Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37507579›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of biometeorology2023

Ten best practices for effective phenological research.

Richard B Primack, Amanda S Gallinat, Elizabeth R Ellwood, Theresa M Crimmins, Mark D Schwartz, Michelle D Staudinger, Abraham J Miller-Rushing

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of biometeorology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

7 authors.

Richard B PrimackDepartment of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. primack@bu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3748-9853
Amanda S GallinatDepartment of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0397-6562
Elizabeth R EllwoodiDigBio, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1602-1917
Theresa M CrimminsUSA National Phenology Network, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9592-625X
Mark D SchwartzDepartment of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6739-0416
Michelle D StaudingerDepartment of the Interior, Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, US Geological Survey, Amherst, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4535-2005
Abraham J Miller-RushingUS National Park Service, Acadia National Park, Bar Harbor, ME, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3203-0143

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number and diversity of phenological studies has increased rapidly in recent years. Innovative experiments, field studies, citizen science projects, and analyses of newly available historical data are contributing insights that advance our understanding of ecological and evolutionary responses to the environment, particularly climate change. However, many phenological data sets have peculiarities that are not immediately obvious and can lead to mistakes in analyses and interpretation of results. This paper aims to help researchers, especially those new to the field of phenology, understand challenges and practices that are crucial for effective studies. For example, researchers may fail to account for sampling biases in phenological data, struggle to choose or design a volunteer data collection strategy that adequately fits their project's needs, or combine data sets in inappropriate ways. We describe ten best practices for designing studies of plant and animal phenology, evaluating data quality, and analyzing data. Practices include accounting for common biases in data, using effective citizen or community science methods, and employing appropriate data when investigating phenological mismatches. We present these best practices to help researchers entering the field take full advantage of the wealth of available data and approaches to advance our understanding of phenology and its implications for ecology.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeTreesAnimalsData CollectionHumansSeasonsVolunteersCitizen scienceCommunity scienceHistorical dataMismatchPhenology networkRemote sensing

Identifiers

PMID37507579
PMCPMC10457241

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.