Literature DB >> 20803221

Phenological changes and reduced seasonal synchrony in western Poland.

Tim H Sparks1, Maria Górska-Zajączkowska, Wanda Wójtowicz, Piotr Tryjanowski.   

Abstract

Botanical gardens offer continuity for phenological recording in observers, protocols and plant specimens that may not be achievable from other sources. Here, we examine phenological change and synchrony from one such garden in western Poland. We analysed 66 botanical phenophases and 18 interphase intervals recorded between 1977 and 2007 from the Poznań Botanical Garden. These were examined for trends through time and responsiveness to temperature. Furthermore, we derived measures of synchrony for start of spring and end of autumn events to assess if these had changed over time. All 39 events with a mean date before mid-July demonstrated a significant negative relationship with temperature. Where autumn events were significantly related to temperature, they indicated a positive relationship. Typically, spring events showed an advance over time and autumn events a delay. Interphase intervals tended to lengthen over the study period. The measures of synchrony changed significantly over time suggesting less synchrony among spring events and also among autumn events. In combination, these results suggest increases in growing season length. However, responses to a changing climate were species-specific. Thus, the transitions from winter into spring and from autumn into winter are becoming less clearly defined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20803221      PMCID: PMC3077753          DOI: 10.1007/s00484-010-0355-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Biometeorol        ISSN: 0020-7128            Impact factor:   3.787


Introduction

Phenology is one of the most sensitive responses of the natural world to a changing climate. Of all the evidence considered by the IPCC in its most recent report, the bulk of evidence of changes to the natural world concerned phenological change (Rosenzweig et al. 2008). Indeed, phenological change may be seen as a vanguard for wider change in the environment (Cleland et al. 2007). Plant phenology has been shown to be very responsive to temperatures, and a number of multi-species studies have reported shifting phenology, particularly to earlier leafing and flowering in spring (Bradley et al. 1999; Menzel and Fabian 1999; Abu-Asab et al. 2001; Fitter and Fitter 2002; Peñuelas et al. 2002; Menzel et al. 2006). However, many of these papers covered data only up to the end of the twentieth century and had a focus on spring events. Reports on autumn phenology are much less common (but see Menzel and Fabian 1999), and there have been few multi-species papers covering the first few years of the twenty-first century which, because of their exceptional warmth, would be expected to be associated with exceptionally early spring phenology (e.g. White et al. 2009). Studies that report many species have distinct advantages. They allow a comparison between species without the confounding environmental differences associated with different studies. Studies of records from a limited geographical area have further benefits in that the genetic diversity of the recorded material is likely to be smaller and the studied environment likely more homogenous (e.g. Hepper 2003). In this respect, botanical gardens may be particularly valuable in recording phenology. They are often long-established with their own meteorological station and continuity of personnel. Careful observation of various phases of the same species may well be possible without the need to search the environment to locate a particular species. There have been few studies that have looked at several phases of the same species and the relationships between successive phases. Furthermore, there have been few multi-species studies from Eastern Europe (see maps in: Rosenzweig et al. 2008). In this paper, we examine a 31-year record (1977–2007) of 66 phenophases from the Poznań Botanical Garden (Poland). The studied species include a number of iconic and more obscure ones. Of the former, Horse Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum has been widely planted in Europe, has very obvious phenological phases, and has been widely reported in the phenological literature, for example the two-century record of first leafing from Geneva, Switzerland (Defila and Clot 2001). The purpose of our paper is to (1) identify trends in plant phenology from early spring to late autumn, (2) estimate the responsiveness of species to mean monthly air temperatures, (3) investigate the interphase intervals of the same species, and (4) look at the consistency of changes at the beginning and end of the growing season.

