Climate change is driving changes in the blooming of wildflowers at Mount Rainier National Park/Elli Theobald
Riots of blooming wildflowers are one of the joys of visiting national parks, but climate change is tinkering with the schedule of some of those flowers. At Mount Rainier National Park in Washington, for instance, all wildflower species are blooming earlier than in the past, roughly half have extended their season, and a little less than half shortened theirs, according to research conducted by University of Washington personnel.
A trio of ecologists from the university stumbled upon this alteration while collecting data on the subalpine wildflowers that bloom each summer on the slopes of Mount Rainier. As they report in a paper published online last month in the journal Ecology, an unseasonably warm, dry summer in 2015 caused reassembly among these subalpine wildflower communities.
The conditions in 2015 gave the team — consisting of doctoral student Elli Theobald, doctoral student Ian Breckheimer and biology professor Janneke Hille Ris Lambers — a preview of what subalpine communities may look like by the end of this century. By then, significant climate change is expected to permanently alter environmental cues that wildflowers rely upon and make community reassembly a more common phenomenon — with unknown consequences for species interactions in those communities.
"2015 was such an outlier that it gave us a glimpse of what this environment on Mount Rainier might be like toward the end of this century," said Theobald, who is co-lead-author on the paper with Breckheimer. "Conditions were so warm that they affected the flowering time and flowering duration of species, forming communities in 2015 that simply did not exist in the other years of our study."
Their study is one of few to demonstrate evidence for community-level reassembly among multiple species.
"These reassembled communities could potentially change the interactions among wildflowers and other species in this subalpine setting," said Theobald.
For six summers from 2010 to 2015, Theobald tracked environmental conditions and plant behavior for 48 species at 70 field plots, each one square meter, along the southern slope of Mount Rainier. The plots ranged from 1,490 to 1,901 meters in elevation. Within each plot, Theobald used sensors to record temperature, snowmelt, and soil moisture content.
"At these elevations on Mount Rainier, snow is the major driver of plant behavior, because the annual cycle of flowering and reproducing cannot begin until the snow melts," said Hille Ris Lambers. "If there is snow on the ground, plants cannot photosynthesize, and if they cannot photosynthesize, they cannot grow."
All wildflower species at the park are blooming earlier, and a little more than half are staying in bloom longer/Gary Vogt file
When the sensors reported that snow had melted at each plot, Theobald collected data on when plants would emerge, flower, and begin to produce fruit. These included species familiar to hikers such as avalanche lily, magenta paintbrush, mountain blueberry, wild huckleberry and wild lupines.
Most of these plants are perennials, which retreat underground each winter. But when snow melts, they typically have a two- to four-month window — depending on elevation and position — to grow, flower and produce fruit and seeds for the next generation before snow returns.
In 2015, conditions were so warm that, on average, snow began to melt at the study plots 58 days earlier than in 2010-2014. The team recorded major shifts in the bloom times of wildflower species. All of the species — 100 percent — flowered earlier in 2015 and 54 percent of species also lengthened their flower duration that year, some by as many as 15 days. The remaining species showed shorter flower duration, in one case by nearly 19 days, possibly due to accelerated soil drying, altered pollinator activity or other factors.
Since species shifted in different ways, conditions in 2015 produced new patterns of reassembled wildflower communities, with unknown ecological consequences.
"These are species that have always coexisted at these subalpine sites," said Theobald. "But in 2015, we saw species flowering at the same time that normally flowered weeks apart."
The team saw the most dramatic signs of reassembly among plants that normally flowered early in the summer. These plants tended to grow at sites experiencing less snowfall — such as plots at lower elevations, or along ridges and slopes instead of coves and valleys, where snow tends to accumulate. In addition, the plants that tended to lengthen flowering duration did so if they experienced a greater number of warm, photosynthetically "productive" days in 2015.
Reassembly on the scale that the researchers saw in 2015 — and that Mount Rainier may see every year by the end of this century — may change interactions among species. For example, plants could compete for access to pollinators, which at Mount Rainier include bumblebees, flies and hummingbirds.
"We simply don't yet have enough information to know who the 'winners' and 'losers' of reassembly will be, or even what 'winning' or 'losing' in such a scenario would look like," said Theobald.
To predict that, scientists must observe and test how ecological reassembly affects reproduction for all species in these regions — from flowers and pollinators, to even the bears that feed on subalpine berries. These effects will also impact the people who visit these sites and try to preserve them.
