Author Response:
The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.
eLife Assessment
This article presents valuable findings on how the timing of cooling affects the timing of autumn bud set in European beech saplings. The study leverages extensive experimental data and provides an interesting conceptual framework of the various ways in which warming can affect bud set timing. The support for the findings is incomplete, though extra justifications of the experimental settings, clarifications of the interpretation of the results, and alternative statistical analyses can make the conclusions more robust.
We thank the editors and reviewers for their expert assessment of our findings and their interest in our conceptual framework. Below we respond to the specific reviewer and editor comments.
Public Reviews:
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
This study provided key experimental evidence for the "Solstice-as-PhenologySwitch Hypothesis" through two temperature manipulation experiments.
Strengths:
The research is data-rich, particularly in exploring the effects of pre- and postsolstice cooling, as well as daytime versus nighttime cooling, on bud set timing, showcasing significant innovation. The article is well-written, logically clear, and is likely to attract a wide readership.
Thank you for your generous description of our study and the manuscript.
Weaknesses:
However, there are several issues that need to be addressed.
(1) In Experiment 1, significant differences were observed in the impact of cooling in July versus August. July cooling induced a delay in bud set dates that was 3.5 times greater in late-leafing trees compared to early-leafing ones, while August cooling induced comparable advances in bud set timing in both early- and late-leafing trees.
The study did not explain why the timing (July vs. August) resulted in different mechanisms. Can a link be established between phenology and photosynthetic product accumulation? Additionally, can the study differentiate between the direct warming effect and the developmental effect, and quantify their relative contributions?
We thank the reviewer for pointing out that we could improve our explanation of the different responses to July and August cooling in experiment 1. Whilst we incorporated this in the conceptual model and the figure caption (Fig. 1b), we now also address this topic in more depth in the discussion section, focussing on daylength and photosynthetic assimilation as the possible mediators of this change in responses (L350-371).
For the early-season development effect vs the late-season temperature effect we can use the leaf-out day-of-year (as a proxy for development), and the summer cooling treatments (direct temperature effect) to assess the relative importance of these two components of our model. We have now included a variance partitioning analysis following this logic, see L246-252 for methods, L278-281 for results.
(2) The two experimental setups differed in photoperiod: one used a 13-hour photoperiod at approximately 4,300 lux, while the other used an ambient day length of 16 hours with a light intensity of around 6,900 lux. What criteria were used to select these conditions, and do they accurately represent real-world scenarios? Furthermore, as shown in Figure S1, significant differences in soil moisture content existed between treatments - could this have influenced the conclusions?
This question may reflect a misunderstanding regarding the light availability that we hope to address with improved clarification. The duration and intensity of the lighting in these experiments was always set to reflect the average conditions experienced in Zurich for those respective times of the year. Day length in spring is shorter than it is in summer, so the durations were simply adjusted to reflect this reality. The 13-hour, 4,300 lux conditions in experiment 1 were only for the April-May period, when we reduced developmental rates for the late-leafing trees (L125-129). In July, the photoperiod was set to 16 hours and light intensity was approximately 7,300 lux (L150-154). This is equitable to experiment 2–when treatments were applied in June and July–where photoperiod was 16 hours and light intensity approximately 6,900 lux (L206-207). These conditions reflect the average daylengths in Zurich, and the maximum light intensity output by the chambers.
As mentioned in our initial author response, we do not think small differences in soil moisture levels should influence our conclusions. All pots were watered sufficiently to avoid water deficit, and all efforts were made to minimise differences in water availability. A Tukey honest significant difference test showed that only one treatment pair (6 - Late_July_Extreme vs. 7 - Early_August_Moderate, difference = 6%, p < 0.05) had significantly different soil water content, a pair whose responses are not compared. We have added words to this effect in the figure legend of Fig. S1.
(3) The authors investigated how changes in air temperature around the summer solstice affected primary growth cessation, but the summer solstice also marks an important transition in photoperiod. How can the influence of photoperiod be distinguished from the temperature effect in this context?
