Fig. 2: The apparent spring phenological sensitivity to temperature demonstrated in situ in one of the longest time series of phenological observations. | npj Science of Plants

Fig. 2: The apparent spring phenological sensitivity to temperature demonstrated in situ in one of the longest time series of phenological observations.

From: Rethinking the interpretation of spring phenological temperature sensitivity

Fig. 2: The apparent spring phenological sensitivity to temperature demonstrated in situ in one of the longest time series of phenological observations.The alt text for this image may have been generated using AI.

a The growing degree days (GDD) required for cherry trees growing in Liestal to flower depend on the year. The regression line represents the long-term average GDD ±1σ, and the dots represent the underlying raw data of in situ phenological observations14. While we cannot rule out decreasing chilling as a driver of declining spring phenological temperature sensitivities, lower chilling should increase the required thermal time to budburst [see refs. 5,10], whereas here no systematic trend in GDD over time was observed. b Representation of the time to Liestal cherry tree blooming as a function of temperature under the assumption of constant GDD across years. The regression line represents simulated mean values ±1σ, and the dots represent the underlying raw data. c The log–log transformed time to blooming-temperature relationship of the data shown in (b) to linearize the relationship.

Back to article page