Variability of Phenological Behaviours of Wild Fruit Tree Species Based on Discriminant Analysis
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Results and Discussions
3. Materials and Methods
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vanalli, C.; Casagrandi, R.; Gatto, M.; Bevacqua, D. Shifts in the thermal niche of fruit trees under climate change: The case of peach cultivation in France. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 300, 108327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Dahal, N.; Lamichhaney, S.; Kumar, S. Climate change impacts on himalayan biodiversity: Evidence-based perception and current approaches to evaluate threats under climate change. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 2021, 101, 195–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Menzel, A.; Sparks, T.H.; Estrella, N.; Koch, E.; Aasa, A.; Ahas, R.; Alm-Kübler, K.; Bissolli, P.; Braslavská, O.G.; Briede, A.; et al. European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2006, 12, 1969–1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Cosmulescu, S.; Baciu, A.; Cichi, M.; Gruia, M. The effect of climate changes on phenological phases in plum tree Prunus domestica in south-western Romania. South-West J. Hortic. Biol. Environ. 2010, 1, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
- Cosmulescu, S.; Baciu, A.; Gruia, M. Influence of climatic factors on the phenology spring in Southern Oltenia Romania. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 19, 147–158. [Google Scholar]
- Gordo, O.; Sanz, J.J. Phenology and climate change: A long-term study in a Mediterranean locality. Oecologia 2005, 146, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Cosmulescu, S.; Gruia, M. Climatic variability in Craiova Romania and its impacts on fruit orchards. South-West J. Hortic. Biol. Environ. 2016, 7, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- Cosmulescu, S.; Bîrsanu Ionescu, M. Phenological calendar in some walnut genotypes grown in Romania and its correlations with air temperature. Int. J. Climatol. 2018, 62, 2007–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Paltineanu, C.; Chitu, E. Climate change impact on phenological stages of sweet and sour cherry trees in a continental climate environment. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 261, 109011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Lorite, I.J.; Cabezas-Luque, J.M.; Arquero, O.; Gabaldón-Leal, C.; Santos, C.; Rodríguez, A.; Lovera, M. The role of phenology in the climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for tree crops: A case study on almond orchards in Southern Europe. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2020, 294, 108142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Fraga, H.; Santos, J.A. Assessment of climate change impacts on chilling and forcing for the main fresh fruit regions in Portugal. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Santos, J.A.; Fraga, H.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Dinis, L.T.; Correia, C.; Schultz, H.R. A review of the potential climate change impacts and adaptation options for European viticulture. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Fu, Y.; Li, X.; Zhou, X.; Geng, X.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, Y. Progress in plant phenology modeling under global climate change. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2020, 63, 1237–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Markkula, I.; Turunen, M.; Rasmus, S. A review of climate change impacts on the ecosystem services in the Saami Homeland in Finland. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 692, 1070–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Yang, H.; Gou, X.; Yin, D. Response of biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services to climate change in China: A Review. Ecologies 2021, 2, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Badeck, F.W.; Bondeau, A.; Böttcher, K.; Doktor, D.; Lucht, W.; Schaber, J.; Sitch, S. Responses of spring phenology to climate change. New Phytol. 2004, 162, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Caparros-Santiago, J.A.; Rodriguez-Galiano, V.; Dash, J. Land surface phenology as indicator of global terrestrial ecosystem dynamics: A systematic review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021, 171, 330–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Grime, J.P.; Hodgson, J.G.; Hunt, R. Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species. (Agrostis spp.); Unwin Hyman: London, UK, 1988; pp. 58–65. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, M.D.; Atkinson, E. Sambucus nigra L. J. Ecol. 2002, 90, 895–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Fichtner, A.; Wissemann, V. Biological flora of the British isles: Crataegus monogyna. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 541–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Cosmulescu, S.; Calusaru Gavrila, F. Influence of temperature on blackthorn (Prunus spinosa L.) phenophases in spring season. J. Agric. Meteorol. 2020, 76, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Dönmez, A.A. The genus Crataegus, L. (Rosaceae) with special reference to hybridisation and biodiversity in Turkey. Turk. J. Bot. 2004, 28, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