"All of these interactions among species — and how those interactions will shift due to climate change — will affect how we manage these sites," said Hille Ris Lambers. "After all, Mount Rainier is a national park that is here for all of us, as well as the species that call it home."
Glacier lilies in bloom at Mount Rainier/Rebecca Latson file
Comments
The words of the study's author:
"We indicated 23 years ago -- in our 1994 Nature article -- that climate models had the atmosphere's sensitivity to CO2 much too high," "This recent paper bolsters that conclusion."
That was the results of the paper and was accurately reported in the IDB and elsewhere. It doesn't take a high "level of understanding" to understand what that statement says.
Tomp2. A worthy analysis, and I am so glad to hear that "scientists" are less inclined to cite Al Gore. The Media most certainly cites him, however, along with that dubious statistic about "97 percent of scientists. . ." Books like The Water Will Come are also meant to stir the pot. When Rachel Carson published Silent Spring (1962), the cover of her book was not a pile of dead birds.
Here's my problem with the science. When the "other side" does what you have done here--present an analysis of the data--it still gets written out of the "party," as if to "believe" is more important than to "analyze." In my field, American History, universities are behaving much the same. There are many things we can no longer "say" in univerisites, lest our "analysis" (research) prove offensive. And so we do not teach the roots of these crises honestly, either, but rather pick the side whom students should "indict."
John Lemmons calls it "dismissing the uncertainties." No, it is rather to dismiss the findings that happen to conflict with your own. I am not "dismissing the uncertainties"; I am rather asking that everything be on the table. If there are uncertainties, they indeed matter. They cannot simply be ignored. The "snapshot" we love of Mother Earth is still a snapshot, after all. No snapshot ever lasts forever. Just float the Colorado River and ask yourself how many millions of snapshots are in those rocks.
Whether in History or in Science, we should refuse to be guided by snapshots. At the very least we should want the album where the snapshot came to rest. Suddenly, all we have is snapshots--in history, the history of women, the history of minorities, the history of this interest group or that. Less and less we have the history of the country in which all of it came together. It is rather assumed that none of it came together--that all "real" Americans do is suffer.
The climate change argument is much the same. If we don't act now, we will "suffer." In Seattle the people will drown. After that, crops will fail; everything will fail. Don't believe it? Get out of town.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/democrats-in-the-seattle-...
The problem is: When Seattle politicians act contrary to their "beliefs," no one calls them on the facts or the beliefs. We will shortly open a waterfront tunnel smack dab across a fault line. What, the City Council worry? Now when the spoils system has billions of $$$$ to pass out. However, please do worry when we tell you to worry. You cannot possibly drown in our waterfront tunnel, but boy, that ice sheet has your name on it.
Mr. Runte:
I confess I do not understand many of your posts, e.g., your last one here.
Why do you place the word "scientists" in quotes?
What is dubious about the statistic that about "97 percent of scientists"...[believe current climate change is anthropogenic?]
Of course Jeff Goodall's book "The Water Will Come" is meant to stir the pot." Given US inaction on climate change someone need stir the pot, and soon.
What do you mean when you say that "When the other side...presents analysis of the data-it still gets written out of the party, as if to "believe" is more important than to "analyze"? I have no idea what you mean, but it would sure be helpful if you could provide some concrete and referenced examples. I have been in science more than 40 years, and I never have been told or felt that there are things I must not say.
You belittle scientists in your mini-lecture about "snapshots." Don't you think in general scientists know the limitations and boundaries of their studies and; e.g., that indeed scientific studies are snapshots? What makes you (apparently) think scientists need to hear your words about snapshots as if they had no clue about limitations of studies?
You muddle the rising waters when you write like a denier and, e.g., criticize arguments that urgent action is needed to avoid suffering or significant impacts. On the other hand, if you are not a denier provide some specific data with references that overcome the conclusions of climatologists.
What is the relevance of your last paragraph? The article you supposedly are responding to concerns certain ecological impacts of climate change on Mt. Rainer. Why the diatribe against Seattle politicians, since they are irrelevant to the point of the article? (Save it for another more relevant article).
Do you know where that number comes from? If you do, you know why it is dubious.
Thank you John Lemons for the interesting post. I must agree. In any case, speaking of informative books on the issue of climate change, some readers may find "Private Empire" by Steve Coll interesting. Both a New York Times best seller and the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year. "Private Empire" first published in 2012, presents the complexities of the climate change issue and why the debate has become so contentious.
