Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 8;117(49):31249-31258.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2002713117. Epub 2020 Nov 23.

Differences in spatial versus temporal reaction norms for spring and autumn phenological events

Maria Del Mar Delgado  1 Tomas Roslin  2 Gleb Tikhonov  3 Evgeniy Meyke  4 Coong Lo  3 Eliezer Gurarie  5 Marina Abadonova  6 Ozodbek Abduraimov  7 Olga Adrianova  8 Tatiana Akimova  9 Muzhigit Akkiev  10 Aleksandr Ananin  11   12 Elena Andreeva  13 Natalia Andriychuk  14 Maxim Antipin  15 Konstantin Arzamascev  16 Svetlana Babina  17 Miroslav Babushkin  18 Oleg Bakin  19 Anna Barabancova  20 Inna Basilskaja  21 Nina Belova  22 Natalia Belyaeva  23 Tatjana Bespalova  24 Evgeniya Bisikalova  25 Anatoly Bobretsov  26 Vladimir Bobrov  27 Vadim Bobrovskyi  28 Elena Bochkareva  29   30 Gennady Bogdanov  31 Vladimir Bolshakov  32 Svetlana Bondarchuk  33 Evgeniya Bukharova  11 Alena Butunina  24 Yuri Buyvolov  34 Anna Buyvolova  35 Yuri Bykov  36 Elena Chakhireva  19 Olga Chashchina  37 Nadezhda Cherenkova  38 Sergej Chistjakov  39 Svetlana Chuhontseva  9 Evgeniy A Davydov  29   40 Viktor Demchenko  41 Elena Diadicheva  41 Aleksandr Dobrolyubov  42 Ludmila Dostoyevskaya  43 Svetlana Drovnina  38 Zoya Drozdova  36 Akynaly Dubanaev  44 Yuriy Dubrovsky  45 Sergey Elsukov  33 Lidia Epova  46 Olga S Ermakova  47 Olga Ermakova  22 Aleksandra Esengeldenova  24 Oleg Evstigneev  48 Irina Fedchenko  49 Violetta Fedotova  43 Tatiana Filatova  50 Sergey Gashev  51 Anatoliy Gavrilov  52 Irina Gaydysh  8 Dmitrij Golovcov  53 Nadezhda Goncharova  13 Elena Gorbunova  9 Tatyana Gordeeva  54 Vitaly Grishchenko  55 Ludmila Gromyko  33 Vladimir Hohryakov  56 Alexander Hritankov  13 Elena Ignatenko  57 Svetlana Igosheva  58 Uliya Ivanova  59 Natalya Ivanova  60 Yury Kalinkin  9 Evgeniya Kaygorodova  48 Fedor Kazansky  61 Darya Kiseleva  62 Anastasia Knorre  13   63 Leonid Kolpashikov  52 Evgenii Korobov  64 Helen Korolyova  9 Natalia Korotkikh  24 Gennadiy Kosenkov  56 Sergey Kossenko  48 Elvira Kotlugalyamova  65 Evgeny Kozlovsky  66 Vladimir Kozsheechkin  13 Alla Kozurak  14 Irina Kozyr  22 Aleksandra Krasnopevtseva  22 Sergey Kruglikov  48 Olga Kuberskaya  28 Aleksey Kudryavtsev  42 Elena Kulebyakina  67 Yuliia Kulsha  55 Margarita Kupriyanova  59 Murad Kurbanbagamaev  26 Anatoliy Kutenkov  68 Nadezhda Kutenkova  68 Nadezhda Kuyantseva  37   69 Andrey Kuznetsov  18 Evgeniy Larin  24 Pavel Lebedev  43   70 Kirill Litvinov  71 Natalia Luzhkova  11 Azizbek Mahmudov  7 Lidiya Makovkina  72 Viktor Mamontov  67 Svetlana Mayorova  36 Irina Megalinskaja  26 Artur Meydus  73   74 Aleksandr Minin  75   76 Oleg Mitrofanov  9 Mykhailo Motruk  77 Aleksandr Myslenkov  72 Nina Nasonova  78 Natalia Nemtseva  18 Irina Nesterova  33 Tamara Nezdoliy  59 Tatyana Niroda  79 Tatiana Novikova  58 Darya Panicheva  61 Alexey Pavlov  19 Klara Pavlova  57 Polina Van  28 Sergei Podolski  57 Natalja Polikarpova  80 Tatiana Polyanskaya  81 Igor Pospelov  52 Elena Pospelova  52 Ilya Prokhorov  35 Irina Prokosheva  82 Lyudmila Puchnina  49 Ivan Putrashyk  79 Julia Raiskaya  73 Yuri Rozhkov  83 Olga Rozhkova  83 Marina Rudenko  84 Irina Rybnikova  18 Svetlana Rykova  49 Miroslava Sahnevich  9 Alexander Samoylov  38 Valeri Sanko  41 Inna Sapelnikova  21 Sergei Sazonov  85 Zoya Selyunina  86 Ksenia Shalaeva  56 Maksim Shashkov  60   87 Anatoliy Shcherbakov  68 Vasyl Shevchyk  55 Sergej Shubin  88 Elena Shujskaja  64 Rustam Sibgatullin  23 Natalia Sikkila  8 Elena Sitnikova  48 Andrei Sivkov  49 Nataliya Skok  59 Svetlana Skorokhodova  68 Elena Smirnova  33 Galina Sokolova  34 Vladimir Sopin  73 Yurii Spasovski  89 Sergei Stepanov  64 Vitalіy Stratiy  90 Violetta Strekalovskaya  52 Alexander Sukhov  68 Guzalya Suleymanova  91 Lilija Sultangareeva  65 Viktorija Teleganova  54 Viktor Teplov  26 Valentina Teplova  26 Tatiana Tertitsa  26 Vladislav Timoshkin  13 Dmitry Tirski  83 Andrej Tolmachev  20 Aleksey Tomilin  92   93 Ludmila Tselishcheva  88 Mirabdulla Turgunov  7 Yurij Tyukh  79 Vladimir Van  28 Elena Ershkova  94   95 Aleksander Vasin  96 Aleksandra Vasina  96 Anatoliy Vekliuk  14 Lidia Vetchinnikova  85 Vladislav Vinogradov  13 Nikolay Volodchenkov  22 Inna Voloshina  72 Tura Xoliqov  97 Eugenia Yablonovska-Grishchenko  55 Vladimir Yakovlev  9 Marina Yakovleva  68 Oksana Yantser  59 Yurij Yarema  79 Andrey Zahvatov  98 Valery Zakharov  37 Nicolay Zelenetskiy  18 Anatolii Zheltukhin  64 Tatyana Zubina  9 Juri Kurhinen  3   85 Otso Ovaskainen  3   99
Affiliations