Materials and methods

A large number of plant phenophases have been monitored at the Adam Mickiewicz University Botanical Garden in Poznań, Poland (www.ogrod.edu.pl/info_eng.php) (52º25′N 16º53′E). The Botanical Garden was founded in 1925, occupies an area of 22 ha at an altitude of 89 m asl and contains nearly 7,000 Special Collections. For this paper, we abstracted data on the dates of 66 phenophases for the period 1977–2007 incorporating 42 species (see Table 1 for list). All observations were made within the Garden and on a daily basis. The definitions of the phenophases used are as follows:First shoot – first shoots appearing above the ground; First leaf – first fully open leaf; First flower – first open flower; Pollen – first pollen shed; End of flowering – last flower; Earing – inflorescence of cereals emerges; Seeding – first ripe seeds produced; First senescence – first evidence of above ground portion of plants dying; Leaf colouring – first colour change; Die back – above ground portions of plant fully dead; Bare – all leaves fallen.
Table 1

A summary of the examined phenophases and the regressions of phenophases on year and on mean temperature

Scientific nameEnglish namePhaseMean (DOY)SD n Regression on yearRegression on 3 months temperature
slope days/yearSE P R 2 slope days/°CSE P R 2
Corylus avellana HazelPollen56.524.931–0.830.480.0979.2 –8.94 1.31 <0.001 61.4
Pulmonaria obscura Suffolk LungwortFirst shoot58.323.729–0.280.490.5721.2 –8.60 1.40 <0.001 58.3
Alnus incana Grey AlderPollen60.022.631–0.810.440.07410.6 –7.95 1.23 <0.001 59.2
Galanthus nivalis SnowdropFirst flower61.516.031–0.620.310.05112.5 –5.62 0.88 <0.001 58.7
Leucojum vernum Spring SnowflakeFirst shoot62.916.330–0.620.320.06112.0 –5.42 0.94 <0.001 54.5
Lysimachia punctata Dotted LoosestrifeFirst shoot63.121.131–0.760.410.07210.8 –7.27 1.18 <0.001 56.7
Corylus avellana HazelFirst leaf102.711.331 –0.54 0.21 0.014 19.3 –5.18 0.97 <0.001 49.5
Convallaria majalis Lily of the ValleyFirst shoot104.79.031 –0.36 0.17 0.046 13.0 –3.45 0.88 <0.001 34.5
Aesculus hippocastanum Horse ChestnutFirst leaf104.87.831 –0.31 0.15 0.044 13.3 –2.94 0.78 <0.001 33.0
Primula veris CowslipFirst flower105.612.730–0.350.270.1975.9 –4.59 1.28 <0.001 31.5
Larix decidua European LarchFirst leaf105.79.431–0.310.180.1058.8 –3.81 0.89 <0.001 38.7
Cimicifuga europaea BugbaneFirst leaf108.58.5240.470.230.05615.6 –2.39 0.98 0.023 21.3
Betula pendula Silver BirchFirst leaf108.99.231–0.080.190.6590.7 –2.72 0.99 0.010 20.8
Caltha palustris Marsh MarigoldFirst flower110.19.531 –0.40 0.18 0.033 14.7 –3.57 0.94 <0.001 33.2
Aristolochia clematitis BirthwortFirst shoot110.39.431–0.180.190.3433.1 –3.17 0.97 0.003 26.9
Polygonatum multiflorum Solomon's SealFirst leaf111.18.830–0.320.170.06911.3 –3.86 0.83 <0.001 43.5
Fritillaria imperialis Crown ImperialFirst flower111.27.930–0.220.160.1636.8 –3.23 0.78 <0.001 37.9
Syringa vulgaris LilacFirst flower126.17.631 –0.44 0.13 0.002 27.7 –4.56 0.89 <0.001 47.5
Aesculus hippocastanum Horse ChestnutFirst flower126.47.131 –0.50 0.11 <0.001 40.1 –5.06 0.67 <0.001 66.4
Taraxacum officinale DandelionSeeding129.37.631 –0.52 0.12 <0.001 38.9 –5.26 0.73 <0.001 63.9
Polygonatum multiflorum Solomon's SealFirst flower130.69.431 –0.68 0.14 <0.001 43.2 –5.70 1.08 <0.001 49.1
Primula veris CowslipEnd of flowering135.18.231–0.220.160.1856.0 –5.03 0.93 <0.001 50.5
Secale cereale RyeEaring137.67.431 –0.35 0.14 0.017 18.1 –4.64 0.83 <0.001 52.0
Caltha palustris Marsh MarigoldEnd of flowering141.46.930–0.050.140.7420.4 –3.71 0.87 <0.001 39.2
Robinia pseudoacacia False AcaciaFirst flower146.69.431–0.350.180.06711.1 –6.33 0.96 <0.001 60.0