We agree that photoperiod likely plays a central role. Our conceptual model (Fig. 1) explicitly incorporates photoperiod as the framework within which temperature responses are regulated (L72-75, L627-629 & L638-641). The Solstice-as-Phenology-Switch hypothesis assumes that the annual progression of daylength sets the physiological “window” for trees’ responsiveness to temperature. Our experiments therefore focused on how temperature responses differ before versus after the solstice, while recognising that this reversal is likely enabled by the photoperiod signal. In other words, photoperiod provides the regulatory backdrop, and our results identify how diel and seasonal temperature cues are interpreted within that photoperiodic framework.
(4) The study utilized potted trees in a controlled environment, which limits the generalization of the results to natural forests. Wild trees are subject to additional variables, such as competition and precipitation. Moreover, climate differences between years (2022 vs. 2023) were not controlled. As such, the conclusions may be overgeneralized to "all temperate tree species", as the experiment only involved potted European beech seedlings. The discussion would benefit from addressing species-specific differences.
We agree that extrapolation from our experiments on Fagus sylvatica to other species and natural forests requires caution. However, it is precisely the controlled nature of our design that allowed us to isolate the precise mechanisms that appear to underpin the solstice switch, highlighting the role of diel and seasonal temperature variation. In natural systems, additional variables such as competition, precipitation, and soil heterogeneity can strongly influence phenology, but they also make it difficult to disentangle causal mechanisms. By minimising these confounding factors, our experiment provided a clear test of how temperature before and after the solstice regulates growth cessation.
To acknowledge the limitation, we have toned down statements about generalisation (e.g. “likely generalisable” to “other temperate tree species may display similarities”; L409-411) and explicitly call for follow-up studies across species and forest contexts (L413–414). At the same time, we highlight that our findings align with independent evidence from manipulative experiments, satellite observations, flux measurements, and ground-based phenology, which suggests the mechanisms we report may extend beyond the specific populations studied here.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
In 'Developmental constraints mediate the summer solstice reversal of climate effects on European beech bud set', Rebindaine and co-authors report on two experiments on Fagus sylvatica where they manipulated temperatures of saplings between day and night and at different times of year. I enjoyed reading this paper and found it well written. I think the experiments are interesting, but I found the exact methods somewhat extreme compared to how the authors present them. Further, given that much of the experiment happened outside, I am not sure how much we can generalize from one year for each experiment, especially when conducted on one population of one species. I next expand briefly on these concerns and a few others.
Thank you for the kind comments. We appreciate your concerns regarding the severity of our treatments and the generalisability of our results, and you can find our detailed responses below.
Concerns:
(1) As I read the Results, I was surprised the authors did not give more information on the methods here. For example, they refer to the 'effect of July cooling' but never say what the cooling was. Once I read the methods, I feared they were burying this as the methods feel quite extreme given the framing of the paper. The paper is framed as explaining observational results of natural systems, but the treatments are not natural for any system in Europe that I have worked in. For example, a low of 2 {degree sign}C at night and 7 {degree sign}C during the day through the end of May and then 7/13 {degree sign}C in July is extreme. I think these methods need to be clearly laid out for the reader so they can judge what to make of the experiment before they see the results.
We understand the concern regarding the structure of the manuscript and note that the methods section was moved to the end of the paper in accordance with eLife’s recommended formatting. We have now moved the methods section before the results to ensure that readers are familiar with the treatments before encountering the outcomes.
We recognise that our temperature treatments were severe and do not mimic real world scenarios. They were deliberately designed to create large contrasts in developmental rates, thereby maximising our ability to detect the mechanisms underpinning the solstice switch. For example, the severe cooling between 4 April and 24 May was specifically designed to slow spring development as much as possible without damaging the plants (L129-L133). We have added text in the Methods to clarify this aim (L129-131 & L156-161).