Differences in spatial versus temporal reaction norms for spring and autumn phenological events

Maria Del Mar Delgado et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

For species to stay temporally tuned to their environment, they use cues such as the accumulation of degree-days. The relationships between the timing of a phenological event in a population and its environmental cue can be described by a population-level reaction norm. Variation in reaction norms along environmental gradients may either intensify the environmental effects on timing (cogradient variation) or attenuate the effects (countergradient variation). To resolve spatial and seasonal variation in species' response, we use a unique dataset of 91 taxa and 178 phenological events observed across a network of 472 monitoring sites, spread across the nations of the former Soviet Union. We show that compared to local rates of advancement of phenological events with the advancement of temperature-related cues (i.e., variation within site over years), spatial variation in reaction norms tend to accentuate responses in spring (cogradient variation) and attenuate them in autumn (countergradient variation). As a result, among-population variation in the timing of events is greater in spring and less in autumn than if all populations followed the same reaction norm regardless of location. Despite such signs of local adaptation, overall phenotypic plasticity was not sufficient for phenological events to keep exact pace with their cues-the earlier the year, the more did the timing of the phenological event lag behind the timing of the cue. Overall, these patterns suggest that differences in the spatial versus temporal reaction norms will affect species' response to climate change in opposite ways in spring and autumn.

