A wild project in Iceland could transform how we forecast volcanic eruptions

is a senior producer and reporter on Unexplainable, Vox's science podcast. She covers everything scientists don't yet know but are trying to figure out, so her work explores everything from the inner workings of the human body to the distant edges of the universe
When you picture a volcano, what do you see? I personally imagine a mountain sticking up into the sky. At the top of that mountain, I see a crater with a fiery hot lake boiling and roiling in it, or lava pouring down a slope like bright red candle wax, or massive clouds of grey ash exploding into the air.
It's all incredible, powerful imagery, but it's also really just the tip of the volcano-berg.
If I were to descend down through my imaginary volcano, moving down through layers and layers of earth, I'd find what might be an even more incredible feature: my volcano's pulsing, fiery furnace of a heart, also known as its 'magma chamber.' This is the reason that hot ash comes bursting up through the surface. It's the original source of my lava and my crater lake. It's where much of the important action in a volcano unfolds — and could hold secrets to help us better predict when a devastating eruption will occur.
The problem is that we know much less about magma chambers like this than we'd like to. We're not even good at depicting them.
'We draw them as red balloons,' says Mike Poland, a geophysicist and scientist-in-charge at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory. 'They are not. But it's a very difficult thing to represent.'
Magma chambers are so hard to represent because they're so complex. They can be thousands of degrees Fahrenheit and have blends of solid material and hot liquid rock. These chambers have different temperatures in different spots, and different minerals melting at different heats or moving around in different ways. And, making things even more complex, there's a multitude of different gases that might make pressure build up before an eruption.
But if we could better represent magma chambers — and just generally better understand exactly how they work — Poland says we might be able to dramatically improve our understanding of how volcanoes operate, and therefore be better able to anticipate what to expect from an impending eruption. But right now, because these chambers are so hot and so deep underground, it's hard to plumb their secrets.
'We don't have, like, the glass-bottomed volcano where you can just sort of look into and go like, Oh, that's what's going on,' Poland jokes.
But what if we could have a glass-bottomed volcano that we could sort of look into and go like, Oh, that's what's going on? What if we could build, say, a little observatory deep down under the ground, right in the hot little heart of a volcano? It sounds absurd, and yet…
' There's a project in Iceland,' Poland tells me, 'They want to build a magma observatory. They want to drill into a magma chamber and put some monitoring equipment in the hole. … That would give us some idea of what's going on in there.'
The project is called the Krafla Magma Testbed, or KMT, and the researchers working on it think it could revolutionize volcanology — and how we forecast eruptions.
But first, what's missing from our volcano forecasts?
One of the key motivations for building an observatory like this is that volcanology has a prediction problem. On the one hand, volcanoes are much more predictable than, say, earthquakes — they tend to give us some warning signs before they erupt. But on the other hand, it's hard to perfectly interpret those warning signs, which means the predictions volcanologists can make with our existing technology can be both incredibly helpful and frustratingly imprecise.
For example, for the last year or so, a potential eruption has been brewing at Mount Spurr, a volcano near Anchorage, Alaska. Twice in the last 100 years, eruptions from Mount Spurr have rained ash down on the city, clogging up roadways, shutting down the local airport (one of the busiest cargo ports in the world), and settling like a fine dusting of gritty, gray, unmelting snow on cars and lawns and leaves of trees.
People are understandably worried about a repeat performance, and the Alaska Volcano Observatory is monitoring the situation closely.
Matt Haney, the scientist-in-charge at that observatory, told me while he can be sure that the volcano is displaying several key warning signs, he can't be sure exactly what the upcoming volcanic activity might look like — if there will be one eruption or many, exactly how intense they will be, or when they'll occur.
'That is not possible in the current levels of technology that we have,' he said. 'There's no definitive time frame, like, Oh, it's going to do exactly this, like it did in 1992. It's not the precise same playbook.'
Even with 11 seismic stations gathering real-time data about the Alaskan volcano — even with devices measuring how it is changing shape in response to incoming magma, with planes circling in the sky to understand the venting of gases, and with an enormous amount of truly impressive work — these volcanologists still can't give us as clear a picture of the future as we might like them to.
That's tricky enough when you're dealing with the prospect of a clogging and choking coating of volcanic ash, but it gets even more complicated when you're trying to make determinations about people's lives.
'This is the problem. How do you know how big an eruption's going to be?' — Mike Poland, geophysicist and scientist-in-charge at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory
