groups with at least 5 events). The covariates have been normalized to have zero mean, so that the main effect of the climatic descriptor relates to a data point collected at the middle of the study period, and the main effect of the year relates to a site with an average value of the climatic descriptor. In the bottom-right figure within each quadrat, we show the dependency of the response to year × temperature on the response to year; here, the four quadrats within the panel correspond to events that have shifted to earlier especially at cold sites (EC), shifted to earlier especially at warm sites (EW), shifted to later especially at cold sites (LC), and shifted to later especially at warm sites (LW). Filled symbols indicate cases that are either positive or negative with at least 95% posterior probability. Silhouettes adapted from https://thenounproject.com.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Estimated shift in the phenological timing of events occurring in the spring versus autumn as functions of the average climate descriptors of the site.
Plots show the estimated shift in the phenological timing (days per year) among events occurring in the spring (solid line, showing predictions for Day of Year (DOY) 100, that is April 10) versus autumn (dotted line, showing DOY250, that is September 7), plotted against the average climate descriptors of the site. The colours of the lines identify the trophic level of the organism expressing the event. Silhouettes adapted from https://thenounproject.com.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Residual associations among events related to the random effects of the site.
Plots show the estimates of associations among events measured by residual correlation at the site level. The events have been ordered according to their mean date (increasing from left to right, and from top to bottom). Event-to-event association matrices identify pairs showing a positive (red) or negative (blue) association, shown only if association has either sign with at least 95% posterior probability (the remaining cases are shown in white). Note that the top-left panel corresponds to Fig. 4a of the main text. Silhouettes adapted from https://thenounproject.com.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Residual associations among events related to the random effects of the year.
Plots show the estimates of associations between events measured by residual correlation at the year level. The events have been ordered according to their mean date (increasing from left to right, and from top to bottom). Event-to-event association matrices identify pairs showing a positive (red) or negative (blue) association, shown only if association has either sign with at least 95% posterior probability (the remaining cases are shown in white). Note that the top-left panel corresponds to Fig. 4b of the main text. Silhouettes adapted from https://thenounproject.com.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Residual associations among events related to the random effects of the year-site pair.
Plots show the estimates of associations among events measured by residual correlation at the level of samples, that is year×site combinations. The events have been ordered according to their mean date (increasing from left to right, and from top to bottom). Event-to-event association matrices identify pairs showing a positive (red) or negative (blue) association, shown only if association has either sign with at least 95% posterior probability (the remaining cases are shown in white). Note that the top-left panel corresponds to Fig. 4c of the main text. Silhouettes adapted from https://thenounproject.com.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Authors, author affiliations, Supplementary Text 1–3, Table 1 and Fig. 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roslin, T., Antão, L., Hällfors, M. et al. Phenological shifts of abiotic events, producers and consumers across a continent. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 241–248 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00967-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00967-7
This article is cited by
-
Opportunistic plant observations reveal spatial and temporal gradients in phenology
npj Biodiversity (2024)
-
Plasticity and not adaptation is the primary source of temperature-mediated variation in flowering phenology in North America
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2024)
-
Diverging trends and drivers of Arctic flower production in Greenland over space and time
Polar Biology (2023)
-
Phenological shifts and mismatch with marine productivity vary among Pacific salmon species and populations
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2023)
-
Phenological mismatches between above- and belowground plant responses to climate warming
Nature Climate Change (2022)