The precision, down to a tenth of a meter, calculated by the University of Grenada in their press release below is simply stunning. I wonder what the error bars are on 2.7 meters over seven years of the study? And, how does one filter out seasonal weather effects over such a short time span? Inquiring minds want to know.
Here’s the main points:
- Vascular plants have moved 2.7 m upwards, which might lead to the extinction of high-mountain species.
- While species diversity in summits of temperate-boreal regions has increased, it has declined in Mediterranean regions.
- Such are the results obtained from a study published in Science, where University of Granada researchers participated.
Researchers at the University of Granada Department of Botanic have participated in an international study that has confirmed that global warming is causing plants to migrate to higher altitudes. The study –recently published in Science– analyzed species diversity shifts in 66 summits of 17 European ranges between 2001 and 2008.
In the Iberian Peninsula, two target regions were selected in the Pyrenees (Ordesa) and Sierra Nevada (Granada). Researchers found that the species under study had migrated an average of 2.7m upwards. “This finding confirms the hypothesis that a rise in temperatures drives Alpine flora to migrate upwards. As a result, rival species are threatened by competitors, which are migrating to higher altitudes. These changes pose a threat to high-mountain ecosystems in the long and medium term” the authors state.
Boreal-Temperate and Mediterranean Summits
The study also reveals an average increase of 8% in the number of species growing in summits of European mountains. However, such increase is not general, as of the 66 peaks in boreal and temperate areas, the majority revealed an increase in species diversity, while 8 out of the 14 summits in the Mediterranean area revealed a decline in the number of species represented.
Furthermore, the study revealed that species diversity has changed more significantly at low elevation sites –at the upper limit of the forest or an equivalent altitude– in the Mediterranean region than in other regions.
In Mediterranean mountains (Sierra Nevada, Corsica, Central Apennines and Crete), the rise in temperatures is causing a decline in annual average rainfall, which results in longer summer droughts. Consequently, temperature rise and droughts pose a threat to unique endemic species.
The mountains that present the most significant shifts in species diversity are Mediterranean mountains –located in Southern Europe–, where climate is different to that of the rest of Europe. In general, moist-soil species are more vulnerable to climate change, though high-mountain endemic species are also affected.”For example, in Sierra Nevada, the observation plots revealed a decrease in the number of emblematic species such as Androsacevitalianasubsp. Nevadensis and Plantagonivalisy Artemisia granatensis”, the University of Granada professor, Joaquín Molero Mesa, explains.
Another Sampling Site
Sierra Nevada has very special characteristics, as it is the only mountain range in the Iberian Peninsula that has Mediterranean climate from top to the hill foot. Consequently, the research group coordinated by professor Molero Mesa –with the special collaboration of Mª Rosa Fernández Calzado– placed another sampling site (four summits located at an elevation above 2500m high) in 2005. The purpose was to increase the sample size and obtain more reliable results. In two years, a comparative study of the results obtained in the first and second study will be conducted.
Thus, Sierra Nevada is the only mountain range with two target regions under observation. The research group is coordinated with the Observatorio de Cambio Global de Sierra Nevada, and has established –in collaboration with a research group from Morocco– another target region in the high Western Atlas, where observation plots and thermometers will be installed next summer. The purpose of this action is to better understand climate and species variations in the most vulnerable environment: the Mediterranean region.
This study is part of the Project GLORIA (The Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments) initiated in Europe in 2000 and which has spread worldwide.
Recent Plant Diversity Changes on Europe’s Mountain Peaks. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.1219033
=================================================
I often wonder if the act of studying these plants doesn’t account for some of the changes, such as tracking seeds around in the mud on your shoes, etc.
The plant in the photo with the press release, Androsace vitaliana turns out it is easy to grow in your garden. So it follows that I’m not too worried about this news.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Have these species “moved” up to where they are now found near the entrances of ancient mines that have been recently uncovered by retreating glaciers, those mines complete with left-behind mining tools?
Move all the weather stations up 2.7m and we have got rid of global warming! Move them up 3m and we have global cooling!
Not funny Anthony, this is an obvious spoof.
Even by CAGW standards this is ridiculous.
It’s worse than we thought. I have determined the centroid of the dandelion population in my back yard has moved 1.39329953 feet to a higher elevation as well. OMG !