Look, for example, at the case of Soufrière de Guadeloupe, a volcano on the Caribbean island of Basse-Terre. In the mid-1970s, it started venting steam. That, paired with increased earthquake activity, had people worried that a dramatic eruption might be brewing.
And they had very good reason to worry: In 1902, another Caribbean volcano eruption sent a deadly mix of hot gas and ash and rock careening through a nearby city at 300 miles an hour, killing 27,000 people. So, hoping to avoid a repeat of this devastating event, the governmental authorities decided to go ahead and evacuate. More than 70,000 people left Basse-Terre.
But the subsequent eruption was minor. As one report put it, the 'explosive emission of steam and debris was certainly impressive to those who had the misfortune to view it at close quarters. But from a volcanological point of view, it represented a rather trivial outburst.' If anything, the biggest impact on the volcanic activity was the evacuation itself — it hurt the local economy and disrupted kids' schooling.
Sometimes, though, evacuations are extremely necessary. In 1991, at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, volcanologists once again read the volcanic tea leaves — stuff like seismic activity and steam explosions — and predicted a big eruption. Once again, people were evacuated. But this time, the decision to abandon the area saved thousands of lives — the ensuing eruption was one of the biggest in the 20th century.
'This is the problem,' Poland says. 'How do you know how big an eruption's going to be?'
You don't want to evacuate too little, or too late, at the cost of human lives, he says. But equally, you don't want to be the boy who cries wolf, or the volcanologist who cries, 'ERUPTION!'
' It erodes trust in the scientists,' he says.
Volcanology has come a long way since the 1970s, or even the 1990s. Scientists have much more monitoring equipment set up on volcanoes, and they have made better equipment over time. Their ability to make predictions about volcanoes has improved dramatically as a result.
But as the case of Mount Spurr shows, even now — in 2025 — the field still grapples with the same fundamental problem of precision in their predictions.
So how do these predictions get better? How could volcanologists further improve their predictions in order to help people make decisions about how to prepare for eruptions?
Poland has spent a fair amount of time thinking about the answers to this question. He wrote a whole paper about it, in fact. And he thinks that improving volcano forecasting is not just about continuing to improve our monitoring equipment. Instead, he says, what we really need is better information about volcanoes themselves, and the hot molten rocks that power them.
What can molten rock teach us about eruptions?
Let's talk about how we currently forecast volcano eruptions. A lot of volcano prediction involves making very informed guesses about what a volcano might do in the future based on what that volcano has done in the past — what Poland calls pattern recognition.
Take, for example, gas emissions or earthquakes. Essentially, he says, researchers will take a lot of very, very precise measurements of those phenomena that will allow them to then say 'Alright. X is happening. And when X happened before, Y happened afterward, so maybe now Y will happen again soon.'
'It's not necessarily based on any special understanding of the physics of volcanic activity or that particular volcano,' Poland says, 'It's more based on…We've seen this movie before, and we know how it's likely to evolve over time.'
Related Your weather forecast is about to get a lot worse
This approach has been incredibly useful. It's saved a lot of lives and helped scientists make some really good predictions about how a volcano might behave, broadly. But Poland likes to draw a comparison between this approach and with how we forecast the weather. Because in the past, weather scientists also relied heavily on pattern matching. If the pressure was dropping and it was getting colder, say, they might expect a storm to come through.
But then, weather forecasting went through a kind of revolution. Scientists used satellites and other instruments to collect information about clouds and winds and rain. They collected huge amounts of data about the atmosphere, and people even flew directly into the eyes of phenomena like hurricanes to measure what was happening inside of those storms.
'This really abundant information was then used by modelers…to work out the physics of what's going on,' Poland says.
Weather scientists still use a lot of historical data to inform their understanding of the future (and now, with AI, are actually turning back to their massive bodies of data to try some more advanced pattern recognition), but they have also built really sophisticated models of the physics of the atmosphere that help them make their predictions. And it has paid off: Last year, according to the National Hurricane Center, hurricane forecasters set new records for accuracy in their predictions for the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season.
'We can now forecast, with some degree of accuracy, whether a hurricane will form, how intense it is going to be, where it's going to go,' Poland says. 'Obviously not every forecast is perfect. And that's because our knowledge is still imperfect. But they know enough.'
Poland wants volcanologists to build similar models of the underlying physics of volcanoes, which would mean building models of magma chambers. Scientists have been working on making models like this — and have even been working on applying them to forecasting. But if the weather scientists built their models by flying directly into things like hurricanes and taking measurements, volcano researchers have had a bit of a harder time doing the equivalent for magma chambers. They can't take direct measurements, so they've used seismic and electromagnetic imaging to take the equivalent of X-rays of the Earth, and they've studied places where ancient volcanoes have eroded away, bringing their cooled, frozen magma chambers up to the surface. They've even read the layers of volcanic crystals as though they were tree rings.
