Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Warm springs alter timing but not total growth of temperate deciduous trees

Nature volume 608, pages 552–557 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

As the climate changes, warmer spring temperatures are causing earlier leaf-out1,2,3 and commencement of CO2 uptake1,3 in temperate deciduous forests, resulting in a tendency towards increased growing season length3 and annual CO2 uptake1,3,4,5,6,7. However, less is known about how spring temperatures affect tree stem growth8,9, which sequesters carbon in wood that has a long residence time in the ecosystem10,11. Here we show that warmer spring temperatures shifted stem diameter growth of deciduous trees earlier but had no consistent effect on peak growing season length, maximum growth rates, or annual growth, using dendrometer band measurements from 440 trees across two forests. The latter finding was confirmed on the centennial scale by 207 tree-ring chronologies from 108 forests across eastern North America, where annual ring width was far more sensitive to temperatures during the peak growing season than in the spring. These findings imply that any extra CO2 uptake in years with warmer spring temperatures4,5 does not significantly contribute to increased sequestration in long-lived woody stem biomass. Rather, contradicting projections from global carbon cycle models1,12, our empirical results imply that warming spring temperatures are unlikely to increase woody productivity enough to strengthen the long-term CO2 sink of temperate deciduous forests.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Summary of temperate deciduous tree growth responses to warmer spring temperatures.
Fig. 2: Responses of foliage phenology and stem growth timing to spring temperatures at SCBI and Harvard Forest.
Fig. 3: Sensitivity of annual growth, as derived from tree rings, to monthly mean Tmax, for 207 chronologies from 108 sites across eastern North America.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available via GitHub in the growth_phenology repository of the ForestGEO Ecosystems & Climate Lab at SCBI (https://github.com/EcoClimLab/growth_phenology) and archived in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6632090). Master versions of the dendrometer band data are available for SCBI via GitHub in the Dendrobands repository of the SCBI ForestGEO plot (https://github.com/SCBI-ForestGEO/Dendrobands), which is archived in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5551143), and for Harvard Forest via the Harvard Forest Data Archive (https://harvardforest1.fas.harvard.edu/exist/apps/datasets/showData.html?id=HF149). Weather data for SCBI were obtained from the ForestGEO Climate Data Portal v1.0 (https://github.com/forestgeo/Climate/tree/master/Climate_Data/Met_Stations/SCBI), which is archived in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3958215), and the NCEI weather station located in Front Royal, VA, USA (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USC00443229/detail). Weather data for Harvard Forest are available through the Harvard Forest Data Archive (https://harvardforest1.fas.harvard.edu/exist/apps/datasets/showData.html?id=HF001 and https://harvardforest1.fas.harvard.edu/exist/apps/datasets/showData.html?id=HF000). Climate data were obtained from CRU v.4.04 via the ForestGEO Climate Data Portal v1.0 (https://github.com/forestgeo/Climate/tree/master/Climate_Data/CRU), which is archived in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3958215). The SPEI was obtained from the ForestGEO Climate Data Portal v1.0 (https://github.com/forestgeo/Climate/tree/master/Climate_Data/SPEI), which is archived in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3958215). Canopy foliage phenology data were extracted from the MCD12Q2 V6 Land Cover Dynamics product (that is, MODIS Global Vegetation Phenology product) via Google Earth Engine (https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/MODIS_006_MCD12Q2#description). In addition to being archived in the repository for this project, many tree-ring datasets are archived in the International Tree-Ring Data Bank (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology/tree-ring), the DendroEcological Network (https://www.uvm.edu/femc/dendro/) and/or the Harvard Forest Data Archive (https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/harvard-forest-data-archive), as detailed in Supplementary Table 1. Original tree cores are archived at the institutions of various members of the author team (Harvard Forest, SCBI, Indiana University and University of Idaho) and will be made available on reasonable request.

