Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40772424›Full record

ReviewThe New phytologist2025

Thresholds for spring freeze: measuring risk to improve predictions in a warming world.

Erica Kirchhof, Francisco Campos-Arguedas, Nadia Soledad Arias, Al P Kovaleski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The New phytologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Erica Kirchhof *Department of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9741-9031
Francisco Campos-Arguedas *Department of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8411-2792
Nadia Soledad AriasInstituto de Biociencias de la Patagonia (INBIOP), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia San Juan Bosco (UNPSJB), Comodoro Rivadavia, 90000, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7408-9886
Al P KovaleskiDepartment of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3287-4963

Funding

Fulbright Commission in Argentina in collaboration with the Consejo Federal de Inversiones (CFI), ArgentinaNational Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire Stennis project 7002619Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant distribution and productivity are shaped by environmental stressors, particularly freezing events in extra-tropical regions. In early spring, a progressive loss of cold hardiness with phenological development leaves emerging tissues vulnerable to freezing events. In many regions, climate warming is advancing phenology to a greater degree than the date of the last spring freeze, increasing the period of vulnerability to spring freezes. Studies describing critical temperatures at which spring freeze damage occurs are numerous and diverse in both the system studied and type of thresholds used (empirical vs model). Here, we review trends in previously reported thresholds for spring freeze damage across a range of plant groups (row crops, fruit trees, and forest species) over the course of phenological development in spring, and analyze potential sources of variation causing discrepancies between empirically determined and model-derived thresholds. Our analysis shows consistent reporting of higher (less-hardy) thresholds in model-based studies when compared with empirical measurements. These differences highlight a need to improve model estimations of damage by accounting for both microclimatic complexities (humidity, topography, wind speed, etc.) and physiological considerations (phenology and species) that influence the translatability between precise, empirically measured thresholds and critical temperatures used to describe damage in the field.

Indexed as

FreezingGlobal WarmingSeasonsModels, BiologicalRiskcold hardinessfrost riskphenological stagephenologyspring freezespring frosttemperature threshold

Identifiers

PMID40772424
PMCPMC12445811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.