This has been helpful, but it's kind of like studying your neighbors by eavesdropping on their conversations through the wall and going through their trash instead of just talking to them directly.
So that's why some researchers are hoping to talk to volcanoes directly — to observe their magma chambers in real time.
Krafla volcanic area in Iceland. Getty Images/iStockphoto
Introducing KMT: The Krafla Magma Testbed
In some ways, the dream of a magma observatory started with an accident. Or to be a little more specific, it started with three different accidents in three different countries, each more than a decade ago. In each case, people set out to drill a deep hole into the rock near a volcano, and in each case, they accidentally drilled right down into the magma chamber.
These accidents were a big surprise to the people doing the drilling, but to John Eichelberger, they were a big opportunity.
Eichelberger has been studying volcanoes for around five decades. For much of that time, he's been curious about magma chambers. He thinks that knowing more about them could not only help us forecast volcanoes better, but also maybe tap into them for geothermal power. Unfortunately, he says, for a long time, it was difficult to find a way to drill into magma chambers and find out more about them, because people were not sure what would happen if you did. What if you triggered an eruption?
'Really the only way [drilling down to a magma chamber] could happen was by serendipity,' Eichelberger says.
Serendipity like these three drilling accidents. They provided some real-world examples of what would happen if you drilled down to a magma chamber. And the answer was, it turns out, not all that much. In each of these three cases, the drilling companies hit the magma chamber and instead of like hot rock shooting out of their hole in a hot plume of fire, the magma basically climbed a little ways up the hole, and then cooled off into a plug of dark obsidian glass.
This was very good news for Eichelberger. As he remembers it, he wound up meeting someone from a power company that was involved in one of these accidents. That representative let him know that they would be open to letting Eichelberger and other researchers do some more research near their power plant in the Krafla volcanic region of Iceland. And so, in 2014, Eichelberger gathered researchers together for a consortium – including a researcher named Yan Lavallée, now at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.
'Fifty or 60 of us spent the best part of a week together browsing ideas as to…what could we learn if we were to do this?' Lavallée syas, 'What could we learn if we were to drill back in the magma?'
This was the start of the dream of KMT: The Krafla Magma Testbed, named for the volcanic system in Iceland. It's a dream that Eichelberger, Lavallée, and their collaborators are still trying to get funded, but they have a clear idea of how they'd make it a reality.
'First, we're going to install a drill rig at the Earth's surface, and we're going to start drilling,' Lavallée tells me.
As they drill down, things will get hotter and hotter. They will pump fluid through, which will cool things down. Eventually, as they start to approach the magma of the magma chamber, the fluid will even start to cool down a little bit of that magma, too.
'It will vitrify to a glass,' Lavallée says. This glass will likely not be transparent like a window. Instead, it will be obsidian — dark black and full of minerals.
The researchers will then continue to keep things cool while they carve into that black glass, creating something like a pocket within it. Once that pocket is made, they hope to drop measuring devices into it. Lavallée works with tools in his lab that are made of the same kinds of heavy-duty materials that we put into things like jet engines and other materials that can withstand extremely high temperatures.
Once everything's in place, they will stop cooling things down. Then the heat of the surrounding molten rock should start warming the obsidian of the glass pocket back up again slowly, until it melts back into magma and flows back around the instruments, submerging them fully in the magma of the chamber.
Then, hopefully, the researchers will finally have their observatory: a set of measuring devices feeding them real-time data about an active magma chamber.
If this first project succeeds, then Eichelberger and Lavallée are brimming with ideas for further drilling projects that could help them tease out more information about volcanoes. They both hope this research could help the world tap into volcanoes as a source of power, but also that it could help with forecasting — to help us build the models of volcanoes' hearts that will give us the tools to predict their behavior as effectively as we predict hurricanes.
And overall, Lavallée thinks that if this dream of theirs succeeds, it might revolutionize volcanology.
'I don't think we can really fully conceive how it's going to change things,' he says.
Obviously, Lavallée has a clear reason to think this way, but when I asked Poland, who has no involvement with this project, what he thought, he was also pretty enthusiastic.
'I am excited to hear what they can come up with,' Poland said, 'I mean, you go into a magma chamber, you're going to learn some things.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