Code availability

Data were analysed in the open source statistical software R (version 4.0). We used the packages climwin v.1.2.3 (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/climwin/index.html), dplR v.1.0.2, bootRes v1.2.4, rstanarm v.2.21.1 and functions from Rdendrom v.0.1.0 (https://github.com/seanmcm/RDendrom/). We used climpact software v.1.2.8 (see www.climpact-sci.org). Mixed-effect models were run within a hierarchical Bayesian framework and fit using the rstanarm version 2.21.3 R interface to the Stan programming language (source code available at https://github.com/EcoClimLab/growth_phenology#steps-to-replicate-the-analysis). Tree-ring chronologies were developed using the program ARSTAN V49_1b (https://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/dendrosoftware/). All custom codes are available through the EcoClimlab GitHub repository (https://github.com/EcoClimLab/growth_phenology) and archived in Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6632090).

References

  1. Keenan, T. F. et al. Net carbon uptake has increased through warming-induced changes in temperate forest phenology. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 598–604 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buermann, W. et al. Widespread seasonal compensation effects of spring warming on northern plant productivity. Nature 562, 110–114 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Finzi, A. C. et al. Carbon budget of the Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research site: pattern, process, and response to global change. Ecol. Monogr. 90, e01423 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Keeling, C. D., Chin, J. F. S. & Whorf, T. P. Increased activity of northern vegetation inferred from atmospheric CO2 measurements. Nature 382, 146–149 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dragoni, D. et al. Evidence of increased net ecosystem productivity associated with a longer vegetated season in a deciduous forest in south-central Indiana, USA. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17, 886–897 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhou, S. et al. Explaining inter-annual variability of gross primary productivity from plant phenology and physiology. Agric. For. Meteorol. 226–227, 246–256 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fu, Z. et al. Maximum carbon uptake rate dominates the interannual variability of global net ecosystem exchange. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 3381–3394 (2019).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Savage, J. A. & Chuine, I. Coordination of spring vascular and organ phenology in deciduous angiosperms growing in seasonally cold climates. New Phytol. 230, 1700–1715 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Delpierre, N. et al. Temperate and boreal forest tree phenology: from organ-scale processes to terrestrial ecosystem models. Ann. For. Sci. 73, 5–25 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Xue, B.-L. et al. Global patterns of woody residence time and its influence on model simulation of aboveground biomass. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 821–835 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Russell, M. B. et al. Residence times and decay rates of downed woody debris biomass/carbon in eastern US forests. Ecosystems 17, 765–777 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Richardson, A. D. et al. Terrestrial biosphere models need better representation of vegetation phenology: results from the North American Carbon Program Site Synthesis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 566–584 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Harris, N. L. et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 234–240 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4382–4387 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ahlström, A., Schurgers, G., Arneth, A. & Smith, B. Robustness and uncertainty in terrestrial ecosystem carbon response to CMIP5 climate change projections. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044008 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 3269–3340 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fatichi, S., Leuzinger, S. & Körner, C. Moving beyond photosynthesis: from carbon source to sink-driven vegetation modeling. New Phytol. 201, 1086–1095 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lu, X. & Keenan, T. F. No evidence for a negative effect of growing season photosynthesis on leaf senescence timing. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 3083–3093 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jiang, M. et al. The fate of carbon in a mature forest under carbon dioxide enrichment. Nature 580, 227–231 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Oishi, A. C. et al. Warmer temperatures reduce net carbon uptake, but do not affect water use, in a mature southern Appalachian forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 252, 269–282 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Delpierre, N., Berveiller, D., Granda, E. & Dufrêne, E. Wood phenology, not carbon input, controls the interannual variability of wood growth in a temperate oak forest. New Phytol. 210, 459–470 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang, J.-G. et al. Photoperiod and temperature as dominant environmental drivers triggering secondary growth resumption in Northern Hemisphere conifers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20645–20652 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Rossi, S. et al. Critical temperatures for xylogenesis in conifers of cold climates. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17, 696–707 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Babst, F. et al. Twentieth century redistribution in climatic drivers of global tree growth. Sci. Adv. 5, eaat4313 (2019).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gao, S. et al. An earlier start of the thermal growing season enhances tree growth in cold humid areas but not in dry areas. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 397–404 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zweifel, R. et al. Why trees grow at night. New Phytol. 