Abstract
Based on observations for the beginning of the flowering stage of Malus domestica (apple) and Pyrus communis (pear) for the 1950–2018 period, phenological trends in north-eastern Belgium were investigated in function of temperatures during dormancy. Moreover, two different phenological models were adapted and evaluated. Median flowering dates of apple were on average 9.5 days earlier following warm dormancy periods, and 11.5 days for pear, but the relationship between bloom date and temperature was found not to be linear, suggesting delayed fulfilment of dormancy requirements due to increased temperatures during the chilling period. After warm chilling periods, an average delay of 5.0 and 10.6 days in the occurrence date of dormancy break was predicted by the phenological models while the PLSR reveals mixed signals regarding the beginning of flowering. Our results suggest overlapping chilling and forcing processes in a transition phase. Regarding the beginning of flowering, a dynamic chill model coupled to a growing degree days estimation yielded significantly lower prediction errors (on average 5.0 days) than a continuous chill-forcing model (6.0 days), at 99% confidence level. Model performance was sensitive to the applied parametrization method and limitations for the application of both models outside the past temperature ranges became apparent.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Apple flowering was 9.5 days earlier after warm dormancy periods.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Outcome
- Median flowering datese0
- Direction
- earliere0
- Value
- 9.5 dayse0
- Setting
- warm dormancy periodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Median flowering dates of apple were on average 9.5 days earlier following warm dormancy periods”
Claim · model-written summary
Pear flowering was 11.5 days earlier after warm dormancy periods.
- Taxon
- pear
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=60)
Pyrus communise0 - Outcome
- flowering datese1
- Direction
- earliere1
- Value
- 11.5 dayse0
- Setting
- warm dormancy periodse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“and 11.5 days for pear”
e1“Median flowering dates of apple were on average 9.5 days earlier following warm dormancy periods”
Claim · model-written summary
The bloom date and temperature relationship was nonlinear.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the relationship between bloom date and temperature was found not to be linear”
Claim · model-written summary
After warm chilling, models predicted apple dormancy break 5.0 days later.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“an average delay of 5.0 and 10.6 days in the occurrence date of dormancy break was predicted by the phenological models”
Claim · model-written summary
After warm chilling, models predicted pear dormancy break 10.6 days later.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“an average delay of 5.0 and 10.6 days in the occurrence date of dormancy break was predicted by the phenological models”
Claim · model-written summary
PLSR gave mixed signals about flowering onset after warm chilling.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the PLSR reveals mixed signals regarding the beginning of flowering”
Claim · model-written summary
A dynamic chill model with growing degree days had lower flowering prediction errors than a continuous chill-forcing model.
Verbatim
e0“a dynamic chill model coupled to a growing degree days estimation yielded significantly lower prediction errors (on average 5.0 days) than a continuous chill-forcing model (6.0 days), at 99% confidence level”
Claim · model-written summary
Model performance was sensitive to parametrization method.
Verbatim
e0“Model performance was sensitive to the applied parametrization method”
Claim · model-written summary
Application of both models outside prior temperature ranges showed limitations.
Verbatim
e0“limitations for the application of both models outside the past temperature ranges became apparent”