Leveraging machine learning and citizen science data to describe flowering phenology across South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Phenology — the timing of recurring life history events—is strongly linked to climate. Shifts in phenology have important implications for trophic interactions, ecosystem functioning and community ecology. However, data on plant phenology can be time consuming to collect and current records are biased across space and taxonomy. Here, we explore the performance of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) for classifying flowering phenology on a very large and taxonomically diverse dataset of citizen science images. We analyse >1.8 million iNaturalist records for plants listed in the National Botanical Gardens within South Africa, a country famed for its floristic diversity (∼21,000 species) but poorly represented in phenological databases. We were able to correctly classify images with >90% accuracy. Using metadata associated with each image, we then reconstructed the timing of peak flower production and length of the flowering season for the 6,986 species with >5 iNaturalist records. Our analysis illustrates how machine learning tools can leverage the vast wealth of citizen science biodiversity data to describe large-scale phenological dynamics. We suggest such approaches may be particularly valuable where data on plant phenology is currently lacking.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".