4.2 Article

Unbiased inference of plant flowering phenology from biological recording data

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 115, 期 3, 页码 543-554

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/bij.12515

关键词

Bayesian model; citizen science; climate change; discrete Fourier transform; growing degree days; phenology model; recorder effort

资金

  1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NEC04932]
  3. NERC [ceh020002] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh020002] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phenology is a key indicator and mediator of the ecological impacts of climate change. However, studies monitoring the phenology of individual species are moderate in number, taxonomically and geographically restricted, and mainly focused on spring events. As such, attention is being given to nonstandard sources of phenology data, such as the dates of species' biological records. Here, we present a conceptual framework for deriving phenological metrics from biological recording data, while accounting for seasonal variation in the level of activity by recorders. We develop a new Bayesian statistical model to infer the seasonal pattern of plant recordability'. The modelled dates of maximum recordability are strongly indicative of the flowering peaks of 29 insect-pollinated species monitored in two botanic gardens in Great Britain. Conversely, not accounting for the seasonality in recording activity results in biased estimates of the observed flowering peaks. However, observed first and last flowering dates were less reliably explained by the model, which probably reflects greater interspecific variation in levels of recording before and after flowering. We conclude that our method provides new potential for gaining useful insights into large-scale variation in peak phenology across a much broader range of plant species than have previously been studied.(c) 2015 The Linnean Society of London.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据