Scaling phenology from the local to the regional level: advances from species‐specific phenological models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Plant phenology, the study of seasonal plant activity driven by environmental factors, has found a renewal in the context of global climate change. Phenological events, such as leaf unfolding, exert strong control over seasonal exchanges of matter and energy between the land surface and the atmosphere. Phenological models that simulate the start of the growing season should be efficient tools to predict vegetation responses to climatic changes and related changes in energy balance. Species‐specific phenological models developed in the eighties have not been used for global‐scale predictions because their predictions were inaccurate in external conditions. Recent advances in phenology modelling at the species level suggest that prediction at a large scale may now be possible. In the present study, we tested the performance of species‐specific phenological models in time and space, looking at their ability (i) to predict regional phenology when previously fitted at a local scale, and (ii) to predict phenological trends, linked to climate changes, observed over a long‐term. For that task we used an historical phenological dataset from Ohio from the late ninetieth century and an airborne pollen dataset from Ontario, Québec and Maryland from the late twentieth century. The results show that the species‐specific phenological models used in this study were able to predict regional phenology even though they were fitted locally. The reconstruction of a phenological time series over the twentieth century showed a significant advancement of 0.2 days per year in the date of flowering of Ulmus americana , but very weak trends for Fraxinus americana and Quercus velutina .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".