231, 2174–2185 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tumajer, J., Scharnweber, T., Smiljanic, M. & Wilmking, M. Limitation by vapour pressure deficit shapes different intra-annual growth patterns of diffuse- and ring-porous temperate broadleaves. New Phytol. 233, 2429–2441 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Etzold, S. et al. Number of growth days and not length of the growth period determines radial stem growth of temperate trees. Ecol. Lett. 25, 427–439 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zani, D., Crowther, T. W., Mo, L., Renner, S. S. & Zohner, C. M. Increased growing-season productivity drives earlier autumn leaf senescence in temperate trees. Science 370, 1066–1071 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zohner, C. M., Renner, S. S., Sebald, V. & Crowther, T. W. How changes in spring and autumn phenology translate into growth-experimental evidence of asymmetric effects. J. Ecol. 109, 2717–2728 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cabon, A. et al. Cross-biome synthesis of source versus sink limits to tree growth. Science 376, 758–761 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. D’Orangeville, L. et al. Drought timing and local climate determine the sensitivity of eastern temperate forests to drought. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2339–2351 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Helcoski, R. et al. Growing season moisture drives interannual variation in woody productivity of a temperate deciduous forest. New Phytol. 223, 1204–1216 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McMahon, S. M. & Parker, G. G. A general model of intra-annual tree growth using dendrometer bands. Ecol. Evol. 5, 243–254 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. D’Orangeville, L. et al. Peak radial growth of diffuse-porous species occurs during periods of lower water availability than for ring-porous and coniferous trees. Tree Physiol. 42, 304–316 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Richardson, A. D. et al. Seasonal dynamics and age of stemwood nonstructural carbohydrates in temperate forest trees. New Phytol. 197, 850–861 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Elmore, A. J., Nelson, D. M. & Craine, J. M. Earlier springs are causing reduced nitrogen availability in North American eastern deciduous forests. Nat. Plants 2, 16133 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cuny, H. E. et al. Woody biomass production lags stem-girth increase by over one month in coniferous forests. Nat. Plants 1, 15160 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tardif, J. C. & Conciatori, F. Influence of climate on tree rings and vessel features in red oak and white oak growing near their northern distribution limit, southwestern Quebec, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 36, 2317–2330 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Roibu, C.-C. et al. The climatic response of tree ring width components of ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) and common oak (Quercus robur L.) from eastern Europe. Forests 11, 600 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kern, Z. et al. Multiple tree-ring proxies (earlywood width, latewood width and δ13C) from pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.), Hungary. Quat. Int. 293, 257–267 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Trumbore, S., Gaudinski, J. B., Hanson, P. J. & Southon, J. R. Quantifying ecosystem-atmosphere carbon exchange with a 14C label. Eos. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 83, 265–268 (2002).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Del Mar Delgado, 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. Joint effects of climate, tree size, and year on annual tree growth derived from tree-ring records of ten globally distributed forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 245–266 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Banbury Morgan, R. et al. Global patterns of forest autotrophic carbon fluxes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 2840–2855 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Churkina, G., Schimel, D., Braswell, B. H. & Xiao, X. Spatial analysis of growing season length control over net ecosystem exchange. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 1777–1787 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  47. Liu, H. et al. Phenological mismatches between above- and belowground plant responses to climate warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 97–102 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 1023–1027 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang, J. et al. Drought limits wood production of Juniperus przewalskii even as growing seasons lengthens in a cold and arid environment. CATENA 196, 104936 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lian, X. et al. Summer soil drying exacerbated by earlier spring greening of northern vegetation. Sci. Adv. 6, eaax0255 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bourg, N. A., McShea, W. J., Thompson, J. R., McGarvey, J. C. & Shen, X. Initial census, woody seedling, seed rain, and stand structure data for the SCBI SIGEO Large Forest Dynamics Plot. Ecology 94, 2111–2112 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. CTFS-ForestGEO: a worldwide network monitoring forests in an era of global change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 528–549 (2015).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Davies, S. J. et al. ForestGEO: understanding forest diversity and dynamics through a global observatory network. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108907 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S. & López-Moreno, J. I. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. J. Clim. 23, 1696–1718 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  56. Herrmann, V. et al. Tree circumference dynamics in four forests characterized using automated dendrometer bands. PLoS ONE 11, e0169020 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Friedl, M., Gray, J. & Sulla-Menashe, D. MCD12Q2 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Land Cover Dynamics Yearly L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006. LAADS DAAC https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD12Q2.006 (2019).

