Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31993257›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences2020

Methods for broad-scale plant phenology assessments using citizen scientists' photographs.

Vijay V Barve, Laura Brenskelle, Daijiang Li, Brian J Stucky, Narayani V Barve, Maggie M Hantak, Bryan S McLean, Daniel J Paluh, Jessica A Oswald, Michael W Belitz and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applications in plant sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. "Flora of Russia" on iNaturalist: a dataset.Biodiversity data journal · 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

12 authors.

Vijay V BarveFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4852-2567
Laura BrenskelleFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9284-8871
Daijiang LiFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0925-3421
Brian J StuckyFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0769-2970
Narayani V BarveFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7893-8774
Maggie M HantakFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9469-4741
Bryan S McLeanFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.
Daniel J PaluhFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3506-2669
Jessica A OswaldFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6702-3675
Michael W BelitzFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8162-5998
Ryan A FolkFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5333-9273
Robert P GuralnickFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6682-1504

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premiseCitizen science platforms for sharing photographed digital vouchers, such as iNaturalist, are a promising source of phenology data, but methods and best practices for use have not been developed. Here we introduce methods using

methodsWe collaboratively developed a rigorous, consensus-based approach for annotating and sharing whole plant and flower presence data from iNaturalist and applied it to

resultsAnnotations from iNaturalist were uniquely able to delineate extents of unusual flowering events in DISCUSSION: Our work demonstrates that best practice approaches to scoring iNaturalist records provide fine-scale delimitation of phenological events. This approach can be applied to other plant groups to better understand how phenology responds to changing climate.

Indexed as

anomalous floweringcitizen sciencedata integrationiNaturalistplant phenologyYucca

Identifiers

PMID31993257
PMCPMC6976896

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.