4 hours ago

• Yahoo

The Simple Truth About These Miserable Heat Waves

In the coming days, some 200 million people across the United States will sweat through temperatures in the high 90s and triple digits, made worse by 'oppressive' humidity. It's the country's first major heat wave of the year, which may—like last year—turn out to be among the warmest years ever recorded. Last month was the second-hottest May ever recorded; 10 of the hottest years ever recorded on earth have occurred over the last decade. A study published on Thursday in Earth System Science Data finds that the amount of planet-heating carbon dioxide already emitted into the atmosphere by human activity will very likely, by 2028, have made the world 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was in preindustrial times. This increase might sound mild on its face, but respected scientists are in agreement about what this means: more brutal, dangerous heat waves like the one spreading across the U.S. right now. Maybe the most sobering aspect of rising temperatures is how predictable they are. Xuebin Zhang—a co-author of the study, professor at the University of Victoria, and head of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium—says that in his decades of research, very little has surprised him about how the planet has reacted to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 'The world's climate is behaving exactly as we said it would all along, for many years. It is warming due to human influence. It gets faster if we don't act on it,' he told me. 'It's more than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a fact.' So what differentiates a couple of hot days from a heat wave caused by climate change? Typically, heat waves are produced by something known as atmospheric blocks, when high pressure settles over a region for days or weeks at a time, causing air to descend and heat up. Since cloud cover is typically low during these periods, more solar radiation can heat up the surfaces below. While there are varying definitions of how long and hot a period of high temperatures has to be to qualify as a heat wave, the answer depends on where you are. Temperatures that are above average for June in New York, for instance, may not be abnormal in Tucson or Karachi. In order to determine whether such an event can be attributed to climate change, researchers run complex models based on historical observations: one showing the world as it is and the other 'an alternative world where there isn't any human influence on the climate,' said Nicholas Leach, a physicist at at Oxford University who researches weather and climate impacts on health. From there, scientists can determine how likely a specific extreme weather event would be in a world without climate change, i.e., with lower concentrations of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Other studies, Leach says, more specifically replicate the exact atmospheric patterns and conditions that produced a particular heat wave in those two worlds, observing how the intensity and severity of the resulting heat wave would change in a world where human activity isn't causing temperatures to rise. It's generally easier to determine whether climate change has contributed to heat waves as compared to hurricanes, which can vary based on any number of factors in oceans and the atmosphere. 'We're warming up the atmosphere, and there's a very strong link between doing that and the hottest possible situations getting hotter,' Leach says. 'The link between climate change and thermodynamics has been understood for 100 years.' Researchers are still working on understanding what precisely climate change is doing to the atmospheric blocks that produce heat waves, particularly in the case of extraordinary events when temperatures soar far outside the range of historical observation—like the Pacific Northwest heat wave of 2021, which caused hundreds of excess deaths across the U.S. and Canada. One study found that heat waves that extreme would 'occur roughly every five to 10 years' in the same region if global temperature averages were to exceed two degrees Celsius above preindustrial times. As Nathan Gillett—another co-author of the climate indicators study and a researcher at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis—told me, the world is already experiencing heat waves that 'would have been much less likely or almost impossible without human-induced climate change.' Those heat waves will worsen as humans burn more fossil fuels and continue to raze forests, which is rapidly depleting the planet's ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The more of it that goes into the atmosphere, the hotter it gets. 'There's very high confidence,' Gillett said, 'that, with ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, the world will continue to warm and heat waves will continue to be hotter. That's going to happen everywhere.'