  58. Anderson-Teixeira, K. et al. Forestgeo/Climate: initial release. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4041609 (2020).

  59. Benestad, R. E., Hanssen-Bauer, I. & Chen, D. Empirical-Statistical Downscaling (World Scientific, 2008).

  60. Boose, E. & Gould, E. Shaler Meteorological Station at Harvard Forest 1964–2002. Environmental Data Initiative https://doi.org/10.6073/PASTA/213335F5DAA17222A738C105B9FA60C4 (2021).

  61. Boose, E. Fisher Meteorological Station at Harvard Forest since 2001. Environmental Data Initiative https://doi.org/10.6073/PASTA/69E92642B512897032446CFE795CFFB8 (2021).

  62. Beguería, S., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Reig, F. & Latorre, B. Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 3001–3023 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. van de Pol, M. et al. Identifying the best climatic predictors in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1246–1257 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Gabry, J. et al. Rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan. R package version 2.21.1 https://mc-stan.org/rstanarm (2020).

  65. Stan Development Team. Stan modeling language users guide and reference manual, 2.28. https://mc-stan.org/users/documentation/ (2019).

  66. Stokes, M. A. & Smiley, T. L. An Introduction to Tree-ring Dating (Univ. Arizona Press, 1968).

  67. Speer, J. H. Fundamentals of Tree-ring Research (Univ. Arizona Press, 2010).

  68. Alexander, M. R. et al. The potential to strengthen temperature reconstructions in ecoregions with limited tree line using a multispecies approach. Quat. Res. 92, 583–597 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Dye, A. et al. Comparing tree-ring and permanent plot estimates of aboveground net primary production in three eastern U.S. forests. Ecosphere 7, e01454 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Pederson, N. Climatic Sensitivity and Growth of Southern Temperate Trees in the Eastern United States: Implications for the Carbon Cycle—ProQuest (Columbia Univ., 2005).

  71. Maxwell, J. T. et al. Sampling density and date along with species selection influence spatial representation of tree-ring reconstructions. Clim. Past 16, 1901–1916 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Cook, E. R. & Kairiukstis, L. A. Methods of Dendrochronology: Applications in the Environmental Sciences (Springer Netherlands, 1990).

  73. Cook, E. R. A Time Series Analysis Approach to Tree Ring Standardization (Univ. Arizona, 1985).

  74. Cook, E. R. & Peters, K. Calculating unbiased tree-ring indices for the study of climatic and environmental change. Holocene 7, 361–370 (1997).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  75. Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Briffa, K. R. Estimating sampling errors in large-scale temperature averages. J. Clim. 10, 2548–2568 (1997).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  76. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).

  77. Bunn, A. G. A dendrochronology program library in R (dplR). Dendrochronologia 26, 115–124 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Zang, C. & Biondi, F. Dendroclimatic calibration in R: the bootRes package for response and correlation function analysis. Dendrochronologia 31, 68–74 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all researchers who assisted with data collection in the field and laboratory, particularly T. Fung Au, J. Bregy, J. Dickens, K. Heeter, A. Hennage, D. King, J. McGee, B. Lockwood, J. McGarvey, V. Meakem, J. Oliver, J. Shue, K. Schmidt-Simard, B. Strange, A. Terrell, B. Taylor, M. Thornton, S. Robeson, M. Wenzel and L. Wylie; and D. A. Orwig, R. Zweifel and members of the ForestGEO Ecosystems & Climate Lab at SCBI for helpful feedback. Analyses and SCBI data collection were funded by the Smithsonian Institution (ForestGEO—Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute, and Scholarly Studies, Competitive Grants Program for Science and Grand Challenges Award Program grants to K.J.A.-T.). Collection of tree-ring samples was funded by the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative grant 2017-67013-26191 (to J.T.M.), National Science Foundation grants nos. 1805276 (to G.L.H.) and 1805617 (to J.T.M.), and from the Indiana University Vice Provost for Research Faculty Research Program (to J.T.M.). L.D. received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (DG RGPIN-2019-04353) and New Brunswick Innovation Foundation (RIF 2019-029). S.M.M. was partially funded by National Science Foundation RAPID-2030862.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Conservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, VA, USA

