Literature DB >> 30687988

How do climate change experiments alter plot-scale climate?

A K Ettinger1,2, I Chuine3, B I Cook4,5, J S Dukes6, A M Ellison7, M R Johnston8, A M Panetta9, C R Rollinson10, Y Vitasse11,12, E M Wolkovich1,8,13.   

Abstract

To understand and forecast biological responses to climate change, scientists frequently use field experiments that alter temperature and precipitation. Climate manipulations can manifest in complex ways, however, challenging interpretations of biological responses. We reviewed publications to compile a database of daily plot-scale climate data from 15 active-warming experiments. We find that the common practices of analysing treatments as mean or categorical changes (e.g. warmed vs. unwarmed) masks important variation in treatment effects over space and time. Our synthesis showed that measured mean warming, in plots with the same target warming within a study, differed by up to 1.6  ∘ C (63% of target), on average, across six studies with blocked designs. Variation was high across sites and designs: for example, plots differed by 1.1  ∘ C (47% of target) on average, for infrared studies with feedback control (n = 3) vs. by 2.2  ∘ C (80% of target) on average for infrared with constant wattage designs (n = 2). Warming treatments produce non-temperature effects as well, such as soil drying. The combination of these direct and indirect effects is complex and can have important biological consequences. With a case study of plant phenology across five experiments in our database, we show how accounting for drier soils with warming tripled the estimated sensitivity of budburst to temperature. We provide recommendations for future analyses, experimental design, and data sharing to improve our mechanistic understanding from climate change experiments, and thus their utility to accurately forecast species' responses.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRS.

Keywords:  active-warming; budburst; direct and indirect effects; feedback; global warming; hidden treatment; microclimate; soil moisture; spring phenology; structural control; target temperature; warming experiment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30687988     DOI: 10.1111/ele.13223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Lett        ISSN: 1461-023X            Impact factor:   9.492


  5 in total

1.  Experimental Climate Warming Reduces Floral Resources and Alters Insect Visitation and Wildflower Seed Set in a Cereal Agro-Ecosystem.

Authors:  Ellen D Moss; Darren M Evans
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 5.753

2.  Advancing global change biology through experimental manipulations: Where have we been and where might we go?

Authors:  Paul J Hanson; Anthony P Walker
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 10.863

3.  Assessing the Effectiveness of in-situ Active Warming Combined With Open Top Chambers to Study Plant Responses to Climate Change.

Authors:  Esther R Frei; Luc Schnell; Yann Vitasse; Thomas Wohlgemuth; Barbara Moser
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 5.753

4.  Simulating climate change in situ in a tropical rainforest understorey using active air warming and CO2 addition.

Authors:  Maaike Y Bader; Elodie Moureau; Nada Nikolić; Thomas Madena; Nils Koehn; Gerhard Zotz
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  Global soil profiles indicate depth-dependent soil carbon losses under a warmer climate.

Authors:  Mingming Wang; Xiaowei Guo; Shuai Zhang; Liujun Xiao; Umakant Mishra; Yuanhe Yang; Biao Zhu; Guocheng Wang; Xiali Mao; Tian Qian; Tong Jiang; Zhou Shi; Zhongkui Luo
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 17.694

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.