Sambucus nigra ElderFirst flower148.110.031–0.360.190.07310.7 –7.91 0.65 <0.001 83.7
Leucojum vernum Spring SnowflakeFirst senescence151.510.730–0.410.220.06811.4 –7.17 1.08 <0.001 61.1
Physocarpus opulifolius NinebarkFirst flower151.69.3310.040.190.8340.2 –5.61 1.09 <0.001 47.8
Fritillaria imperialis Crown ImperialFirst senescence154.812.031–0.280.240.2594.4 –5.55 1.80 0.004 24.7
Aruncus sylvestris BridewortFirst flower154.97.131–0.180.140.2125.3 –4.25 0.95 <0.001 40.6
Clematis recta Erect ClematisFirst flower155.57.831–0.230.150.1387.4 –4.87 1.00 <0.001 44.9
Caltha palustris Marsh MarigoldSeeding158.011.3310.080.230.7180.5 –3.83 1.82 0.044 13.3
Cichorium intybus ChicoryFirst flower176.111.031 –0.48 0.21 0.026 15.9 –6.39 1.49 <0.001 38.9
Lilium martagon Martagon LilyEnd of flowering182.59.031 –0.48 0.16 0.005 23.7 –5.55 0.88 <0.001 58.0
Lupinus polyphyllus Garden LupinSeeding184.216.031–0.610.310.05512.1 –6.11 2.14 0.008 21.9
Hieracium umbellatum Umbellate HawkweedFirst flower190.210.0300.110.210.6270.9 –3.10 1.40 0.035 15.0
Astragalus glycyphyllos Wild LiquoriceEnd of flowering190.812.429 –0.61 0.24 0.019 18.8 –6.75 1.47 <0.001 44.0
Tilia cordata Small–leaved LimeEnd of flowering192.29.931–0.250.200.2175.2 –5.69 1.05 <0.001 50.3
Lysimachia punctata Dotted LoosestrifeEnd of flowering193.010.731 –0.42 0.20 0.050 12.6 –6.03 1.16 <0.001 48.4
Solidago canadensis Canadian GoldenrodFirst flower205.614.831 1.15 0.21 <0.001 50.3 –0.252.230.9130.0
Campanula trachelium Nettle-leaved BellflowerSeeding229.39.331–0.020.190.9130.0–2.211.410.1277.9
Sedum spectabile Butterfly StonecropFirst flower239.69.331 0.50 0.17 0.006 23.5 1.491.440.3103.5
Lysimachia punctata Dotted LoosestrifeSeeding242.511.7310.420.220.07010.9–1.751.810.3403.1
Cimicifuga europaea BugbaneSeeding246.115.117–0.360.540.5222.8–2.892.990.3495.9
Solidago canadensis Canadian GoldenrodSeeding247.313.931 0.66 0.26 0.015 18.7 1.241.910.5231.4
Sambucus nigra ElderSeeding251.012.4300.140.260.6130.9–1.821.750.3073.7
Aesculus hippocastanum Horse ChestnutSeeding256.27.431–0.050.150.7240.4–0.161.030.8770.1
Aesculus hippocastanum Horse ChestnutLeaf colouring269.910.028 –0.48 0.20 0.027 17.5 –0.351.480.8170.2
Betula pendula Silver BirchLeaf colouring274.510.9310.210.220.3582.9 4.82 2.01 0.023 16.5
Corylus avellana HazelLeaf colouring276.612.5300.200.260.4442.1 4.96 2.35 0.043 13.8
Cimicifuga europaea BugbaneDie back286.611.419–0.040.350.9120.1–1.422.940.6361.4
Colchicum autumnale Meadow SaffronEnd of flowering287.110.631 0.44 0.20 0.037 14.2 0.032.130.9870.0
Vincetoxicum hirundinaria Swallow-wortDie back291.513.5310.130.270.6370.8–3.192.640.2384.8
Paeonia officinalis PeonyDie back296.213.231 0.54 0.25 0.040 13.8 1.372.650.6100.9
Aesculus hippocastanum Horse ChestnutBare308.07.0280.020.160.8940.10.551.200.6490.8
Acer platanoides Norway MapleBare312.38.0300.250.160.1228.31.741.310.1936.0
Phlox paniculata Perennial PhloxDie back312.89.431–0.230.190.2294.9–0.231.580.8840.1
Viburnum opulus Guelder RoseBare313.38.431–0.120.170.4991.60.561.410.6960.5
Syringa vulgaris LilacBare314.18.231–0.030.170.8700.12.181.330.1128.5
Paeonia sinensis Chinese PeonyDie back314.78.9310.010.180.9720.01.381.470.3572.9
Iris sibirica Siberian IrisDie back314.910.731–0.130.220.5521.2 3.76 1.66 0.031 15.1
Betula pendula Silver BirchBare316.910.231 0.56 0.18 0.005 24.6 3.89 1.56 0.019 17.5
Tilia cordata Small-leaved LimeBare317.89.831 0.55 0.17 0.003 25.9 3.80 1.49 0.017 18.2
Lysimachia punctata Dotted LoosestrifeDie back319.210.6310.080.220.7090.51.701.760.3423.1
Larix decidua European LarchBare326.511.9310.270.240.2584.43.811.880.05212.4
Salix fragilis Crack WillowBare326.715.131 1.21 0.21 <0.001 53.3 4.392.410.07910.3