WIRED

5 hours ago

• WIRED

Methane Pollution Has Cheap, Effective Solutions That Aren't Being Used

Jun 21, 2025 7:00 AM The International Energy Agency estimates that 70 percent of the fossil fuel sector's methane emissions could be cut with existing technologies—many of which would save polluters money. Photograph: TheThis story originally appeared on Vox and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Odorless and colorless, methane is a gas that is easy to miss—but it's one of the most important contributors to global warming. It can trap up to 84 times as much heat as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, though it breaks down much faster. Measured over 100 years, its warming effect is about 30 times that of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. That means that over the course of decades, it takes smaller amounts of methane than carbon dioxide to heat up the planet to the same level. Nearly a third of the increase in global average temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is due to methane, and about two-thirds of those methane emissions comes from human activity like energy production and cattle farming. It's one of the biggest and fastest ways that human beings are warming the Earth. But the flip side of that math is that cutting methane emissions is one of the most effective ways to limit climate change. In 2021, more than 100 countries including the United States committed to reducing their methane pollution by at least 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. But some of the largest methane emitters like Russia and China still haven't signed on, and according to a new report from the International Energy Agency, global methane emissions from energy production are still rising. Yet the tracking of exactly how much methane is reaching the atmosphere isn't as precise as it is for carbon dioxide. 'Little or no measurement-based data is used to report methane emissions in most parts of the world,' according to the IEA. 'This is a major issue because measured emissions tend to be higher than reported emissions.' It's also hard to trace methane to specific sources—whether from natural sources like swamps, or from human activities like fossil fuel extraction, farming, or deforestation. Researchers are gaining a better understanding of where methane is coming from, surveilling potential sources from the ground, from the sky, and from space. It turns out a lot of methane is coming from underappreciated sources, including coal mines and small oil and gas production facilities. The report also notes that while there are plenty of low-cost tools available to halt much of this methane from reaching the atmosphere, they're largely going unused. The United States, the world's third largest methane-emitting country, has seen its methane emissions slowly decline over the past 30 years. However, the Trump administration is pushing for more fossil fuel development while rolling back some of the best bang-for-buck programs for mitigating climate change, which will likely lead to even more methane reaching the atmosphere if left unchecked. Where Is All This Methane Coming From? Methane is the dominant component of natural gas, which provides more than a third of US energy. It's also found in oil formations. During the drilling process, it can escape wells and pipelines, but it can also leak as it's transported and at the power plants and furnaces where it's consumed. The oil and gas industry says that methane is a salable product, so they have a built-in incentive to track it, capture it, and limit its leaks. But oil developers often flare methane, meaning burn it off, because it's not cost-effective to contain it. That burned methane forms carbon dioxide, so the overall climate impact is lower than just letting the methane go free. And because methane is invisible and odorless, it can be difficult and expensive to monitor it and prevent it from getting out. As a result, researchers and environmental activists say the industry is likely releasing far more than official government estimates show. Methane also seeps out from coal mines—more methane, actually, than is released during the production of natural gas, which after all is mostly methane. Ember, a clean-energy think tank, put together this great visual interactive showing how this happens. The short version is that methane is embedded in coal deposits, and as miners dig to expose coal seams, the