Okay, John. You want an example. How about Daniel Botkin, now the author of 14 books, including his latest, 25 MYTHS THAT ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT, out last year from Rowman & Littlefield. Have you read it--or any of his other books--including POWERING THE FUTURE, which is about renewable energy? His son Jonathan works in the field, installing solar plants across the country. Ask Dan what is happening to real "scientists," and yes, the quotes are there for a reason, since Dan--among other scientists I know--has been blackballed for even suggesting that climate change is other than what it appears.
As for Seattle, you bet my comments are relevant, since that is how the new "religion" works. Jump up and down about global warming, but ignore any immediate threats you happen not to like. That waterfront tunnel, should there be a tsunami, would be flooded and hundreds of motorists drown. Who told me that? A distinguished seismologist at the University of Washington, but no one wanted to hear his "opinion," either. I ran for mayor on his research--and that of other UW engineers and scientists--and got clobbered by downtown money. You want to talk to me about global warming, John? Then tell me why no one listens when their project is being criticized.
You write: "I never have been told or felt that there are things I must not say." Well, good for you. I have felt that--and been told it--in no uncertain terms. Look at the term you use--"denier." You mean to say you accept your critics? Not with that term, you don't. That is an invitation, no, a demand, that anyone who criticizes you shut up. "if you are not a denier provide some specific data with references that overcome the conclusions of climatologists." And there you go again. You write as if all climatologists are in agreement--as if the argument is over and that is that. Well, I just gave you a toweing reference, whose entire life is filled with data. But no, you will deny Dan Botkin's research as not in keeping with your own.
Urgent action is needed, you say. Well, tell that to the politicians who act as if only their action counts. Or whom do you presume to be speaking to when you say "to avoid suffering or significant impacts?" In this republic, our politicians pass the laws and make the rules. Reading the article above, yes, I dared read between the lines. If it was not meant to influence political action, can you tell me what its real purpose is? If you say no, it was to "educate" the public, then how is the public supposed to react? Ho, hum. I just read another article on climate change. I guess I'll just file it with all the others.
It is no wonder the taxpayers are finally questioning why they should support us nonetheless. If we can't seem to agree how to disagree, the whole purpose of education is lost. Deny that, since you talk about denial. Deny that everything about education today is a mess.
Here is an excellent paper on the relatively high consensus among published climatologists. It's from the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf
I am sure their are many others.
I wish ec and Al Runte would quit attempting to sound as if they have credible expertise in the field of human caused climate change. It appears to me that they've gone far beyond assuming the role of merchants of doubt, but instead have become online trolls dedicated to attack the findings of the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, AAAS, NAS, and others.
Perhaps their strategy is to repetitively post a position of climate change denial often enough, it will eventually be taken by some as fact. Obviously, this tact has worked extremely well among professional propagandists supporting the GOP, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, the NRA, and the fossile-fuel industry.
Personally, I don't find the positions of ec and Runte (as stated repetitively within the commentary threads of numerous articles in NPT) dismissing human-caused climate change to have scientific merit.
pkrnger. Ah, yes. The word "denial" again. Can you "scientists" find no other word? How about dispute? I dispute your evidence. I don't deny it. You may indeed be right.
That is what you "preachers" miss. You're in the tent, not in the laboratory. You're Elmer Gantry and not Albert Einstein.
Every great scientist I have known (and I've known many) has had a healthy disregard for "the truth." It may indeed be true that humans are causing climate change; it may be equally true there is nothing they can do about it. That is where I question the tent. The more the Elmer Gantrys of the world tell everyone else they have it wrong, the less the world will listen. Just begin the class by telling your students only you have the answers, and see how many return the following day.
EC is not denying good laboratory conclusions--nor am I. We are rather disputing the value of making conclusions based on fear. Repent ye deniers, or you will die!
We're all going to die. But to accept change is not to die. The world is changing--and always has been changing. Humans will adjust, as they always have.
It is Daniel Botkin's thesis that change is constant. Whatever the "cause" is less the issue than learning to cope with change. As a matter of fact, it's a thesis as old as the ancient Greeks. "The only thing permanent in the world is change." Heraclitis. "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
But forgive me. I forgot. I'm just a historian. Nothing to learn from history, is there? You merchants of the truth know it all.