↓ Skip to main content

Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
760 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1357 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change
Published in
Nature, May 2012
DOI 10.1038/nature11014
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. M. Wolkovich, B. I. Cook, J. M. Allen, T. M. Crimmins, J. L. Betancourt, S. E. Travers, S. Pau, J. Regetz, T. J. Davies, N. J. B. Kraft, T. R. Ault, K. Bolmgren, S. J. Mazer, G. J. McCabe, B. J. McGill, C. Parmesan, N. Salamin, M. D. Schwartz, E. E. Cleland

Abstract

Warming experiments are increasingly relied on to estimate plant responses to global climate change. For experiments to provide meaningful predictions of future responses, they should reflect the empirical record of responses to temperature variability and recent warming, including advances in the timing of flowering and leafing. We compared phenology (the timing of recurring life history events) in observational studies and warming experiments spanning four continents and 1,634 plant species using a common measure of temperature sensitivity (change in days per degree Celsius). We show that warming experiments underpredict advances in the timing of flowering and leafing by 8.5-fold and 4.0-fold, respectively, compared with long-term observations. For species that were common to both study types, the experimental results did not match the observational data in sign or magnitude. The observational data also showed that species that flower earliest in the spring have the highest temperature sensitivities, but this trend was not reflected in the experimental data. These significant mismatches seem to be unrelated to the study length or to the degree of manipulated warming in experiments. The discrepancy between experiments and observations, however, could arise from complex interactions among multiple drivers in the observational data, or it could arise from remediable artefacts in the experiments that result in lower irradiance and drier soils, thus dampening the phenological responses to manipulated warming. Our results introduce uncertainty into ecosystem models that are informed solely by experiments and suggest that responses to climate change that are predicted using such models should be re-evaluated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 28 2%
Switzerland 6 <1%
Germany 6 <1%
Brazil 6 <1%
France 5 <1%
Japan 5 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Other 22 2%
Unknown 1269 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 307 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 306 23%
Student > Master 168 12%
Student > Bachelor 96 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 70 5%
Other 236 17%
Unknown 174 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 556 41%
Environmental Science 333 25%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 117 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 2%
Social Sciences 15 1%
Other 68 5%
Unknown 240 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2022.
All research outputs
#371,564
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#18,873
of 99,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,631
of 179,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#176
of 991 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 99,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 179,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 991 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.