Regarding presentation, treatment details are now described in both the Methods and the relevant figure legends. Given this structure, we have chosen not to restate the full treatment conditions in the main Results text to avoid repetition.
(2) I also think the control is confounded with the growth chamber experience in Experiment 1. That is, the control plants never experience any time in a chamber, but all the treatments include significant time in a chamber. The authors mention how detrimental chamber time can be to saplings (indeed, they mention an aphid problem in experiment 2), so I think they need to be more upfront about this. The study is still very valuable, but again, we may need to be more cautious in how much we infer from the results.
We appreciate the reviewer’s concern about the potential confounding effect of chamber exposure in experiment 1. We have now discussed this limitation more explicitly, adding further explanation to the Methods (L146-148) and Discussion (L345-346).
Note that chamber-related problems (e.g. aphid infestations) primarily occurred under warm chamber conditions, whereas our experiment 1 cooling treatments maintained low temperatures that suppressed such issues. This means that an equivalent “warm chamber control” could have been associated with its own artefacts, as trees kept under warm chamber conditions would have been exposed to additional stressors that were not present under natural growing conditions. To address this point, we included a chamber control in experiment 2. While aphid abundance was indeed higher in the warm chamber controls, chamber exposure itself had no detectable effect on autumn phenology. This suggests that the main findings of experiment 1 are unlikely to be artefacts of chamber conditions (L141145).
Nevertheless, we agree that chamber exposure remains a potential limitation of experiment 1, which requires clear acknowledgement. We now state this more explicitly in the manuscript while also emphasising that our results are supported by experiment 2 and by converging lines of external evidence.
(3) I suggest the authors add a figure to explain their experiments, as they are very hard to follow. Perhaps this could be added to Figure 1?
We have now added figures to the methods section to depict the experimental timelines and settings more clearly (Figs. 2 and 3).
(4) Given how much the authors extrapolate to carbon and forests, I would have liked to see some metrics related to carbon assimilation, versus just information on timing.
We agree that including more data on photosynthetic assimilation would be valuable for interpreting phenological responses. Indeed, it was our intention to collect this information. However, unfortunately, we experienced technical challenges with the equipment available to us during the experimental period, which prevented us from collecting a full dataset. Nevertheless, we were able to obtain measurements during pre-solstice cooling (now presented as Fig. S12, including data for all treatments), which show that cooling treatments strongly reduced assimilation rates compared to controls. Importantly, these strong reductions occurred across all cooling treatments, yet their phenological outcomes differed markedly, demonstrating that assimilation alone cannot explain the observed responses. As we discuss, our findings are consistent with previous manipulative and observational studies reporting a weak role of late-season assimilation in controlling autumn phenology.
(5) Fagus sylvatica is an extremely important tree to European forests, but it also has outlier responses to photoperiod and other cues (and leafs out very late), so using just this species to then state 'our results likely are generalisable across temperate tree species' seems questionable at best.
We agree that Fagus sylvatica has a stronger photoperiod dependence than many other European tree species. As we note in our response to Reviewer 1 (comment 4), our findings align with previous research across temperate northern forests. Within our framework, interspecific variation in leaf-out timing would not alter the overall response pattern, though it could shift the specific timing of effect reversals. For example, earlier-leafing species may approach completion of development sooner and thus show sensitivity to late-season cooling earlier than F. sylvatica. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the importance of not overstating generality. We have therefore revised the manuscript to phrase conclusions more cautiously (L409411) and highlight the need for further research across species (L413–414).
(6) Another concern relates to measuring the end of season (EOS). It is well known that different parts of plants shut down at different times, and each metric of end of season - budset, end of radial expansion, leaf coloring, etc - relates to different things. Thus, I was surprised that the authors ignore all this complexity and seem to equate leaf coloring with budset (which can happen MONTHS before leaf coloring often) and with other metrics. The paper needs a much better connection to the physiology of end of season and a better explanation for the focus on budset. Relatedly, I was surprised that the authors cite almost none of the literature on budset, which generally suggests it is heavily controlled by photoperiod and population-level differences in photoperiod cues, meaning results may be different with a different population of plants.