    Cameron Dow, Albert Y. Kim, Erika B. Gonzalez-Akre, Ryan Helcoski, Valentine Herrmann, Ian R. McGregor, William J. McShea, Alan J. Tepley & Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira

  2. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Cameron Dow

  3. Statistical & Data Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA

    Albert Y. Kim

  4. Harvard Forest, Petersham, MA, USA

    Loïc D’Orangeville & Neil Pederson

  5. Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

    Loïc D’Orangeville

  6. Department of Earth and Spatial Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA

    Grant L. Harley

  7. Department of Geography, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Justin T. Maxwell

  8. Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Ian R. McGregor

  9. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA

    Sean M. McMahon

  10. Forest Global Earth Observatory, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama, Republic of Panama

    Sean M. McMahon & Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira

  11. Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Alan J. Tepley

  12. Department of Forestry and Wildland Resources, Cal Poly Humboldt University, Arcata, CA, USA

    Alan J. Tepley

Authors
  1. Cameron Dow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert Y. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Loïc D’Orangeville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erika B. Gonzalez-Akre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ryan Helcoski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Valentine Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Grant L. Harley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Justin T. Maxwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ian R. McGregor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. William J. McShea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sean M. McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Neil Pederson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Alan J. Tepley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.D. and K.J.A.-T. conceived the ideas and designed the study. C.D., L.D., E.B.G.-A., R.H., G.L.H., J.T.M., I.R.M., W.J.M., N.P., A.J.T. and K.J.A.-T. collected or oversaw collection of data. C.D., A.Y.K., V.H., J.T.M., I.R.M. and S.M.M. analysed the data or provided analytical tools. C.D. and K.J.A.-T. led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Cyrille Rathgeber, Roman Zweifel and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Seasonal patterns of forest canopy greenness (top row) and stem growth of ring- and diffuse-porous trees, represented as both relative and cumulative fractions of total annual growth (middle and bottom rows, respectively), at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and Harvard Forest.

In the top row, canopy greenness is characterized using the two band Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI2), with each line representing a year between 2000 and 2018. For stem growth, each line represents the average growth over one year, as modeled based on a five-parameter logistic growth model to dendrometer band data. Dashed lines represent modeled DBH change which fell outside of the median DOY where predicted starting and ending DBHs were reached. Solid lines represent DBH change attributable to stem growth.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Landscapes of relationships between the day of year on which 25% of annual growth is achieved (DOY25) and temperature in prior weeks for ring- and diffuse-porous trees at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and Harvard Forest.

Shown are matrices of \(\beta \) coefficients from first-order linear regressions between mean maximum temperature (Tmax) and DOY25. Window Open and Window Close indicate number of weeks prior to DOY25 (listed in Extended Data Table 2). Yellow shading indicates neutral relationships, while orange or red shading indicates that DOY25 advances with increased Tmax over the given time window (negative \(\beta \)). Black circles indicate the critical temperature window selected based on minimization of ∆AICc, the difference in Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample size relative to a null model. Critical temperature windows are listed in Extended Data Table 2.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Response of stem growth timing and rates to mean maximum temperatures (Tmax) during the spring critial temperature window (CTW) for ring- and diffuse-porous species at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and Harvard Forest.

CTW was defined as the period over which Tmax was most strongly correlated with the day of year on which 25% of annual growth was achieved (DOY25; Extended Data Table 2, Extended Data Fig. 2). Shown are relationships between mean Tmax over the CTW and days of the year on which 25%, 50%, and 75% total stem growth were achieved (DOY25, DOY50, DOY75, respectively; first row); the length of the peak growing season (Lpgs; second row); maximum growth rate (gmax; third row); and total seasonal radial stem growth (∆DBH; fourth row). Posterior predictions of each variable that did not include zero are represented with solid lines, while those that do include zero use dotted lines. The 95% credible intervals are represented by bands centered on the posterior mean for each year. For both species groups at both sites, DOY25, DOY50, and DOY75 all declined significantly with mean Tmax during their respective CTW. Dots represent growth parameter values for individual tree-year combinations, which were derived by fitting a five-parameter logistic growth model to dendrometer band data.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Response of stem growth timing and rates to mean maximum temperatures (Tmax) for the month most closely corresponding to the spring critial temperature window (CTW) for ring- and diffuse-porous species at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and Harvard Forest.

