Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T09:44:27.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relationships among phenology, climate and biomass across subtropical forests in Argentina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2018

Cecilia Blundo*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología Regional, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. CONICET. Yerba Buena, Argentina
Nestor I. Gasparri
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología Regional, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. CONICET. Yerba Buena, Argentina
Agustina Malizia
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología Regional, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. CONICET. Yerba Buena, Argentina
Matthew Clark
Affiliation:
Center for Interdisciplinary Geospatial Analysis, Department of Geography, Environment and Planning, Sonoma State University, CA, USA
Genoveva Gatti
Affiliation:
Instituto de Biología Subtropical, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de Misiones. CONICET. Puerto Iguazú, Argentina
Paula I. Campanello
Affiliation:
Instituto de Biología Subtropical, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de Misiones. CONICET. Puerto Iguazú, Argentina
H. Ricardo Grau
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología Regional, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. CONICET. Yerba Buena, Argentina
Leonardo Paolini
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología Regional, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. CONICET. Yerba Buena, Argentina
Lucio R. Malizia
Affiliation:
Centro de Estudios Territoriales Ambientales y Sociales, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina
Sandra E. Chediack
Affiliation:
Investigadora independiente. San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México
Patricio MacDonagh
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Eldorado, Argentina
Guillermo Goldstein
Affiliation:
Laboratorio de Ecología Funcional, Universidad de Buenos Aires. CONICET. Buenos Aires, Argentina
*
*Corresponding author. Email: ccblundo@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Phenology is a key ecosystem process that reflects climate–vegetation functioning, and is an indicator of global environmental changes. Recently, it has been suggested that land-use change and timber extraction promote differences in forest phenology. We use remote-sensing data to describe regional leaf phenological patterns in combination with field data from 131 plots in old-growth and disturbed forests distributed over subtropical forests of Argentina (54–65°W). We assessed how climate is related to phenological patterns, and analysed how changes in forest structural characteristics such as stock of above-ground biomass relate to the observed phenological signals across the gradient. We found that the first three axes of a principal component analysis explained 85% of the variation in phenological metrics across subtropical forests, ordering plots mainly along indicators of seasonality and productivity. At the regional scale, the relative importance of forest biomass in explaining variation in phenological patterns was about 15%. Climate showed the highest relative importance, with temperature and rainfall explaining Enhanced Vegetation Index metrics related to seasonality and productivity patterns (27% and 47%, respectively). Within forest types, climate explains the major fraction of variation in phenological patterns, suggesting that forest function may be particularly sensitive to climate change. We found that forest biomass contributed to explaining a proportion of leaf phenological variation within three of the five forest types studied, and this may be related to changes in species composition, probably as a result of forest use.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Location of 131 permanent plots across forest types in north Argentina.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Boxplot of biomass against forest types (a). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences among forest types. Forest types are ordered according to the geographic gradient from west to east: high montane forest (HMF); low montane forest (LMF); premontane forests (PF); dry Chaco forest (DCF); and semi-deciduous Atlantic forest (SAF). Scatterplots of biomass against total annual rainfall (b) and mean annual temperature (c). Symbols represent plots located in HMF (black circles); LMF (white circles); PF (white triangles); DCF (black squares); and SAF (black triangles).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Nine phenological metrics derived from Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) time-series data using TIMESAT over 1 y of growth in a randomly selected permanent plot. Blue curve represents real data, and red curve represents fitted model function.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Principal components (PC) ordinations of 131 plots based on 10 phenological metrics. Symbols represent plots located in high montane forest (black circles); low montane forest (white circles); premontane forest (white triangles); dry Chaco forest (black squares); and semi-deciduous Atlantic forest (black triangles).

Figure 4

Table 1. Percentage of variance explained by the principal components analysis of 131 plots established in subtropical forests of Argentina; loadings of 10 phenological metrics on the first three significant components and Spearman Rank correlations among explanatory variables with phenological metrics and PC axes. Coefficients of correlation with P < 0.001 are showed. MAT = Mean Annual Temperature.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Boxplots of phenological metrics (EVI values) against forest types: (a–d) metrics related to forests seasonality, i.e. PC 1; (e–g) metrics related to forests productivity, i.e. PC 2; and (h–j) metrics related to forests phenology, i.e. PC 3. HMF = high montane forest; LMF = low montane forest; PF = premontane forests; DCF = dry Chaco forest; SAF = semi-deciduous Atlantic forest.

Figure 6

Table 2. Relative importance (and slope sign) estimated with the lmg metric (Lindeman et al. 1980) for each explanatory variable in multiple regression models for seasonality (PC 1), productivity (PC 2), and phenology (PC 3) patterns. Models fitted for all forests of subtropical gradient and for each forest type: HMF = high montane forest, LMF = low montane forest, PF = premontane forests, DCF = dry Chaco forest, SAF = semi-deciduous Atlantic forest. MAT = mean annual temperature.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Species and plots NMDS ordinations for each forest type. High montane forest (a); low montane forest (b); premontane forests (c); dry Chaco forest (d); semi-deciduous Atlantic forest (e). Circles size (species) control by woody density and squares size (plots) control by biomass.

Figure 8

Appendix 1. Mean (and range in parentheses) values of rainfall (mm y−1), mean annual temperature (MAT; °C) and biomass (Mg biomass ha−1) for each forest type. Number of plots and biomass are discriminated by forest state: OGF = old-growth forest, DF = disturbed forest. F-value from ANOVAs between biomass and forest state for each forest type. Significant level of P < 0.01 (*); P < 0.001 (**). HMF = high montane forest; LMF = low montane forest; PF = premontane forests; DCF = dry Chaco forest; SAF = semi-deciduous Atlantic forest.

Figure 9

Appendix 2. Coefficients of correlations between NMDS dimensions (1 and 2) at the plot-scores level with biomass (Mg Biomass ha−1), and at the species-scores level with wood density (g cm−3) and with leaf phenology (deciduous = 1; semi-deciduous = 2; evergreen = 3). HMF = high montane forest; LMF = low montane forest; PF = premontane forests; DCF = dry Chaco forest; SAF = semi-deciduous Atlantic forest. Significance levels: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.