Regressions in bold are statistically significant P < 0.05, phenophases are arranged in order of mean date

DOY Day of year (days after 31 December)

A summary of the examined phenophases and the regressions of phenophases on year and on mean temperature Regressions in bold are statistically significant P < 0.05, phenophases are arranged in order of mean date DOY Day of year (days after 31 December) All dates were converted prior to analysis into days after 31 December, hereafter day of the year (DOY) where 1 =  1 January,etc. Eighteen intervals between successive phenophases of the same species were calculated where considered biologically meaningful (see Table 2 for list).
Table 2

Trends in 18 phase intervals, the correlation between the two phases and the significance of the earlier phases in a regression model after fitting 3-month temperature

Scientific namePhaseEarlier phaseMean (DOY)SD n Regression on yearCorrelation between phasesInfluence and significance of earlier phase after fitting temperature
r Slope days/day P
slope days/yearSE P R 2
Aesculus hippocastanum SeedingFirst flower129.78.431 0.444 0.151 0.006 23.1 0.340.3670.066
Aesculus hippocastanum Leaf colouringFirst leaf164.99.428–0.1340.2080.5261.6 0.48 0.637 0.010
Aesculus hippocastanum BareFirst leaf203.010.8280.3660.2300.1248.8–0.01–0.0110.950
Aesculus hippocastanum BareLeaf colouring38.111.9280.5000.2480.05513.50.060.0350.805
Betula pendula Leaf colouringFirst leaf165.514.8310.2880.2980.3413.1–0.08–0.0350.869
Betula pendula BareFirst leaf208.011.631 0.640 0.204 0.004 25.4 0.290.3290.086
Betula pendula BareLeaf colouring42.512.6310.3520.2500.1696.40.290.1530.370
Caltha palustris Last flowerFirst flower31.77.630 0.321 0.146 0.037 14.7 0.59 0.2330.107
Caltha palustris SeedingFirst flower48.013.2310.4850.2530.06611.20.200.1030.645
Cimicifuga europaea Die backFirst leaf180.912.817–0.7760.4320.09317.70.180.3190.396
Corylus avellana Leaf colouringFirst leaf174.016.530 0.764 0.314 0.022 17.5 0.060.1600.426
Larix decidua BareFirst leaf220.714.431 0.581 0.273 0.042 13.5 0.110.1410.532
Leucojum vernum SenescenceFirst shoot88.415.3290.2940.3330.3852.8 0.44 –0.0190.845
Lysimachia punctata SeedingLast flower49.514.131 0.840 0.242 0.002 29.3 0.200.1660.496
Lysimachia punctata Die backFirst shoot256.119.931 0.842 0.376 0.033 14.7 0.36 0.1760.055
Primula veris Last flowerFirst flower29.511.9300.1070.2550.6760.6 0.42 0.0140.899
Sambucus nigra SeedingFirst flower103.012.4300.5010.2470.05312.8 0.41 0.475 0.039
Solidago canadensis SeedingFirst flower41.714.231–0.4930.2750.08310.0 0.51 0.480 0.005

