Subalpine Meadow Flowering Phenology Responses to Climate Change: Integrating Experimental and Gradient Methods

Abstract

We integrated experimental and natural gradient field methods to investigate effects of climate change and variability on flowering phenology of 11 subalpine meadow shrub, forb, and graminoid species in Gunnison County, Colorado (USA). At a subalpine meadow site, overhead electric radiant heaters advanced snowmelt date by 16 d and warmed and dried soil during the growing season. At three additional sites, a snow removal manipulation advanced snowmelt date by 7 d without altering growing season soil microclimate. We compared phenological responses to experimental climate change with responses to natural microclimate variability across spatial gradients at small and landscape scales, as well as across a temporal gradient from a separate study. Both manipulations significantly advanced timing of flowering for the group of species and for most species individually, closely paralleling responses of timing to natural spatial and temporal variability in snowmelt date. Snowmelt date singularly explained observed shifts in timing only in the earliest flowering species, Claytonia lanceolata. Among all other species except Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana, the latest flowering species, a consistent combination of temperature‐related microclimate factors (earlier snowmelt date, warmer soil temperatures, and decreased soil degree‐days) substantially explained earlier timing. Both manipulations also extended flowering duration for the group of species, similar to species' responses to natural snowmelt variability at small spatial scales. However, only early flowering species displayed consistent, significant changes in duration, with extended duration related to earlier snowmelt or warmer spring soil temperatures. Soil moisture was generally not a significant explanatory factor for either timing or duration of flowering. Best‐fit microclimate models explained an average of 82% of variation in timing but only 38% of variation in duration across species. Our research demonstrates the value of comparing and synthesizing results of multiple field methods within a single study. This integrated approach makes it easier to identify robust community‐wide trends, as well as species‐specific responses of phenology to climate change. The predicted short‐term flowering phenology responses to temperature‐related aspects of climate change may lead to longer term asynchronies in interspecific interactions, potentially altering population and evolutionary dynamics, community structure, and ecosystem functioning. Corresponding Editor: S. C. Pennings

Toward a synthetic understanding of the role of phenology in ecology and evolution

“…Where experiments are impossible, statistical modelling to compare the effectiveness of different predictors can at least provide clues about which cues are most likely involved (e.g. Dunne et al 2003;Hü lber et al 2010). Similar responses to recent climate change among groups of related species (i.e.…”

Evolutionary and Ecological Responses to Anthropogenic Climate Change

“…Researchers can impose experimental treatments that simulate future conditions and control treatments that represent contemporary environments (Dunne et al, 2003). Manipulative experiments that include replicated genotypes of known origin, collected from multiple populations across the range of a species, can test all of the hypotheses in Table I (Leakey and Lau, 2012), especially when combined with provenance trials or longitudinal studies.…”

Assessment of Biological and Environmental Phenology at a Landscape Level from 30 Years of Fixed-Date Repeat Photography in Northern Sweden

“…Snow cover protects both plants and soils from the extreme low temperatures experienced during winter in arctic areas (Sokratov and Barry 2002;Darmody et al 2004), and from grazing by both large and small herbivores (Kohler and Aanes 2004). Furthermore, it is widely considered that at higher latitudes the timing of snow melt determines the on-set of the subsequent growing season (Walker et al 1995;Dunne et al 2003;Aerts et al 2006). A future reduction in snow depth or an advanced snow melt could eventually lead to changes in species assemblages (Galen and Stanton 1995;Scott and Rouse 1995;Wipf et al 2005) through effects on plant phenology (Dunne et al 2003), growth (Walker et al 1995;Kudo et al 1999;Wipf et al 2009) and species-species interactions (Callaway et al 2002;Wipf et al 2006).…”