We thank the reviewer for pointing out that our discussion of the responses of different EOS metrics needs more clarity. We agree with much of this perspective, and we have added an additional analysis of leaf chlorophyll content data to use leaf discolouration as an alternative EOS marker (L179-195 for methods, L296-311 for results). On this we would like to make two important points:
Firstly, we agree that bud set often occurs before leaf discolouration, although this can depend on which definition of leaf discolouration is used. In experiment 1, bud set occurred on average on day-of-year (DOY) 262 and leaf senescence (50% loss of leaf chlorophyll) occurred on DOY 320. However, we do not necessarily agree that this excludes the combined discussion of bud set and leaf senescence timing. Whilst environmental drivers can affect parts of plants differently, often responses from different end-of-season indicators (e.g. bud set and loss of leaf chlorophyll) are similar, even if only directionally. Figure S11 shows how, across both experiments, treatment effects were tightly conserved (R2 = 0.49) amongst the two phenometrics. In accordance with these revisions, we have updated the manuscript title to “Developmental constraints mediate the summer solstice reversal of climate effects on the autumn phenology of European beech” (L1-2).
Secondly, shifts in bud set timing remain the primary focus of the manuscript as these shifts are of direct physiological relevance to plant development and dormancy induction, whereas leaf discolouration may simply follow bud set as a symptom of developmental completion. This is supported by our results, which show stronger responses of bud set than leaf senescence (Figs. 4 & 5 vs. Figs. S9 & S10).
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have included more references on the topic of bud set and its environmental controls. The reviewer rightly stresses that photoperiod is considered the most important factor. As mentioned above (see Reviewer 1 comment 3), photoperiod is therefore key in our conceptual model. However, the responses we observed in F. sylvatica cannot be explained by photoperiod alone. For example, in experiment 1, July cooling delayed the autumn phenology of late-leafing trees but had negligible impact on early-leafing trees, even though both experienced the exact same photoperiod. Moreover, in experiment 2, day, night and full-day cooling showed substantial variations in their effects despite equal photoperiod across the climate regimes. This is why we suggest that the annual progression of photoperiod modulates the responses to temperature variations instead of eliciting complete control.
(7) I didn't fully see how the authors' results support the Solstice as Switch hypothesis, since what timing mattered seemed to depend on the timing of treatment and was not clearly related to the solstice. Could it be that these results suggest the Solstice as Switch hypothesis is actually not well supported (e.g., line 135) and instead suggest that the pattern of climate in the summer months affects end-of season timing?
We interpret this concern as relating to the flexibility in reversal timing that we observed. Importantly, the Solstice-as-Phenology-Switch hypothesis does not assume that the reversal is fixed to June 21. Rather the hypothesis implies that reversal occurs around the solstice, when photoperiod cues cause tree individuals to shift from accelerating to decelerating their seasonal development. Our conceptual model (Fig. 1) explicitly incorporates this flexibility by showing how the timing of the reversal depends on developmental speed: Individuals that develop more slowly (or leaf out later) cross the compensatory point later in the summer, whereas fast developing individuals reach it earlier.
Our experiments support this framework: pre-solstice full-day cooling delayed bud set, whereas post-solstice full-day cooling advanced it, with differences between early- and late-developing individuals consistent with the model. Moreover, the contrasting impacts of daytime vs. night time cooling demonstrate how diel conditions can further shape when the reversal is expressed. Thus, rather than contradicting the Solstice-as-Phenology-Switch hypothesis, our findings reinforce it and extend it by showing how flexibility arises from interactions between developmental progression, diel temperature responses, and photoperiod.
We have added an additional section in the Discussion that elaborates on how our results support the Solstice-as-Phenology-Switch hypothesis (L416-432).
