Abstract
Variation in the timing of plant phenology caused by phenotypic plasticity is a sensitive measure of how organisms respond to weather and climate variability. Although continental-scale gradients in climate and consequential patterns in plant phenology are well recognized, the contribution of underlying genotypic difference to the geography of phenology is less well understood. We hypothesize that different temperate plant genotypes require varying amount of heat energy for resuming annual growth and reproduction as a result of adaptation and other ecological and evolutionary processes along climatic gradients. In particular, at least for some species, the growing degree days (GDD) needed to trigger the same spring phenology events (e.g., budburst and flower bloom) may be less for individuals originated from colder climates than those from warmer climates. This variable intrinsic heat energy requirement in plants can be characterized by the term growth efficiency and is quantitatively reflected in the timing of phenophases—earlier timing indicates higher efficiency (i.e., less heat energy needed to trigger phenophase transitions) and vice versa compared to a standard reference (i.e., either a uniform climate or a uniform genotype). In this study, we tested our hypothesis by comparing variations of budburst and bloom timing of two widely documented plants from the USA National Phenology Network (i.e., red maple-Acer rubrum and forsythia-Forsythia spp.) with cloned indicator plants (lilac-Syringa x chinensis ‘Red Rothomagensis’) at multiple eastern US sites. Our results indicate that across the accumulated temperature gradient, the two non-clonal plants showed significantly more gradual changes than the cloned plants, manifested by earlier phenology in colder climates and later phenology in warmer climates relative to the baseline clone phenological response. This finding provides initial evidence supporting the growth efficiency hypothesis, and suggests more work is warranted. More studies investigating genotype-determined phenological variations will be useful for better understanding and prediction of the continental-scale patterns of biospheric responses to climate change.
References
Badeck F-W, Bondeau A, Bottcher K, Doktor D, Lucht W, Schaber J, Sitch S (2004) Responses of spring phenology to climate change. New Phytol 162:295–309
Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J, Berlow EL, Brown JH, Fortelius M, Getz WM, Harte J, Hastings A, Marquet PA, Martinez ND, Mooers A, Roopnarine P, Vermeij G, Williams JW, Gillespie R, Kitzes J, Marshall C, Matzke N, Mindell DP, Revilla E, Smith AB (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere. Nature 486:52–58
Bradshaw A (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:15–11
Burns RM, Honkala BH (1990) Silvics of North America, vol 1. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO
Campoy JA, Ruiz D, Allderman L, Cook N, Egea J (2012) The fulfilment of chilling requirements and the adaptation of apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) in warm winter climates: An approach in Murcia (Spain) and the Western Cape (South Africa). Eur J Agron 37:43–55
Campoy JA, Ruiz D, Nortes M, Egea J (2013) Temperature efficiency for dormancy release in apricot varies when applied at different amounts of chill accumulation. Plant Biol 15:28–35
Caprio JM (1974) The solar thermal unit concept in problems related to plant development and potential evapotranspiration. In: Lieth H (ed) Phenology and seasonality modeling. Springer, New York, pp 353–364
Celton JM, Martinez S, Jammes MJ, Bechti A, Salvi S, Legave JM, Costes E (2011) Deciphering the genetic determinism of bud phenology in apple progenies: a new insight into chilling and heat requirement effects on flowering dates and positional candidate genes. New Phytol 192:378–392
Chmielewski FM (2003) Phenology and agriculture. In: Schwartz MD (ed) Phenology: an integrative environmental science. Kluwer/Springer, Dordrecht, pp 505–522
Cleland EE, Chuine I, Menzel A, Mooney HA, Schwartz MD (2007) Shifting plant phenology in response to global change. Trends Ecol Evol 22:357–365
De Wolf G, Hebb RS (1971) The story of Forsythia. Arnoldia 31:41–61
Ghelardini L, Falusi M, Santini A (2006) Variation in timing of bud-burst of Ulmus minor clones from different geographical origins. Can J For Res 36:1982–1991
Gienapp P, Teplitsky C, Alho J, Mills J, Merila J (2008) Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses. Mol Ecol 17:167–178