CTW was defined as the period over which Tmax was most strongly correlated with the day of year on which 25% of annual growth was achieved (DOY25; Extended Data Table 2, Extended Data Fig. 2), and the most closely corresponding month was determined as that with the greatest number of days within the CTW. Shown are relationships between monthly Tmax and days of the year on which 25%, 50%, and 75% total stem growth were achieved (DOY25, DOY50, DOY75, respectively; first row); the length of the peak growing season (Lpgs; second row); maximum growth rate (gmax; third row); and total seasonal radial stem growth (∆DBH; fourth row). Posterior predictions of each variable that did not include zero are represented with solid lines, while those that do include zero use dotted lines. The 95% credible intervals are represented by bands centered on the posterior mean for each year. For both species groups at both sites, DOY25, DOY50, and DOY75 declined significantly with April Tmax, with the exception of DOY25 for ring-porous species at SCBI. Dots represent growth parameter values for individual tree-year combinations, which were derived by fitting a five-parameter logistic growth model to dendrometer band data.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Map of sampling locations of tree-ring chronologies analyzed in this study.

Sites are colored by the xylem porosity type of species sampled: ring poroous (RP), diffuse porous (DP), or both. Sampling details are provided in Supplementary Table 1. Base map source is ggplot2.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Sensitivity of annual growth, as derived from tree-rings, to monthly mean minimum temperatures (Tmin), for 207 chronologies from 108 sites across eastern North America (Extended Data Fig. 5).

Colors indicate the bootstrapped correlation between monthly Tmin and a dimensionless ring width index (RWI) derived from the multiple trees that form each chronology and emphasizing interannual variability associated with climate. Chronologies are grouped by xylem porosity and ordered by mean April Tmin. Plots are annotated to highlight records from our two focal sites, the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and Harvard Forest (HF) (Extended Data Table 1). Species analyzed and numbers of significant correlations to Tmin are summarized in Extended Data Table 3, and chronology details are given in Supplementary Table 1.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Sensitivity of annual growth, as derived from tree-rings, to monthly mean maximum temperatures (Tmax) of the current and past year, for 207 chronologies from 108 sites across eastern North America (Extended Data Fig. 5).

Colors indicate the bootstrapped correlation between monthly Tmax and a dimensionless ring width index (RWI) derived from the multiple trees that form each chronology and emphasizing interannual variability associated with climate. Chronologies are grouped by xylem porosity and ordered by mean April Tmax. Plots are annotated to highlight records from our two focal sites, the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and Harvard Forest (HF) (Extended Data Table 1). Figure presents the same results as Fig. 3 but extends back to include the previous year. Species analyzed and numbers of significant correlations to Tmax are summarized in Extended Data Table 3, and chronology details are given in Supplementary Table 1.

Extended Data Table 1 Dominant broadleaf deciduous species at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and Harvard Forest, along with sample sizes included in our final analysis
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Summary of parameters describing the seasonality and temperature sensitivity of broadleaf deciduous tree woody growth and canopy phenology at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and Harvard Forest
Full size table
Extended Data Table 3 Summary of tree-ring chronologies analyzed and number of significant (at significance level = 0.05) positive or negative correlations of ring width index to monthly Tmax in univariate and multivariate analyses
Full size table

Supplementary information

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Supplementary Table 1

Descriptions of the location, species, ring porosity, average minimum and maximum April temperatures, results from analyses, and details on where to find the tree core chronologies used in the analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dow, C., Kim, A.Y., D’Orangeville, L. et al. Warm springs alter timing but not total growth of temperate deciduous trees. Nature 608, 552–557 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05092-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05092-3

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing