Growing for extreme temperature swing tolerance

This has been a weird winter. I think you could say without too much doubt in your voice that as the years go by, the weather continues to become more volatile and less predictable. Going from 50s Fahrenheit to well below zero a matter of days is not something a lot of plants are prepared to tolerate.

Yesterday while on a walk I saw a patch of chickweed, a little dead nettle, dock, ground ivy, virginia waterleaf, and some other weedy plants:

These are plants of spring. They are growing on an east-facing slope beside the walking path, with many trees on the other side. So they do have some natural protection. But I see this pattern everywhere this year - - plants that would normally have died by now have either hung on, or germinated and grown in winter.

Maybe it’s no more than usual - - maybe I’m just looking for it. But I got to thinking - - could I have planted cilantro after our big cold spell in December?

The thing that potentially takes this idle musing from opportunism nearer to necessity is the sobering understanding that we now live in a world where the temperature can drop 70 degrees in a matter of days, and even if we get a much needed handle on drawdown it’s unclear if this trend will change. And I don’t imagine that the primary growing season is or will remain exempt from these swings. Increased exposure to vectors for total crop failure is not a good thing for farmers in our fragile food system.

We know (or I’ll scale that back and wait for the citations - - I’ve heard) that exposure to certain stressful conditions as seedlings, like drought, can make the resulting plants more resilient in the face of that stress later in life. It seems reasonable to me to think that some aspect of that tolerance, or of the innate resilience that allowed the plant to go through the stress and throw its epigenetic switch without succumbing, might be heritable.

Perhaps we should all be casting extra seed out in the winter to see what takes?

Wild plants like the one in the photo above seem to me to be the most likely to adapt to these swings without any interference from us. I wonder, as we become aware of the wild plants untroubled by these swings, if there is even greater opportunity than usual in bringing genes over from them to related domestics.

2 Likes

2 Likes

Short season plants are another way to approach this issue: assuming an abundance of seed, planting short-season crops every couple of weeks even in very long-season locations increases the likelihood that a crop will get in before a big weather issue.

Short season plants also allow more generations than large woody plants, so they adapt faster.

I think of both of these a lot in regards to trees. A tree has to be very very resilient to withstand all the weather events that happen over its lifetime, and it needs to mature for several years before it produces seed upon which selection can act.

Currently, looking around my intensely forested landscape up here in the north, the benefit of being able to store energy and maintain structures through the winter and thus get an early advantage over seedy annuals in spring is still winning out over the benefit of faster adaptation and just being able to sit out weird weather. I do wonder whether that will continue with a more erratic climate though.

1 Like

Very good point about the short-season plants. Such a good point that I’ve started a spinoff thread about that topic specifically!

I can see advantages to both short-season plants and long-lived perennials when it comes to extreme weather swings. The ones that finish their life cycle quickly are likely to be able to dodge extreme weather events entirely, especially if they can self-sow. Then the lucky seeds will get a long enough stretch of favorable weather, and add new seeds to the soil. The unlucky ones will die, but that won’t matter if there are enough lucky ones to that happen to live.

Even though the only difference may start out as luck, it’s likely epigenetic change would eventually start adapting those crops quickly to be able to survive because of their genes, and not just because they happened to be lucky and germinate right before the only stretch of mild weather available.

With very long-lived perennials, it’s likely they have survived a lot of different types of extreme weather at some point in their lives, so they know how to deal with each kind. They may or may not like getting one extreme that swings to the opposite immediately, but knowing how to deal with each separately would probably translate to more resilience about dealing with them clustered closely.

So it’s an interesting question about whether it’s the in-between species that are going to start dying off. Anything that is used to long stretches of favorable weather that has no genes for adaptability to anything unfavorable may be in very deep trouble.

2 Likes

All that domestication work to get seeds to generate at the same time, and here I’m thinking about strategies to functionally reverse it.

1 Like

(Laugh.) I know, right?

Of course, we’re not the only people who’ve wanted to do that. Winter sowing is a thing for a reason.

I like it :slightly_smiling_face:. You probably already thought of this, but let me catch up - - that also means you’ll have plants of the same type at different lifecycle stages during stressful weather, potentially giving a greater chance of young plants receiving non-lethal and epigenetically significant stresses.

I also wouldn’t rule out without evidence a “mother tree”-like relationship between the older and younger plants, also potentially giving the younger plants a better chance of surviving events stressful enough to flip an epigenetic switch. Even if we could rule that out, plant type and configuration might still allow for a certain degree of physical protection by the older plants.

Oh, that’s a very good point. If you have short season plants, you can stagger plant them, which has advantages for a longer harvest window – and it may also have advantages for weather resilience. Smart thinking!

error

At my house just before last Christmas it dropped 68 degrees in about 15 hours. At my sister’s house in Colorado a similar drop happened in under two hours.

If you’re talking about greenhouse gas emissions, a reduction of what is already in the atmosphere is not possible by any means that I am aware of, at least not at a scale that would matter even a little bit. Slowing down or even stopping ongoing emissions would have little effect on a time scale that matters. The only logical conclusion is that the frequency and severity of freakish weather events will continue to increase.

No, it isn’t, and no, it isn’t.

I don’t know about the farmers, but I think gardeners will be able to employ creative techniques of selection, breeding and planting times to continue growing some food for a bit longer. I don’t know how long but estimate it is measurable in years at best, certainly not decades.

Yeah, I’ve joked about wanting cucurbits that can handle frost because the weather might do something crazy like give us snow in July . . . but I’m kinda serious, too. I really do legitimately think that is a trait that might be useful in case something like that suddenly happens. I don’t want to lose all my crops because a once-in-a-lifetime (a.k.a. at-least-once-a-year nowadays) freak weather event happens!

Which is definitely all the more reason for maintaining genetic diversity. It makes sense to not replant the least-productive and least-tasty plants, but it may be worth keeping a pinch of those genetics around anyway, just in case there’s something unusually valuable in them that will be invisible until something bad happens and they’re suddenly the best.