Gupta S, Narayan R (2012) Phenotypic plasticity of Chenopodium murale across contrasting habitat conditions in peri-urban areas in Indian dry tropics: is it indicative of its invasiveness? Plant Ecol 213:493–503
Hopkins AD (1920) The bioclimatic law. Mon Weather Rev 48:355–355
Hopkins AD (1919) The bioclimatic law as applied to entomological research and farm practise. Sci Mon 8:496–513
Kriebel H, Wang CW (1962) The interaction between provenance and degree of chilling in bud-break of sugar maple. Silvae Genet 11:125–130
Li HLH, Wang XWX, Hamann AHA (2010) Genetic adaptation of aspen (Populus tremuloides) populations to spring risk environments: a novel remote sensing approach. Can J For Res 40:2082–2090
Matías L, Jump AS (2012) Interactions between growth, demography and biotic interactions in determining species range limits in a warming world: the case of Pinus sylvestris. Forest Ecol Manag 282:10–22
McClain W, Ebinger J (1995) Naturalized Forsythia suspensa (Thunb.) Vahl (Oleaceae) in Illinois. Trans III State Acade Sci 88:119–121
Meehan T (1883) Observations on Forsythia. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phila 35:111–112
Menzel A, Fabian P (1999) Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397:659
Pau S, Wolkovich EM, Cook BI, Davies TJ, Kraft NJB, Bolmgren K, Betancourt JL, Cleland EE (2011) Predicting phenology by integrating ecology, evolution and climate science. Glob Change Biol 17:3633–3643
Rehder A (1940) Manual of cultivated trees and shrubs hardy in North America exclusive of the subtropical and warmer temperature regions. MacMillan, New York
Richter S, Kipfer T, Wohlgemuth T, Calderón GC, Ghazoul J, Moser B (2012) Phenotypic plasticity facilitates resistance to climate change in a highly variable environment. Oecologia 169:269–279
Schwartz MD (1997) Spring index models: an approach to connecting satellite and surface phenology. In: Lieth H, Schwartz MD (eds) Phenology in seasonal climates I. Backbuys, Leiden, pp 23–38
Schwartz MD, Hanes JM (2010) Continental scale phenology: warming and chilling. Int J Climatol 30:1595–1598
Schwartz MD, Ahas R, Aasa A (2006) Onset of spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere. Glob Change Biol 12:343–351
Schwartz MD, Betancourt JL, Weltzin JF (2012) From Caprio's lilacs to the USA National Phenology Network. Front Ecol Environ 10:324–327
Smith TM, Smith RL (2012) Elements of ecology, 8th edn. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2012) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 4th edn. Freeman, New York
Team R (2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
Rosenzweig C, Karoly D, Vicarelli M, Neofotis P, Wu QG, Casassa G, Menzel A, Root TL, Estrella N, Seguin B, Tryjanowski P, Liu CZ, Rawlins S, Imeson A (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453(7193):353–358
USA National Phenology Network (2012) Plant phenology data for the United States, 2009–2012. Tucson, Arizona, USA, USA-NPN. Data set accessed 8 November 2012 at http://www.usanpn.org/results/data
Vitasse Y, Delzon S, Bresson CC, Michalet R, Kremer A (2009) Altitudinal differentiation in growth and phenology among populations of temperate-zone tree species growing in a common garden. Can J For Res 39:1259–1269
Worrall J (1983) Temperature-bud-burst relationships in amabilis and subalpine fir provenance tests replicated at different elevations. Silvae Genet 32:203–209
Zhang XY, Tarpley D, Sullivan JT (2007) Diverse responses of vegetation phenology to a warming climate. Geophys Res Lett 34:L19405
Acknowledgments
In different occasions when a part of these analyses were presented to academic audiences, Scott Gleeson and William Hargrove provided helpful feedback. Jonathan Philips, Julio L. Betancourt, Susan Mazer, and Alison Donnelly reviewed the entire manuscript and provided valuable comments. We are grateful to these individuals for their help and support. Red maple, forsythia, and cloned lilac phenological data since 2009 were provided by the USA National Phenology Network and the many participants who contribute to its Nature’s Notebook program. Cloned lilac phenological data prior to 2009 were provided by the USA National Phenology Network, Joseph M. Caprio, Mark D. Schwartz, and all contributors to past US Department of Agriculture regional phenology projects. Finally we thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liang, L., Schwartz, M.D. Testing a growth efficiency hypothesis with continental-scale phenological variations of common and cloned plants. Int J Biometeorol 58, 1789–1797 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-013-0691-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-013-0691-6