Results in bold are statistically significant P < 0.05

DOY Day of year (days after 31 December)

Trends in 18 phase intervals, the correlation between the two phases and the significance of the earlier phases in a regression model after fitting 3-month temperature Results in bold are statistically significant P < 0.05 DOY Day of year (days after 31 December) Mean monthly air temperatures, collected to standard WMO guidelines, were obtained from the meteorological station situated within the Botanical Garden. Trends through time were estimated using linear regression of phenophases on year. Temperature responses were estimated by regression of phenophases on the mean temperature for the three calendar months ending in the month in which the mean of the phenophase occurred; thus, for example, an event whose mean date was in May would be compared to the mean temperature from March to May. This is a rather broadbrush approach but has been shown to be usually sufficient, particularly for spring events (Estrella et al. 2007). The 18 phenophase intervals were subjected to regression on year to check for trends over time. A correlation was calculated between the two phases from which the interval was derived. Finally the end phases were regressed on the first phases after fitting the 3-month mean temperature mentioned above. This was in order to see if the first phases influenced the later ones after temperature effects were removed. To assess variability changes within early spring events we calculated the standard deviation annually among all six phenophases occurring, on average, before the end of March. These are the first six events in Table 1. A similar exercise to look at autumn variability was based on the standard deviation of the eight “bare” phenophases listed towards the end of Table 1. Trends in these variability measures were assessed by correlation with year.

Results

Trends through time

Table 1 summarises the examined phenophases, their trends through time and their response to the mean temperature of the three calendar months leading up to and including the mean date of that phase. Significant changes in timing were detected in 22 of the 66 phenophases; 14 significant advances and 8 significant delays. There was a strong association between timing of the phase and the trend through time (r  = 0.624, P <0.001; Fig. 1) with spring events tending to get earlier and autumn events later.
Fig. 1

Trends through time (days/year) for 66 phenophases recorded at the Poznań Botanical Garden in the period 1977-2007 plotted against the mean date (day of the year) of the phenophase. A dotted reference line has been added; phases below the line got earlier, above the line later

Trends through time (days/year) for 66 phenophases recorded at the Poznań Botanical Garden in the period 1977-2007 plotted against the mean date (day of the year) of the phenophase. A dotted reference line has been added; phases below the line got earlier, above the line later

Response to temperature

In comparison with 3-monthly mean temperatures, 44 of the 66 phenophases showed a significant response to temperature (Table 1). Of these, 39 indicated earlier events with warmer temperatures. All events with mean dates before DOY 193 (July 12) had a significant negative relationship (warmer = earlier) with temperature. The five significantly positive relationships all occurred in events with mean dates post DOY 274 (October 1). Overall, a strong correlation between temperature response and mean date was also apparent (r  = 0.825, P <0.001; Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Temperature responses (days/°C) for 66 phenophases recorded at the Poznań Botanical Garden in the period 1977-2007 plotted against the mean date (day of the year) of the phenophase. A dotted reference line has been added; phases below the line getting earlier with warmer temperatures, above the line later

Temperature responses (days/°C) for 66 phenophases recorded at the Poznań Botanical Garden in the period 1977-2007 plotted against the mean date (day of the year) of the phenophase. A dotted reference line has been added; phases below the line getting earlier with warmer temperatures, above the line later A highly significant correlation existed between the regression estimates of phenophase on year and the regression estimates of phenophase on temperature, i.e. columns 7 and 11 in Table 1 (r  = 0.741, P <0.001).

