Search for: All records

Many plants are responding to increases in spring temperatures by advancing their leaf‐out and flowering times in temperate regions around the world. The magnitudes of species' sensitivities to temperature vary widely, and patterns within that variation can illuminate underlying phenological drivers related to species' life histories and local‐scale adaptations.The USA National Phenology Network (USA‐NPN) and the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) are two rapidly growing, taxonomically and geographically extensive phenology data resources in the USA that offer opportunities to explore emergent properties of spring phenology. Using observations of leaf‐out and flowering in temperate deciduous plant species from USA‐NPN (2009–2024) and NEON (2014–2022), we estimated species‐level flowering (n = 164) and leaf‐out (n = 136) sensitivities to temperatures of the preceding months, obtained through PRISM. We used the results to assess differences in sensitivities between the two datasets and among life history traits (e.g. introduced or native status, seasonal timing and growth habit) and to explore latitudinal patterns in sensitivity among and within species. We found significant relationships between temperature and leaf‐out phenology (2009–2024 for 109 (80%) species, ranging from −7.4 to −1.3 days/°C, and between temperature and flowering phenology for 140 (85%) species, ranging from −8.0 to −1.1 days/°C. Plant sensitivities were highly consistent among the USA‐NPN and NEON datasets, suggesting these datasets can be reasonably combined to expand the coverage of publicly available phenological data across the USA. Introduced species showed stronger sensitivity to temperature than native species for both leaf‐out (−0.8 days/°C difference) and flowering (−0.7 days/°C difference). The strongest (i.e. most negative) leaf‐out sensitivities to temperature were associated with earlier leaf‐out dates and strong flowering sensitivities. Latitudinal analyses within and across species indicate that flowering and leaf‐out sensitivities are both stronger at lower latitudes. Synthesis. Phenological ‘big data’ encompassing over 100 species across the eastern USA shows that leaf‐out and flowering occur earlier with warmer temperatures and that native species and individuals at high latitudes tend to have weaker temperature sensitivities than introduced species and more southern plants; these findings suggest adaptations within and across species to avoid leafing out and flowering under harsh environmental conditions. 

Phenological indices are an effective approach for assessing spatial and temporal patterns and variability in plant development. The Spring Indices (SI-x), two widely adopted phenological indices, have been used in recent decades to predict development of woody plants, and document changes in spring growth timing, especially in North America. However, these two indices (Leaf and Bloom) capture only two “moments” in the continuum of spring when quantities of thermal or photo/thermal energy, associated with seasonal events in plants, are accumulated, limiting their utility to characterize the remainder of the spring season. Further, the Spring Indices do not account for intraspecific variation, limiting their ability to reflect non-cloned plant development. To address these shortcomings, we developed a novel suite of phenological indices that encompass a broader span of the spring season. These indices were constructed using observations contributed to the USA National Phenology Network’s Nature’s Notebook platform across many non-cloned tree and shrub species’ ranges, thereby incorporating differing regional responses within species due to genetic variations. Individual species model predictions of leaf or bloom timing exhibited an average mean absolute error of 8.55 days; most were improved by the inclusion of site-specific latitude, elevation, or 30-year average temperature. Leaf and bloom model outputs for individual species across the spring season were temporally aggregated into four leaf and bloom groups to produce a suite of Spring Development Indices (SDI). Accuracy of the SDI predictionswas 0.89 days lower, on average, than the species models, but 2.65 days better than SI-x. Generally, all SDIs were highly correlated. The SDIs exhibiting the most difference from the others were Early leaf, Very Early bloom, and Late bloom. As such, these SDIs provide novel insights, beyond SI-x, into the relative timing of spring-season “moments” across species in space and time. 

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. 

Abstract Background and Aims Fruiting remains under-represented in long-term phenology records, relative to leaf and flower phenology. Herbarium specimens and historical field notes can fill this gap, but selecting and synthesizing these records for modern-day comparison requires an understanding of whether different historical data sources contain similar information, and whether similar, but not equivalent, fruiting metrics are comparable with one another. Methods For 67 fleshy-fruited plant species, we compared observations of fruiting phenology made by Henry David Thoreau in Concord, Massachusetts (1850s), with phenology data gathered from herbarium specimens collected across New England (mid-1800s to 2000s). To identify whether fruiting times and the order of fruiting among species are similar between datasets, we compared dates of first, peak and last observed fruiting (recorded by Thoreau), and earliest, mean and latest specimen (collected from herbarium records), as well as fruiting durations. Key Results On average, earliest herbarium specimen dates were earlier than first fruiting dates observed by Thoreau; mean specimen dates were similar to Thoreau’s peak fruiting dates; latest specimen dates were later than Thoreau’s last fruiting dates; and durations of fruiting captured by herbarium specimens were longer than durations of fruiting observed by Thoreau. All metrics of fruiting phenology except duration were significantly, positively correlated within (r: 0.69–0.88) and between (r: 0.59–0.85) datasets. Conclusions Strong correlations in fruiting phenology between Thoreau’s observations and data from herbaria suggest that field and herbarium methods capture similar broad-scale phenological information, including relative fruiting times among plant species in New England. Differences in the timing of first, last and duration of fruiting suggest that historical datasets collected with different methods, scales and metrics may not be comparable when exact timing is important. Researchers should strongly consider matching methodology when selecting historical records of fruiting phenology for present-day comparisons. 

Abstract Ecological forecasting provides a powerful set of methods for predicting short‐ and long‐term change in living systems. Forecasts are now widely produced, enabling proactive management for many applied ecological problems. However, despite numerous calls for an increased emphasis on prediction in ecology, the potential for forecasting to accelerate ecological theory development remains underrealized.Here, we provide a conceptual framework describing how ecological forecasts can energize and advance ecological theory. We emphasize the many opportunities for future progress in this area through increased forecast development, comparison and synthesis.Our framework describes how a forecasting approach can shed new light on existing ecological theories while also allowing researchers to address novel questions. Through rigorous and repeated testing of hypotheses, forecasting can help to refine theories and understand their generality across systems. Meanwhile, synthesizing across forecasts allows for the development of novel theory about the relative predictability of ecological variables across forecast horizons and scales.We envision a future where forecasting is integrated as part of the toolset used in fundamental ecology. By outlining the relevance of forecasting methods to ecological theory, we aim to decrease barriers to entry and broaden the community of researchers using forecasting for fundamental ecological insight.