- Worrell, R.; Ruhsam, M.; Renny, J.; Jessop, W.; Findlay, G. Scotland’s native wild apple–Malus sylvestris: Genetic issues and conservation. Scott. For. 2020, 72, 33–41. [Google Scholar]
- Tooke, F.; Battey, N.H. Temperate flowering phenology. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 2853–2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Šebek, G. The phenological and pomological traits of selected genotypes of wild pear [Pyrus pyraster (L.) Du Roi] important for the production of generative rootstocks. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2019, 18, 133–145. [Google Scholar]
- Cojoacă, F.D.; Niculescu, M. Diversity, distribution and ecology of the forest natural habitats in the Bratovoești Forest, Dolj County. Sci. Pap. Ser. A Agron. 2018, 61, 453–457. [Google Scholar]
- El Yamani, M.; Boussakouran, A.; Rharrabti, Y. Codification and description of almond (Prunus dulcis) vegetative and reproductive phenology according to the extended BBCH scale. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 247, 224–234. [Google Scholar]




| Species | Descriptive Statistics | “Bud Burst” | “Full Flowering” | “All Petals Fallen” |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malus sylvestris | Mean ± SD | 59.33 ± 1.53 | 102.67 ± 5.03 | 117.00 ± 4.00 |
| Variation range | 58–61 | 98–108 | 113–121 | |
| CV% | 2.58 | 4.90 | 3.42 | |
| Pyrus pyraster | Mean ± SD | 65.00 ± 2.65 | 97.33 ± 9.07 | 114.00 ± 5.29 |
| Variation range | 63–68 | 89–107 | 110–120 | |
| CV% | 4.08 | 9.32 | 4.64 | |
| Crataegus monogyna | Mean ± SD | 72.67 ± 9.45 | 123.00 ± 5.57 | 132.00 ± 1.73 |
| Variation range | 62–80 | 117–128 | 131–134 | |
| CV | 13.00 | 4.53 | 1.31 | |
| Crataegus pentagyna | Mean ± SD | 91.33 ± 2.52 | 138.00 ± 3.00 | 146.67 ± 2.89 |
| Variation range | 89–94 | 135–141 | 145–150 | |
| CV% | 2.76 | 2.17 | 1.97 | |
| Rosa canina | Mean ± SD | 53.33 ± 8.50 | 143.00 ± 5.57 | 159.33 ± 5.51 |
| Variation range | 45–62 | 138–149 | 153–163 | |
| CV% | 15.94 | 3.90 | 3.46 | |
| Rubus caesius | Mean ± SD | 42.67 ± 2.52 | 179.67 ± 3.51 | 213.67 ± 4.51 |
| Variation range | 40–45 | 176–183 | 209–218 | |
| CV% | 5.91 | 1.95 | 2.11 | |
| Sambucus nigra | Mean ± SD | 40.00 ± 12.00 | 146.00 ± 3.61 | 158.00 ± 5.57 |
| Variation range | 28–52 | 143–150 | 153–164 | |
| CV% | 30.00 | 2.47 | 3.52 | |
| Prunus spinosa | Mean ± SD | 56.00 ± 9.54 | 94.67 ± 10.79 | 106.67 ± 7.23 |
| Variation range | 45–62 | 87–107 | 102–115 | |
| CV% | 17.04 | 11.39 | 6.78 |
| Phenology Stage | * LD1 (0.829) | LD2 (0.131) | LD3 (0.039) |
|---|---|---|---|
| “bud burst” | 0.138 | 0.122 | −0.003 |
| “full flowering” | −0.004 | 0.024 | 0.269 |
| “all petals fallen” | 0.273 | −0.056 | −0.276 |
| Climate Data | Year | January | February | March | April | May | June |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average temperature (°C) | 2019 | −3.39 | 5.36 | 11.72 | 13.67 | 17.05 | 24.76 |
| 2020 | 2.96 | 7.5 | 9.61 | 14.25 | 18.58 | 23.57 | |
| 2021 | 3.77 | 5.2 | 7.33 | 11.41 | 18.61 | 23.07 | |
| Total rainfall (mm) | 2019 | 64.5 | 26.7 | 2.5 | 23.1 | 22.2 | 85 |
| 2020 | 1 | 8.6 | 124.4 | 5.6 | 69.6 | 33.6 | |
| 2021 | 67.6 | 35.2 | 56 | 41.2 | 101.8 | 49.4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cosmulescu, S.; Ștefănescu, D.; Stoenescu, A.-M. Variability of Phenological Behaviours of Wild Fruit Tree Species Based on Discriminant Analysis. Plants 2022, 11, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010045
Cosmulescu S, Ștefănescu D, Stoenescu A-M. Variability of Phenological Behaviours of Wild Fruit Tree Species Based on Discriminant Analysis. Plants. 2022; 11(1):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010045
Chicago/Turabian StyleCosmulescu, Sina, Dragoș Ștefănescu, and Ana-Maria Stoenescu. 2022. "Variability of Phenological Behaviours of Wild Fruit Tree Species Based on Discriminant Analysis" Plants 11, no. 1: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010045
APA StyleCosmulescu, S., Ștefănescu, D., & Stoenescu, A.-M. (2022). Variability of Phenological Behaviours of Wild Fruit Tree Species Based on Discriminant Analysis. Plants, 11(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010045