Trends and temperature responses in interphase intervals

Table 2 lists the 18 considered intervals. Seven of these had changed significantly during the study period; all of them getting longer. Fifteen of the 18 intervals had positive trends through time suggesting extended phase intervals for the majority of species, some of which can be interpreted loosely as the length of the growing season. For 7 of these intervals significant positive correlations existed between the two phases used to derive the interval (Table 2). However, the correlations were not typically large suggesting that the intervals are rarely predetermined, but rather influenced by annual climatic conditions. In fact only 3 of the earlier phases were significant in modelling the later phase once temperature effects had been accounted for (Table 2).

Inter-species variability in spring and autumn

The standard deviation between the six early phenophases plotted against year is shown in Fig. 3. This has significantly increased over time (r  = 0.520, P = 0.003) and is greater in early springs (correlation with the mean date of the six phenophases r  = –0.502, P = 0.004). The standard deviation between the eight “bare” phenophases plotted against year is shown in Fig. 4. This has also significantly increased over time (r  = 0.553, P = 0.001) and is greater in late autumns (correlation with the mean date of the eight phenophases r  = 0.720, P < 0.001).
Fig. 3

The standard deviation between the dates of six early phenophases recorded at the Poznań Botanical Garden for the period 1977–2007

Fig. 4

The standard deviation between the dates of eight “bare” phenophases recorded at the Poznań Botanical Garden for the period 1977–2007

The standard deviation between the dates of six early phenophases recorded at the Poznań Botanical Garden for the period 1977–2007 The standard deviation between the dates of eight “bare” phenophases recorded at the Poznań Botanical Garden for the period 1977–2007

Discussion

Botanical gardens can offer many advantages in studies of phenology and climate impacts (Donaldson 2009; Primack and Miller-Rushing 2009). They are typically long established, with professional staff and good archives. There is typically a stability in both staffing and methods that results in continuity of recording protocols, and a longevity that can rarely be achieved when records are made by individuals (but see Fitter and Fitter 2002). Phenological recording may often involve the same specimen in a relatively small area and thus eliminate some of the noise associated with phenological records made in the wild over large areas. Their compact area also makes interspecies comparisons more valid since environmental conditions will be much more similar. Many botanical gardens, such as that in Poznań, also have their own meteorological station enhancing the value of the plant records that have been made. Botanical garden archives offer additional possibilities (Miller-Rushing and Primack 2008; Donaldson 2009; Primack and Miller-Rushing 2009). Sadly, we are not aware of any other contemporary species-rich data sources within Poland with which to compare our data. The results reported here confirm the responsiveness of plant phenology, particularly of spring events, to temperature. These help to confirm the value of plant phenology as a climate change indicator. Autumn events have typically been equivocal in their response to temperature but our results suggest a delay in autumn events associated with rising temperatures. Further work is needed to tease apart the relative importance of mean temperature and other autumn drivers such as wind, sunshine and frost on leaf fall. We investigated 18 interphase intervals. Seven of these had become significantly longer which broadly suggests a lengthening of the growing season. In all but three cases the earlier phase timing was not significant after temperature had been accounted for. Thus it appears that the later phases are far more influenced by prevailing temperature than the timing of preceding phases. However, for Aesculus hippocastanum, leaf colouring appeared positively correlated with earlier phases suggesting that early leafing resulted in an earlier end of season. However, this pattern was not apparent in Betula pendula or Corylus avellana. Further investigation of whether leaves have a limited lifetime (“shelf life”), thus associating early springs with early autumns, may be justified (see also Cleland et al. 2007). We calculated a measure of spring synchrony based on the standard deviation between the dates of the six early spring events, and a similar one for autumn based on the standard deviation between the bare dates for eight tree species. Both of these measures increased significantly over time indicating reduced synchrony in both seasons. Whilst we are limited in the choice of phenophases to assess synchrony, examination of their coefficients for trend and temperature response in Table 1 do not suggest that synchrony measures are overly influenced by a single phenophase. We believe that most people associate the seasons, particularly spring and autumn, with biological events. These results suggest that the sharply defined spring at this mid-continent location at the beginning of our study period (low standard deviation in Fig. 3) has become less consistent over time. A similar change has occurred in autumn. Thus the perceived boundaries between winter and spring, and between autumn and winter, have become increasingly blurred. The consequences of this phenomenon to wildlife, particularly those with specific dependent links in food webs, remains to be seen.
  8 in total

