Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30499218›Full record

ArticleEcology2019

Comparison of large-scale citizen science data and long-term study data for phenology modeling.

Shawn D Taylor, Joan M Meiners, Kristina Riemer, Michael C Orr, Ethan P White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Ten best practices for effective phenological research.International journal of biometeorology · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Automated data-intensive forecasting of plant phenology throughout the United States.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shawn D TaylorSchool of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, PO Box 116455, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6178-6903
Joan M MeinersSchool of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, PO Box 116455, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9369-9313
Kristina RiemerDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110430, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3802-3331
Michael C OrrKey Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9096-3008
Ethan P WhiteDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110430, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6728-7745

Funding

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation GBMF4563University of Florida Biodiversity Institute Graduate Research Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large-scale observational data from citizen science efforts are becoming increasingly common in ecology, and researchers often choose between these and data from intensive local-scale studies for their analyses. This choice has potential trade-offs related to spatial scale, observer variance, and interannual variability. Here we explored this issue with phenology by comparing models built using data from the large-scale, citizen science USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) effort with models built using data from more intensive studies at Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites. We built statistical and process based phenology models for species common to each data set. From these models, we compared parameter estimates, estimates of phenological events, and out-of-sample errors between models derived from both USA-NPN and LTER data. We found that model parameter estimates for the same species were most similar between the two data sets when using simple models, but parameter estimates varied widely as model complexity increased. Despite this, estimates for the date of phenological events and out-of-sample errors were similar, regardless of the model chosen. Predictions for USA-NPN data had the lowest error when using models built from the USA-NPN data, while LTER predictions were best made using LTER-derived models, confirming that models perform best when applied at the same scale they were built. This difference in the cross-scale model comparison is likely due to variation in phenological requirements within species. Models using the USA-NPN data set can integrate parameters over a large spatial scale while those using an LTER data set can only estimate parameters for a single location. Accordingly, the choice of data set depends on the research question. Inferences about species-specific phenological requirements are best made with LTER data, and if USA-NPN or similar data are all that is available, then analyses should be limited to simple models. Large-scale predictive modeling is best done with the larger-scale USA-NPN data, which has high spatial representation and a large regional species pool. LTER data sets, on the other hand, have high site fidelity and thus characterize inter-annual variability extremely well. Future research aimed at forecasting phenology events for particular species over larger scales should develop models that integrate the strengths of both data sets.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeModels, TheoreticalLongitudinal StudiesSeasonsbudburstdata integrationfloweringforecastingLong Term Ecological ResearchscaleUSA National Phenology Network

Identifiers

PMID30499218
PMCPMC7378950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.