Rising Temperatures Tied to Flowers' Earlier Bloom

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The results of a new study suggest that rising temperatures are leaving a mark on the world. According to a report published in the current issue of the journal Science, the first flowering of plants in Britain has changed by as much as 55 days over the past few decades in response to warmer weather. The results, the scientists say, are the "strongest biological signal yet of climatic change."

Alastair Fitter of the University of York and his father, naturalist Richard Fitter, analyzed 47 years of data that the senior Fitter collected from a single location in England. They determined that, on average, the first flowering for 385 plant species in the past decade occurred 4.5 days earlier than it did between 1954 and 1990. For 16 percent of the species, the date of the first bloom advanced by 15 days and one particularly affected plant, the white dead nettle, bloomed 55 days earlier than it had three decades ago. Since the 1960s, the mean temperatures for January, February and March—important months for spring flowering plants—have increased by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. If global temperatures continue to increase (some predictions for future warming are more than six degrees Fahrenheit), more dramatic changes could lie ahead.

The earlier bloom affects more than just the date when a garden will burst into color, the scientists report. Because some species are changing but others are not, plants may be forced into competition with unfamiliar foes. Moreover, the development of new hybrid species could be curtailed. The violet species Viola odorata (see image) and Viola hirta, for example, used to flower simultaneously. But because the former now flowers a month sooner than the latter, they are less likely to hybridize in the future. The authors conclude that the changes they have recorded, together with alterations to species' geographical range that often accompany climate change, will have "profound ecosystem and evolutionary consequences."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe