Stability and transferability of broadly trained phenology models in a changing climate

• leaf emergence models are robust and stable; senescence models need refinement. • warming increases the importance of the onset of ecodormancy. • long-term data reveal species-specific responses to drivers over time. A variety of phenology process-based models have been developed to simulate environmental influences on the timing of spring and autumn phenophases. Similar performances between different types of mechanistic models have raised questions about reliability of their predictions. To assess the biological relevance of phenology models, we used a seven-decade dataset of five species across 170 sites and 1700 m elevation in Switzerland. We evaluated nine leaf emergence and ten senescence models over time and space. We explored how optimal parameter values and influences vary, reflecting transitions in model aptitude and phenology responses to drivers. Leaf emergence models showed improved predictions at external sites over time, while emergence dates converged across Switzerland. In contrast, leaf senescence models often failed to outperform the null model predicting the mean date of training data and showed divergent performance trends. Trends in optimal parameters indicated species-specific responses to emergence drivers, with cold-climate suited species favouring earlier thresholds for warmth accumulation in spring, while the trends were opposite for warm-climate suited species, except for beech showing stable parameters likely due to strong photoperiod constraints. Warming increased the importance of chilling-related parameters for leaf emergence, while senescence parameter sensitivities remained stable. Spatial analyses revealed that complex models were less robust to training and validation at different elevations than simple models, and that phenological responses may vary non-linearly with elevation, likely due to local adaptations. Senescence models performed better with validation at high elevations, where climatic variables such as cooling temperatures play a large role, while predictions were more challenging at other elevations. These findings highlight the need for further refinement of process-based models to account for all driving influences on plant phenology, particularly for leaf senescence models. Our work demonstrates the potential for process-based modelling techniques to better understand phenology responses to climate change.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Published
2025-06-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110685
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Remote Sensing in Agriculture
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.15
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Stability and transferability of broadly trained phenology models in a changing climate

Arthur Geßler, Yann Vitasse, J. Jelle Lever, Lynsay Spafford et al.
3 citations
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Remote Sensing in Agriculture
5.15
article

Stability and transferability of broadly trained phenology models in a changing climate

Arthur Geßler, Yann Vitasse, J. Jelle Lever, Lynsay Spafford, Christian Sigg, Jan Dirk Wegner, Barbara Pietragalla, Roman Zweifel, Vivien Sainte Fare Garnot
article en
3 citations

Abstract

• leaf emergence models are robust and stable; senescence models need refinement. • warming increases the importance of the onset of ecodormancy. • long-term data reveal species-specific responses to drivers over time. A variety of phenology process-based models have been developed to simulate environmental influences on the timing of spring and autumn phenophases. Similar performances between different types of mechanistic models have raised questions about reliability of their predictions. To assess the biological relevance of phenology models, we used a seven-decade dataset of five species across 170 sites and 1700 m elevation in Switzerland. We evaluated nine leaf emergence and ten senescence models over time and space. We explored how optimal parameter values and influences vary, reflecting transitions in model aptitude and phenology responses to drivers. Leaf emergence models showed improved predictions at external sites over time, while emergence dates converged across Switzerland. In contrast, leaf senescence models often failed to outperform the null model predicting the mean date of training data and showed divergent performance trends. Trends in optimal parameters indicated species-specific responses to emergence drivers, with cold-climate suited species favouring earlier thresholds for warmth accumulation in spring, while the trends were opposite for warm-climate suited species, except for beech showing stable parameters likely due to strong photoperiod constraints. Warming increased the importance of chilling-related parameters for leaf emergence, while senescence parameter sensitivities remained stable. Spatial analyses revealed that complex models were less robust to training and validation at different elevations than simple models, and that phenological responses may vary non-linearly with elevation, likely due to local adaptations. Senescence models performed better with validation at high elevations, where climatic variables such as cooling temperatures play a large role, while predictions were more challenging at other elevations. These findings highlight the need for further refinement of process-based models to account for all driving influences on plant phenology, particularly for leaf senescence models. Our work demonstrates the potential for process-based modelling techniques to better understand phenology responses to climate change.

Agricultural and Forest MeteorologyVol. 372
University of New Brunswick (CA), University of Bern (CH), Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research (CH), Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss (CH), Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (CH), ETH Zurich (CH), Department of Mathematical Sciences (RU)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Remote Sensing in Agriculture
5.15
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.