Keywords: chilling; climate change; heating; phenology; plasticity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Schematic illustration showing slopes of phenology on temperature. Adapted with permission from ref. . A corresponds to phenological plasticity with respect to temperature and no local adaptation. B reveals phenological plasticity with respect to temperature plus cogradient local adaptation. C reveals phenological plasticity with respect to temperature plus countergradient local adaptation. For each scenario, we have included two examples of events showing this type of pattern in our data. For the exact climatic cues related to these biotic events, see SI Appendix, Table S1. In each plot, the red lines correspond to the within-population reaction norms through time (i.e., temporal slopes within locations), and the blue line corresponds to the between-population reaction norm (i.e., spatial slopes). If all populations respond alike, then the same reaction norm will apply across all locations, and individuals will respond in the same way to the cue no matter where they were, and no matter whether we examine responses within or between locations. If this was the case, then the reaction norm would be the same within (red lines) and between locations, and the blue and the red slopes would be parallel (i.e., their slopes identical). This scenario is depicted in A. What we use as our estimate of local adaptation is the difference between the two, i.e., whether the slope of reaction norms within populations differs from that across populations. If the temporal slopes are estimated at a relatively short time scale (as compared to the generation length of the focal organisms), then we can assume that within-location variation in the timing of the event reflects phenotypic responses alone, not evolutionary change over time. This component is then, per definition, due to phenotypic plasticity as such, i.e., to how individuals of a constant genetic makeup respond to annual variation in their environment. By comparison, the spatial slope (i.e., the blue line) is a sum of two parts: first, it reflects the mean of how individuals of a constant genetic makeup respond to annual variation in their environment, i.e., the temporal reaction norm defined above. These means are shown by the red dots in AC. However, second, if populations differentiate across sites, then we will see variation in their response to long-term conditions, with an added element in the spatial slope reflecting mean plasticity plus local adaptation. Therefore, if the spatial slope differs from the temporal slope, this reveals local adaptation (see Materials and Methods for further details). Such local adaptation in phenological response may take two forms. 1) The magnitude of phenological change might vary along environmental gradients in ways that intensify the environmental effects on phenological traits, a process known as cogradient variation (Fig. 1B). In such a case, the covariance between the genetic influences on phenological traits and the environmental influences is positive. Under this scenario, variation in the environmental cue over space and time will cause larger variation in phenological timing than if all populations were to follow the same reaction norm regardless of location. 2) Genotypes might counteract environmental effects, thereby diminishing the change in mean trait expression across the environmental gradient. In such a case, the effect of variation in the environmental cue over space and time will be smaller than if all populations were to follow the same reaction norm regardless of location. This latter scenario, termed countergradient variation, occurs when genetic and environmental influences on phenotypic traits oppose one another (C).
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Study sites and spatiotemporal patterns in climatic and phenological data. A shows the depth of the data and the spatial distribution of monitoring sites, with the size of the symbol proportional to the number of events scored locally. Since the selection of sites differed between events (39), in A, we have pooled sites located within 300 km from each other for illustration purposes. B shows the mean timing (day of year) of a phenological event: the onset of blooming in dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). C shows the mean timing (day of year) of a climatic event: the day of the year when the temperature sum providing the highest temporal slope for the onset of blooming in dandelion was first exceeded, computed as the mean over the years considered in B. For a worked-through example estimating reaction norms and metrics of local adaptation (Δb) for this species, see SI Appendix, Text S1.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
The relationship between the mean timing of an event (day of year) and the slope of phenology on dates of achieving specific degree-day sums. Shown are spatial (A) and temporal (B) slopes (i.e., temporal slopes within populations), with C showing the difference between them, Δb, as an estimate of local adaptation (see main text and Fig. 1 for details). Phenological events are shown by filled circles, with the trophic level in question identified by color: primary producers are shown in green, primary consumers in yellow, secondary consumers in black, and saprotrophs in orange. A quadrat around the circle identifies species for which the 95% HPD does not overlap with 0. For visual comparison, a black line has been added to AC at a slope value of 0 (indicating no relationship), and a red line has been added at a slope value of 1 (indicating a perfect relationship, i.e., a shift of 1 d in the timing of the event with a shift of 1 d in the date of achieving the degree-day sum in question). Dashed curves refer to model estimates provided in SI Appendix, Table S2. For the degree sum related to individual events, see SI Appendix.

References

    1. Visser M. E., Both C., Lambrechts M. M., Global climate change leads to mistimed avian reproduction. Adv. Ecol. Res. 35, 89–110 (2004).
    1. Visser M. E., Keeping up with a warming world; assessing the rate of adaptation to climate change. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 649–659 (2008). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kharouba H. M., et al. , Global shifts in the phenological synchrony of species interactions over recent decades. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 5211–5216 (2018). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lindén A., Adaptive and nonadaptive changes in phenological synchrony. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 5057–5059 (2018). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Franks S. J., Sim S., Weis A. E., Rapid evolution of flowering time by an annual plant in response to a climate fluctuation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 1278–1282 (2007). - PMC - PubMed