Search for: All records

Phenological response to global climate change can impact ecosystem functions. There are various data sources from which spatiotemporal and taxonomic phenological data may be obtained: mobilized herbaria, community science initiatives, observatory networks, and remote sensing. However, analyses conducted to date have generally relied on single sources of these data. Siloed treatment of data in analyses may be due to the lack of harmonization across different data sources that offer partially nonoverlapping information and are often complementary. Such treatment precludes a deeper understanding of phenological responses at varying macroecological scales. Here, we describe a detailed vision for the harmonization of phenological data, including the direct integration of disparate sources of phenological data using a common schema. Specifically, we highlight existing methods for data harmonization that can be applied to phenological data: data design patterns, metadata standards, and ontologies. We describe how harmonized data from multiple sources can be integrated into analyses using existing methods and discuss the use of automated extraction techniques. Data harmonization is not a new concept in ecology, but the harmonization of phenological data is overdue.We aim to highlight the need for better data harmonization, providing a roadmap for how harmonized phenological data may fill gaps while simultaneously being integrated into analyses. 

Abstract To understand and forecast biological responses to climate change, scientists frequently use field experiments that alter temperature and precipitation. Climate manipulations can manifest in complex ways, however, challenging interpretations of biological responses. We reviewed publications to compile a database of daily plot‐scale climate data from 15 active‐warming experiments. We find that the common practices of analysing treatments as mean or categorical changes (e.g. warmed vs. unwarmed) masks important variation in treatment effects over space and time. Our synthesis showed that measured mean warming, in plots with the same target warming within a study, differed by up to 1.6 C (63% of target), on average, across six studies with blocked designs. Variation was high across sites and designs: for example, plots differed by 1.1 C (47% of target) on average, for infrared studies with feedback control (n = 3) vs. by 2.2 C (80% of target) on average for infrared with constant wattage designs (n = 2). Warming treatments produce non‐temperature effects as well, such as soil drying. The combination of these direct and indirect effects is complex and can have important biological consequences. With a case study of plant phenology across five experiments in our database, we show how accounting for drier soils with warming tripled the estimated sensitivity of budburst to temperature. We provide recommendations for future analyses, experimental design, and data sharing to improve our mechanistic understanding from climate change experiments, and thus their utility to accurately forecast species’ responses.