1.  Phenological changes reflect climate change in Wisconsin.

Authors:  N L Bradley; A C Leopold; J Ross; W Huffaker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-08-17       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Phytophenological trends in Switzerland.

Authors:  C Defila; B Clot
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.787

3.  Rapid changes in flowering time in British plants.

Authors:  A H Fitter; R S R Fitter
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-05-31       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Shifting plant phenology in response to global change.

Authors:  Elsa E Cleland; Isabelle Chuine; Annette Menzel; Harold A Mooney; Mark D Schwartz
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2007-05-02       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 5.  The role of botanical gardens in climate change research.

Authors:  Richard B Primack; Abraham J Miller-Rushing
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 10.151

6.  Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change.

Authors:  Cynthia Rosenzweig; David Karoly; Marta Vicarelli; Peter Neofotis; Qigang Wu; Gino Casassa; Annette Menzel; Terry L Root; Nicole Estrella; Bernard Seguin; Piotr Tryjanowski; Chunzhen Liu; Samuel Rawlins; Anton Imeson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 7.  Botanic gardens science for conservation and global change.

Authors:  John S Donaldson
Journal:  Trends Plant Sci       Date:  2009-09-19       Impact factor: 18.313

8.  Global warming and flowering times in Thoreau's Concord: a community perspective.

Authors:  Abraham J Miller-Rushing; Richard B Primack
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 5.499

  8 in total
  9 in total

1.  Using Self-Organising Maps (SOMs) to assess synchronies: an application to historical eucalypt flowering records.

Authors:  Irene L Hudson; Marie R Keatley; Shalem Y Lee
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2011-05-08       Impact factor: 3.787

2.  The rise of phenology with climate change: an evaluation of IJB publications.

Authors:  Alison Donnelly; Rong Yu
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2017-05-19       Impact factor: 3.787

3.  Highly individualistic rates of plant phenological advance associated with arctic sea ice dynamics.

Authors:  Eric Post; Jeffrey Kerby; Christian Pedersen; Heidi Steltzer
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.703

4.  Phenological research of climate changes in the north part of Lithuania by the phenological garden of Šiauliai University.

Authors:  Asta Klimienė; Rimanta Vainorienė; Ramutis Klimas
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 3.787

5.  Flowering phenological changes in relation to climate change in Hungary.

Authors:  Barbara Szabó; Enikő Vincze; Bálint Czúcz
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 3.787

6.  Trends in atmospheric concentrations of weed pollen in the context of recent climate warming in Poznań (Western Poland).

Authors:  Paweł Bogawski; Lukasz Grewling; Małgorzata Nowak; Matt Smith; Bogdan Jackowiak
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 3.787

7.  The phenology of winter rye in Poland: an analysis of long-term experimental data.

Authors:  Andrzej Blecharczyk; Zuzanna Sawinska; Irena Małecka; Tim H Sparks; Piotr Tryjanowski
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 3.787

8.  Long-term effect of temperature on honey yield and honeybee phenology.

Authors:  Aleksandra Langowska; Michał Zawilak; Tim H Sparks; Adam Glazaczow; Peter W Tomkins; Piotr Tryjanowski
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2016-12-24       Impact factor: 3.787

9.  Predicting climate change impacts on the amount and duration of autumn colors in a New England forest.

Authors:  Marco Archetti; Andrew D Richardson; John O'Keefe; Nicolas Delpierre
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.