Skeptikal says:
April 25, 2012 at 10:29 am
Is 2.7m statistically significant?
The Spanish Sierra Nevada, not to be confused with the range in California, averages 11,411 feet in altitude. So, 2.7 meters is a movement of about 0.08 per cent.
Ray says:
April 25, 2012 at 10:00 am
I’m sure they did not use a ruler but most likely a barometer or a GPS. It is quite certain they can’t have a 0.1m precision on their measurements.
A barometer? – sooo last century.
How to achieve better than 0.1m accuracy in surveying:
http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/edu/rtk_e.php
– not at all difficult this century.
So with a dry lapse rate of about 1 deg C per 100 meters over seven years this study implies a warming of 2.7/100/7*100=0.39 deg C per century of warming. I won’t bother to calculate the climate sensitivity from this but it will be very small.
Max says:
April 25, 2012 at 2:04 pm
…
polistra says:
April 25, 2012 at 12:14 pm
…
RE: dandelions;
I have noticed a lot of dandelions in the garden this year, don’t you know if you pick one you will wet the bed?, (we called them ‘wet the beds’ as kids) If there are so many about this time of year, Aren’t the odds higher than usual of someone picking one and wetting the bed?
On the other hand maybe we can use reports of people wetting the bed as a proxy for global temperature.
lol @ur momisugly it must be worse than we thought!!!
It is known that increased CO2 makes plants more tolerant of hot and cold temperatures. Thus, CO2 alone can account for these plants moving upward.
Global warming was blamed for flowers in the UK blooming two weeks earlier compared to 20 years ago. However, the UK temperatures records do not support much warming at all. CO2 increases alone again account for this change in plant behavior.
Increased CO2 also makes plants more efficient with water, due to having fewer stomata and thus less transpiration, and nutrients. There is no down side with CO2.
Well, it’s not working for my @ur momisugly#$% LAWN!!!!
nuclearcannoli says:
April 25, 2012 at 10:18 am
@ur momisugly Dirk,
Already spent nearly 4 years studying the subject. To be blunt, econometry is BS because you can’t mathametize human choices and actions, nor can you assign objective extensive measures to a system based on subjective intesive valuations, and where there are no constant relationships between the factors. WRT inflation measures as an example, there is no non arbitrary answer to questions: what goods and services do you include in the basket?; what increments of each?; what weight do you assign to each?; how do you account for changes in quality over time?; how do you account for changes in value over time? Say you include a TV, a TV now vs a TV in 1950 are two different animals, and competing in two different markets with different options open to consumers. Families in the 50s likely had one box if any, whereas now people generally have two or more. The ‘metric’ itself is basically meaningless. Between econometrics and astrology, I’ll take astrology. At least the stars and planets move in predictable patterns governed by contant, objectively quantifiable laws. I’ve no doubt Michael Mann is big fan of econometrics though.
————————————————
I have no economic or higher math background. IMO the only fair way to measure inflation is to tie it to federal government spending. So, whatever the percentage in increased fed spending for the year would be the inflation for the year. Isn’t that what inflation is, Government inflating money through spending? Adding more paper. Nothing else makes sense to me.
Oh no … migrating plants … The Day of the Triffids is upon us !!!
Maybe Day of The Triffids wasn’t fiction after all …
Brian R says:
April 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm
I can’t help but wonder what the temperature difference is between two points on a mountain side separated by only 9 feet.
Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate, taking the prevailing wind, the slope and composition of the intervening terrain into consideration, and carrying the calculations out to four decimal places — nothing.
Billy Liar says:
April 25, 2012 at 2:52 pm
A barometer? – sooo last century.
How to achieve better than 0.1m accuracy in surveying:
http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/edu/rtk_e.php
– not at all difficult this century.
You can’t beat a hosepipe full of water with a soda bottle on each end and a ruler!.
have we finally reached Peak Stupid?
I’m guessing you see no irony in the writing of that comment while you yourself shoot the very messenger that all eco-kooks like to shoot at – WUWT. How very ironic. (~snicker~).
Besides, Nature really is junk, as is Science and Scientific American.
The plants walked uphill 2.7 meters? Next thing you know, they’ll be singing, Feed me Seymour!