Recommendations for the authors:
Reviewing Editor (Recommendations for the authors):
(1) The current strength of evidence is incomplete. Extra justifications of the experimental settings, clarifications of the interpretation of the results, and alternative statistical analyses could make the conclusions more solid.
We agree with the vast majority of the reviewer comments and have made the relevant edits. We believe that these have dramatically improved the clarity of the manuscript. The revised analyses have not changed our conclusions, though we have toned down generalisations.
(2) The Solstice as Switch hypothesis is about the effect of temperature warming. However, the two experiments did not simulate warming but rather cooling. Although a temperature difference can be obtained compared to the control in both cases, the impacts on plant physiology and phenology should still be different between the two scenarios.
Thank you for raising this point, which requires clearer communication in our manuscript. The Solstice-as-Phenology-Switch hypothesis posits that changes in temperature before and after the summer solstice have opposite effects on the autumn phenology of northern forest trees. While the hypothesis has most often been framed in terms of warming, the underlying mechanism concerns whether development is accelerated or slowed relative to ambient conditions. In essence, we are exploring the effect of changes in temperature – not warming per se. In warmer springs, development begins earlier and/or proceeds faster, while in colder springs the opposite occurs; the same logic applies to post-solstice conditions. We have extended our explanation in the Introduction (L69-71).
In our experiments, we applied cooling to create strong contrasts in developmental rates without damaging the trees. These treatments allow us to test the direction of phenological responses relative to ambient conditions. Thus, although we used cooling rather than warming, the results are directly informative for the Solstice-as Switch framework, which concerns the relative effect of temperature changes rather than the absolute direction of manipulation.
(3) The number of groups for bud type and summer temperature treatment is too small to be used as a random effect; it would be more appropriate to treat them as fixed-effect terms.
We have revised the analysis to include bud type as a fixed effect. There are only very minor numerical adjustments (e.g. rounding to 4.8 days instead of 4.9, see L271) and inferences are not altered. We also report the bud type effects for experiment 1 (L262-266) and experiment 2 (L292-293)
(4) Please add more clarifications for Figure 4 about what this figure is for and how you derived this figure, whether the data were from your experiments or others.
We have rewritten the caption for Figure 6 (Fig. 4 in the previous manuscript) to clarify where the data came from and how the figure was generated (L687-693). This figure serves as a visual guide to aid the understanding of the processes that may govern the patterns we have observed. Figure 6a uses data from previous studies on diel patterns in F. sylvatica, specifically growth (Zweifel et al., 2021) and photosynthetic assimilation rates (Urban et al., 2014). To aid visualisation, we linearly interpolated between measurements points, converted the values to a relative percentage (compared to observed maximum), and then smoothed the resulting curves. Based on the evidence from experiment 2, we suggest there may be a temperature threshold below which overwintering responses (e.g. bud set) are induced in F. sylvatica. Figure 6b depicts a theoretical diel pattern of this potential threshold. In simple terms, the threshold must be lower at night because nights are typically colder than days.
Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):
(1) How can a bud type -- which is apical or lateral -- be a random effect? The model needs to try to estimate a variance for each random effect, so doing this for n=2 is quite odd to me. I think the authors should also report the results with bud type as fixed, or report the bud types separately.
See point (3) in reviewing editor’s recommendations for the authors.
(2) Could the authors move the methods earlier and remind readers of them in the results?
We have addressed this issue, please see detailed response under reviewer 2’s concerns.
Urban O, Klem K, Holišová P, Šigut L, Šprtová M, Teslová-Navrátilová P, Zitová M, Špunda V, Marek MV, Grace J. 2014. Impact of elevated CO2 concentration on dynamics of leaf photosynthesis in Fagus sylvatica is modulated by sky conditions. Environmental Pollution 185: 271–280.
Zweifel R, Sterck F, Braun S, Buchmann N, Eugster W, Gessler A, Häni M, Peters RL, Walthert L, Wilhelm M, et al. 2021. Why trees grow at night. New Phytologist 231: 2174–2185.
