Search

During the particularly severe hot summer drought in 2018, widespread premature leaf senescence was observed in several broadleaved tree species in Central Europe, particularly in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). For beech, it is yet unknown whether the drought evoked a decline towards tree mortality or whether trees can recover in the longer term.In this study, we monitored crown dieback, tree mortality and secondary drought damage symptoms in 963 initially live beech trees that exhibited either premature or normal leaf senescence in 2018 in three regions in northern Switzerland from 2018 to 2021. We related the observed damage to multiple climate‐ and stand‐related parameters.Cumulative tree mortality continuously increased up to 7.2% and 1.3% in 2021 for trees with premature and normal leaf senescence in 2018, respectively. Mean crown dieback in surviving trees peaked at 29.2% in 2020 and 8.1% in 2019 for trees with premature and normal leaf senescence, respectively. Thereafter, trees showed first signs of recovery. Crown damage was more pronounced and recovery was slower for trees that showed premature leaf senescence in 2018, for trees growing on drier sites, and for larger trees. The presence of bleeding cankers peaked at 24.6% in 2019 and 10.7% in 2020 for trees with premature and normal leaf senescence, respectively. The presence of bark beetle holes peaked at 22.8% and 14.8% in 2021 for trees with premature and normal leaf senescence, respectively. Both secondary damage symptoms occurred more frequently in trees that had higher proportions of crown dieback and/or showed premature senescence in 2018.Our findings demonstrate context‐specific differences in beech mortality and recovery reflecting the importance of regional and local climate and soil conditions. Adapting management to increase forest resilience is gaining importance, given the expected further beech decline on dry sites in northern Switzerland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 ∘C (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 ∘C (47% of target) on average, for infrared studies with feedback control (n = 3) vs. by 2.2 ∘C (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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]