gas escapes, and continues to do so long after a coal mine reaches the end of its operating life. Since coal miners are focused on extracting coal, they don't often keep track of how much methane they're letting out, nor do regulators pay much attention. According to Ember, methane emissions from coal mines could be 60 percent higher than official tallies. Abandoned coal mines are especially noxious, emitting more than abandoned oil and gas wells. Added up, methane emitted from coal mines around the world each year has the same warming effect on the climate as the total annual carbon dioxide emissions of India. Alarmed by the gaps in the data, some nonprofits have taken it upon themselves to try to get a better picture of methane emissions at a global scale using ground-based sensors, aerial monitors, and even satellites. In 2024, the Environmental Defense Fund launched MethaneSAT, which carries instruments that can measure methane output from small, discrete sources over a wide area. Ritesh Gautam, the lead scientist for MethaneSAT, explained that the project revealed some major overlooked methane emitters. Since launching, MethaneSAT has found that in the US, the bulk of methane emissions doesn't just come from a few big oil and gas drilling sites, but from many small wells that emit less than 100 kilograms per hour. 'Marginal wells only produce 6 to 7 percent of [oil and gas] in the US, but they disproportionately account for almost 50 percent of the US oil and gas production-related emissions,' Gautam said. 'These facilities only produce less than 15 barrels of oil equivalent per day, but then there are more than half a million of these just scattered around the US.' There Are Ways to Stop Methane Emissions, but We're Not Using Them The good news is that many of the tools for containing methane from the energy industry are already available. 'Around 70 percent of methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector could be avoided with existing technologies, often at a low cost,' according to the IEA methane report. For the oil and gas industry, that could mean something as simple as using better fittings in pipelines to limit leaks and installing methane capture systems. And since methane is a fuel, the sale of the saved methane can offset the cost of upgrading hardware. Letting it go into the atmosphere is a waste of money and a contributor to warming. Capturing or destroying methane from coal mines isn't so straightforward. Common techniques to separate methane from other gases require heating air, which is not exactly the safest thing to do around a coal mine—it can increase the risk of fire or explosion. But safer alternatives have been developed. 'There are catalytic and other approaches available today that don't require such high temperatures,' said Robert Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University, in an email. However, these methods to limit methane from fossil fuels are vastly underused. Only about 5 percent of active oil and gas production facilities around the world deploy systems to zero out their methane pollution. In the US, there are also millions of oil and gas wells and tens of thousands of abandoned coal mines whose operators have long since vanished, leaving no one accountable for their continued methane emissions. 'If there isn't a regulatory mandate to treat the methane, or put a price on it, many companies continue to do nothing,' Jackson said. And while recovering methane is ultimately profitable over time, the margins aren't often big enough to make the up-front investment of better pipes, monitoring equipment, or scrubbers worthwhile for them. 'They want to make 10 to 15 percent on their money (at least), not save a few percent,' he added. And rather than getting stronger, regulations on methane are poised to get weaker. The Trump administration has approved more than $119 million to help communities reclaim abandoned coal mines. However, the White House has also halted funding for plugging abandoned oil and gas wells and is limiting environmental reviews for new fossil fuel projects. Congressional Republicans are also working to undo a fee on methane emissions that was part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. With weaker incentives to track and limit methane, it's likely emissions will continue to rise in the United States. That will push the world further off course from climate goals and contribute to a hotter planet.

