Engineering topics

Wolkovich, E. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Wolkovich, E. M..

2 records

NASA NTRS2019

How Do Climate Change Experiments Alter Plot-Scale Climate?

To understand and forecast biological responses to climate change, scientists frequently use field experiments that alter temperature and precipitation. Climate manipulations can manifest in complex ways, however, challenging interpretations of biological responses. We reviewed publications to compile a database of daily plot-scale climate data from 15 active-warming experiments. We find that the common practices of analysing treatments as mean or categorical changes (e.g. warmed vs.unwarmed) masks important variation in treatment effects over space and time. Our synthesis showed that measured mean warming, in plots with the same target warming within a study, differed by up to 1.6° Celsius degrees (63% of target), on average, across six studies with blocked designs. Variation was high across sites and designs: for example, plots differed by 1.1°Celsius degrees (47% of target) on average, for infrared studies with feedback control (n = 3) vs. by 2.2° Celsius degrees (80% of target) on average for infrared with constant wattage designs (n = 2). Warming treatments produce non-temperature effects as well, such as soil drying. The combination of these direct and indirect effects is complex and can have important biological consequences. With a case study of plant phenology across five experiments in our database, we show how accounting for drier soils with warming tripled the estimated sensitivity of budburst to temperature. We provide recommendations for future analyses, experimental design,and data sharing to improve our mechanistic understanding from climate change experiments, and thus their utility to accurately forecast species' responses.

warming experiment↗

NASA NTRS2012

Warming Experiments Underpredict Plant Phenological Responses to Climate Change

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.

phenology↗