Shortcomings of classical phenological forcing models and a way to overcome them

A theoretical study proves that the common Spring-Warming model, which is widely used in phenological studies and frequently described in the literature, has systematic defects that do not allow a reliable projection of phenological stages for the future (e.g., up to 2100). When calculating spring phenological phases (e.g., beginning of blossom or leaf unfolding, etc.), defects occur because either the advance in blossom is included implicitly in the model and cannot be calibrated sufficiently to observations, or the model parameters attain unphysiological values or lie in a range so that a prognosis for the far future cannot be accomplished. Therefore, the introduction of a daylength term is suggested, which improves the Spring-Warming model and eliminates almost all of the discussed shortcomings. The performance of this improved model is demonstrated by calculating the beginning of apple blossom in Germany. For this purpose, we compared the improved model (M1) with three different versions of the original Spring-Warming model (M2–M4). The models were calibrated (optimized) using observed blossoming and temperature data (1962–2009), which have been regionalized on a 0.2° grid. The optimization was done for a representative grid point. The performance of the various model versions in predicting the beginning of apple blossom was compared with observations from independent years, which were not used in the optimization. Also, the beginning of blossom and its possible future changes were calculated with these models, using temperatures from the Regional Climate Model REMO-UBA with GHG emission scenario A1B (2001–2100). The new daylength term improved the performance of model M1 remarkably, and the model calibration automatically led to model parameters with meaningful values. These results, which were confirmed by other fruit tree species and locations, provided strong evidence that the conventional Spring-Warming models in phenology must be extended by photoperiodic sensitivity, at least for species which are photosensitive.

[1]  Isabelle Chuine,et al.  Leaf phenology in 22 North American tree species during the 21st century , 2009 .

[2]  F. Chmielewski,et al.  Climate change and shifts in dormancy release for deciduous fruit crops in Germany , 2012 .

[3]  Sylvain Delzon,et al.  Assessing the effects of climate change on the phenology of European temperate trees , 2011 .

[4]  A. Donnelly,et al.  The ecological significance of phenology in four different tree species: effects of light and temperature on bud burst , 2011, International journal of biometeorology.

[5]  H. Hänninen,et al.  Models of the spring phenology of boreal and temperate trees: Is there something missing? , 2006, Tree physiology.

[6]  Heikki Hänninen,et al.  A framework for modelling the annual cycle of trees in boreal and temperate regions , 2007 .

[7]  M. Claussen,et al.  The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM-4: Model description and simulation of present-day climate , 1996 .

[8]  Christian Körner,et al.  Phenology Under Global Warming , 2010, Science.

[9]  C. Körner.  Significance of Temperature in Plant Life , 2007 .

[10]  Mirco Migliavacca,et al.  On the uncertainty of phenological responses to climate change, and implications for a terrestrial biosphere model , 2012 .

[11]  John F. Mustard,et al.  Phenology model from surface meteorology does not capture satellite‐based greenup estimations , 2007 .

[12]  Tapio Linkosalo,et al.  A comparison of phenological models of leaf bud burst and flowering of boreal trees using independent observations. , 2008, Tree physiology.

[13]  C. Galán,et al.  Olive flowering phenology variation between different cultivars in Spain and Italy: modeling analysis , 2009 .

[14]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes: FORTRAN , 1988 .

[15]  A. Christopoulos,et al.  Fitting Models to Biological Data Using Linear and Nonlinear Regression: A Practical Guide to Curve Fitting , 2004 .

[16]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

[17]  Harald Bugmann,et al.  Warming, photoperiods, and tree phenology. , 2010, Science.

[18]  Hans Wackernagel,et al.  Multivariate Geostatistics: An Introduction with Applications , 1996 .

[19]  W. Briggs.  Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences , 2007 .

[20]  P. Hari,et al.  Effects of dormancy and environmental factors on timing of bud burst in Betula pendula. , 1998, Tree physiology.

[21]  Denis-Didier Rousseau,et al.  Selecting models to predict the timing of flowering of temperate trees: implications for tree phenology modelling , 1999 .

[22]  Jörg Schaber,et al.  Physiology-based phenology models for forest tree species in Germany , 2003, International journal of biometeorology.

[23]  C. Galán,et al.  Predicting the start and peak dates of the Poaceae pollen season in Spain using process-based models , 2009 .

[24]  Jörg Schaber,et al.  Evaluation of methods for the combination of phenological time series and outlier detection. , 2002, Tree physiology.

[25]  O. M. Heide,et al.  Low temperature, but not photoperiod, controls growth cessation and dormancy induction and release in apple and pear. , 2005, Tree physiology.

[26]  Heikki Hänninen,et al.  Effects of climatic change on trees from cool and temperate regions: an ecophysiological approach to modelling of bud burst phenology , 1995 .

[27]  M. Lechowicz,et al.  Predicting the timing of budburst in temperate trees , 1992 .

[28]  Jeffrey A. Andresen,et al.  Phenological Models of Flower Bud Stages and Fruit Growth of `Montmorency' Sour Cherry Based on Growing Degree-day Accumulation , 2006 .