Full text
1,858 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 5 of this Preprint.
You must log in to post a comment.
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 5 of this Preprint.
Add a Comment
You must log in to post a comment.
Comments
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
Tree fecundity underpins regeneration and range tracking, yet may decline when climates exceed reproductive niches. How fecundity has changed under recent climate change remains unclear. Here, using Polish seed harvest data including 40,530 observations for five species across 438 districts, we show a reduction in viable seed production by 32–65% across 34 years (Quercus robur, & Q. petraea ~65%, Pinus sylvestris ~64%, Abies alba ~44%, Fagus sylvatica ~32%). Summer warming was the dominant driver, with hotter summers reducing fecundity across species. Growing-season moisture and spring temperature contributed little beyond local fecundity effects. Weather effects on fecundity varied with site climate, with the diverging within-site (transient) and across-site (equilibrium) responses suggesting local adaptation or acclimation capacity. Together, our results indicate warming-driven fecundity declines, suggesting that climate change has pushed populations beyond the optimum of their reproductive niches, while revealing management potential through informed provenance selection.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2765R
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
climate change, masting, fecundity, forest resilience, tree demography, fecundity, forest resilience, tree demography, seed production
Published: 2025-11-27 15:01
Last Updated: 2026-03-27 03:11
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.