Community science image libraries offer a massive, but largely untapped, source of observational data for phenological research. The iNaturalist platform offers a particularly rich archive, containing more than 49 million verifiable, georeferenced, open access images, encompassing seven continents and over 278,000 species. A critical limitation preventing scientists from taking full advantage of this rich data source is labor. Each image must be manually inspected and categorized by phenophase, which is both time-intensive and costly. Consequently, researchers may only be able to use a subset of the total number of images available in the database. While iNaturalist has the potential to yield enough data for high-resolution and spatially extensive studies, it requires more efficient tools for phenological data extraction. A promising solution is automation of the image annotation process using deep learning. Recent innovations in deep learning have made these open-source tools accessible to a general research audience. However, it is unknown whether deep learning tools can accurately and efficiently annotate phenophases in community science images. Here, we train a convolutional neural network (CNN) to annotate images of Alliaria petiolata into distinct phenophases from iNaturalist and compare the performance of the model with non-expert human annotators. We demonstrate that researchers can successfully employ deep learning techniques to extract phenological information from community science images. A CNN classified two-stage phenology (flowering and non-flowering) with 95.9% accuracy and classified four-stage phenology (vegetative, budding, flowering, and fruiting) with 86.4% accuracy. The overall accuracy of the CNN did not differ from humans ( p = 0.383), although performance varied across phenophases. We found that a primary challenge of using deep learning for image annotation was not related to the model itself, but instead in the quality of the community science images. Up to 4% of A. petiolata images in iNaturalist were taken from an improper distance, were physically manipulated, or were digitally altered, which limited both human and machine annotators in accurately classifying phenology. Thus, we provide a list of photography guidelines that could be included in community science platforms to inform community scientists in the best practices for creating images that facilitate phenological analysis.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on July 29, 2024
Ten best practices for effective phenological research
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.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10443092
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International Journal of Biometeorology
- ISSN:
- 0020-7128
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Summary Botanical gardens make unique contributions to climate change research, conservation, and public engagement. They host unique resources, including diverse collections of plant species growing in natural conditions, historical records, and expert staff, and attract large numbers of visitors and volunteers. Networks of botanical gardens spanning biomes and continents can expand the value of these resources. Over the past decade, research at botanical gardens has advanced our understanding of climate change impacts on plant phenology, physiology, anatomy, and conservation. For example, researchers have utilized botanical garden networks to assess anatomical and functional traits associated with phenological responses to climate change. New methods have enhanced the pace and impact of this research, including phylogenetic and comparative methods, and online databases of herbarium specimens and photographs that allow studies to expand geographically, temporally, and taxonomically in scope. Botanical gardens have grown their community and citizen science programs, informing the public about climate change and monitoring plants more intensively than is possible with garden staff alone. Despite these advances, botanical gardens are still underutilized in climate change research. To address this, we review recent progress and describe promising future directions for research and public engagement at botanical gardens.
-
The use of crowdsourced data has been finding practical use for enhancing situational awareness during disasters. While recent studies have shown promising results regarding the potential of crowdsourced data (such as user-generated flood reports) for flash flood mapping and situational awareness, little attention has been paid to data imbalance issues that could introduce biases in data and assessment. To address this gap, in this study, we examine biases present in crowdsourced reports to identify data imbalance with a goal of improving disaster situational awareness. Three biases are examined: sample bias, spatial bias, and demographic bias. To examine these biases, we analyzed reported flooding from 3-1-1 reports (which is a citizen hotline allowing the community to report problems such as flooding) and Waze reports (which is a GPS navigation app that allows drivers to report flooded roads) with respect to FEMA damage data collected in the aftermaths of Tropical Storm Imelda in Harris County, Texas, in 2019 and Hurricane Ida in New York City in 2021. First, sample bias is assessed by expanding the flood-related categories in 3-1-1 reports. Integrating other flooding related topics into the Global Moran's I and Local Indicator of Spatial Association (LISA) revealed more communities that were impacted by floods. To examine spatial bias, we perform the LISA and BI-LISA tests on the data sets—FEMA damage, 3-1-1 reports, and Waze reports—at the census tract level and census block group level. By looking at two geographical aggregations, we found that the larger spatial aggregations, census tracts, show less data imbalance in the results. Through a regression analysis, we found that 3-1-1 reports and Waze reports have data imbalance limitations in areas where minority populations and single parent households reside. The findings of this study advance understanding of data imbalance and biases in crowdsourced datasets that are growingly used for disaster situational awareness. Through addressing data imbalance issues, researchers and practitioners can proactively mitigate biases in crowdsourced data and prevent biased and inequitable decisions and actions.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Data availability limits phenological research at broad temporal and spatial extents. Butterflies are among the few taxa with broad-scale occurrence data, from both incidental reports and formal surveys. Incidental reports have biases that are challenging to address, but structured surveys are often limited seasonally and may not span full flight phenologies. Thus, how these data source compare in phenological analyses is unclear. We modeled butterfly phenology in relation to traits and climate using parallel analyses of incidental and survey data, to explore their shared utility and potential for analytical integration. One workflow aggregated “Pollard” surveys, where sites are visited multiple times per year; the other aggregated incidental data from online portals: iNaturalist and eButterfly. For 40 species, we estimated early (10%) and mid (50%) flight period metrics, and compared the spatiotemporal patterns and drivers of phenology across species and between datasets. For both datasets, inter-annual variability was best explained by temperature, and seasonal emergence was earlier for resident species overwintering at more advanced stages. Other traits related to habitat, feeding, dispersal, and voltinism had mixed or no impacts. Our results suggest that data integration can improve phenological research, and leveraging traits may predict phenology in poorly studied species.
-
more » « less
ABSTRACT Animals produce a wide array of sounds with highly variable acoustic structures. It is possible to understand the causes and consequences of this variation across taxa with phylogenetic comparative analyses. Acoustic and evolutionary analyses are rapidly increasing in sophistication such that choosing appropriate acoustic and evolutionary approaches is increasingly difficult. However, the correct choice of analysis can have profound effects on output and evolutionary inferences. Here, we identify and address some of the challenges for this growing field by providing a roadmap for quantifying and comparing sound in a phylogenetic context for researchers with a broad range of scientific backgrounds. Sound, as a continuous, multidimensional trait can be particularly challenging to measure because it can be hard to identify variables that can be compared across taxa and it is also no small feat to process and analyse the resulting high‐dimensional acoustic data using approaches that are appropriate for subsequent evolutionary analysis. Additionally, terminological inconsistencies and the role of learning in the development of acoustic traits need to be considered. Phylogenetic comparative analyses also have their own sets of caveats to consider. We provide a set of recommendations for delimiting acoustic signals into discrete, comparable acoustic units. We also present a three‐stage workflow for extracting relevant acoustic data, including options for multivariate analyses and dimensionality reduction that is compatible with phylogenetic comparative analysis. We then summarize available phylogenetic comparative approaches and how they have been used in comparative bioacoustics, and address the limitations of comparative analyses with behavioural data. Lastly, we recommend how to apply these methods to acoustic data across a range of study systems. In this way, we provide an integrated framework to aid in quantitative analysis of cross‐taxa variation in animal sounds for comparative phylogenetic analysis. In addition, we advocate the standardization of acoustic terminology across disciplines and taxa, adoption of automated methods for acoustic feature extraction, and establishment of strong data archival practices for acoustic recordings and data analyses. Combining such practices with our proposed workflow will greatly advance the reproducibility, biological interpretation, and longevity of comparative bioacoustic studies.