Yahoo

6 hours ago

• Yahoo

Why the summer solstice is a ‘celestial starting gun' for trees

For millennia, the summer solstice has marked a pivotal moment in the human calendar – a turning point steeped in mythology, when the oak king is said to yield to the holly king, and the days begin to shorten. Now, science is increasingly revealing that trees really do respond to this celestial shift, with changes in their growth and reproductive strategies occuring immediately after the calendar's longest day. A study gives fresh insights into why this happens, with implications for how forests might adapt to changing climates. Although it has long been known that plants use daylight to cue seasonal activities such as leaf growth, botanists have recently begun to question whether the summer solstice itself, which occurs between 20 and 22 June in the northern hemisphere, could act as a celestial 'starting gun' for certain events. Last year, researchers led by Prof Michał Bogdziewicz at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland discovered that, regardless of where in Europe beech trees live, they abruptly open a temperature-sensing window on the solstice, using it to decide how many seeds to manufacture the following year. If it is warm in the days after the solstice, they will produce more flower buds the following spring, leading to a bumper crop of beech nuts in the autumn. But if it's cool they might produce none – a phenomenon known as masting. 'The window of temperature sensitivity opens at the solstice and remains open for about 30 to 40 days. There is no other phenomenon that could so tightly anchor beech trees all across Europe at exactly the same time,' Bogdziewicz said. Swiss researchers also recently discovered that trees in temperate horthern hemisphere forests seemingly switch their growth strategy at around the solstice: warm temperatures before this date accelerate the ageing of their leaves, whereas warm temperatures after it slow down this process. This means it takes longer for their leaves to turn brown in the autumn, maximising their ability to photosynthesise and grow when conditions are favourable. The latest study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides a fresh insight into the relationship between trees and the summer solstice. Dr Victor Van der Meersch and Dr Elizabeth Wolkovich at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, analysed 1,000 years of temperature records across Europe and North America, combining them with future climate projections. Their findings suggest that trees reach their thermal optimum – the temperature range where their physiological processes hum most efficiently – around the summer solstice. Remarkably, this peak has remained stable across centuries. 'In Spain the optimal period is slightly earlier, and in Scandinavia it is slightly later – on average across Europe and North America, the summer solstice seems to be an optimal time for plants to make decisions,' Van der Meersch said. 'This was quite surprising because the warmest days are usually in July or August – they are not around the summer solstice.' If the solstice consistently coincides with peak growing conditions, it could make evolutionary sense for plants to use it as a cue – especially since this thermal sweet spot appears to have held steady across time. 'Plants are always trying to find a balance between risk and opportunities,' Van der Meersch explained. 'The further they go into the growing season, the easier it is for them to know if it's a good growing year or a bad one – but there's also less time left to use this information.' The solstice seems to represent a critical juncture in this decision-making process. 'It makes sense for them to switch between one growth strategy or another at this time.' However, the question of whether they are sensing the change in day length, or a coincidental sweet spot in temperature, remains open. While researchers like Bogdziewicz are exploring how trees detect changes in day length at around the solstice, Van der Meersch thinks temperature may be playing a larger role than previously appreciated. 'Rather than sensing the solstice, perhaps what really matters are the temperature accumulation patterns at around this time,' he said. However, because there is a strong correlation between temperature and day length, 'we need a lot more research to disentangle these complex signals',' he added. 'It is also possible that they rely on a combination of both summer solstice and thermal cues to optimise growth and reproductive timing.' Understanding the mechanism is important, because it could have implications for how forests adapt to the climate crisis. 'If plants are using warmth signals rather than day length this might be a good thing, because they could have a better ability to adapt to local environmental conditions,' Van der Meersch said. 'If they are relying on day length, the solstice will always be fixed to around 21 June, so there is less flexibility.'