ArticleNature plants2022
Accurate phenology analyses require bud traits and energy budgets.
Article in Nature plants, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acquisitive plants exhibit stronger phenological shifts in response to warming: insights from meta-analysis and long-term monitoring.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- PEP725: 15 years of driving European and global phenology science.The New phytologist · 2026Review
- Cold hardiness mechanisms and modeling: existing approaches and future avenues.The New phytologist · 2026Review
- Emerging trend of increasing spring frost damage for beech at higher elevations in the Jura Mountains: evidence from tree-ring data.The New phytologist · 2025Article
- Thresholds for spring freeze: measuring risk to improve predictions in a warming world.The New phytologist · 2025Review
- Declining precipitation frequency may drive earlier leaf senescence by intensifying drought stress and enhancing drought acclimation.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Time to budbreak is not enough: cold hardiness evaluation is necessary in dormancy and spring phenology studies.Annals of botany · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spring phenology is mainly driven by temperature in extratropical ecosystems. Recent evidence highlighted the key role of micrometeorology and bud temperature on delaying or advancing leaf unfolding. Yet, phenology studies, either using ground-based or remote sensing observations, always substitute plant tissue temperature by air temperature. In fact, temperatures differ substantially between plant tissues and the air because plants absorb and lose energy. Here, we build on recent observations and well-established energy balance theories to discuss how solar radiation, wind and bud traits might affect our interpretation of spring phenology sensitivity to warming. We show that air temperature might be an imprecise and biased predictor of bud temperature. Better characterizing the plants' phenological response to warming will require new observations of bud traits and temperature for accurately quantifying their energy budget. As consistent micrometeorology datasets are still scarce, new approaches coupling energy budget modelling and plant traits could help to improve phenology analyses across scales.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35953710What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.