Deep learning meets tree phenology modelling: <scp>PhenoFormer</scp> versus process‐based models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Predicting phenology, that is the timing of seasonal events of plant life such as leaf emergence and colouration in relation to climate fluctuations, is essential for anticipating future changes in carbon sequestration and tree vitality in temperate forest ecosystems. Existing approaches typically rely on either hypothesis‐driven process models or data‐driven statistical methods. Several studies have shown that process models outperform statistical methods when predicting under climatic conditions that differ from those of the training data, such as for climate change scenarios. However, in terms of statistical methods, deep learning approaches remain underexplored for species‐level phenology modelling. We present a deep neural architecture, PhenoFormer, for species‐level phenology prediction using meteorological time series. Our experiments utilise a country‐scale data set comprising 70 years of climate data and approximately 70,000 phenological observations of nine woody plant species, focussing on leaf emergence and colouration in Switzerland. We extensively compare PhenoFormer to 18 different process‐based models and traditional machine learning methods, including Random Forest (RF) and Gradient Boosted Machine (GBM). Our results demonstrate that PhenoFormer outperforms traditional statistical methods in phenology prediction while achieving significant improvements or comparable performance to the best process‐based models. When predicting under climatic conditions similar to the training data, our model improved over the best process‐based models by 6% normalised root‐mean‐squared error (nRMSE) for spring phenology and 7% nRMSE for autumn phenology. Under conditions involving substantial climatic shifts between training and testing (+1.21°C), PhenoFormer reduced the nRMSE by an average of 8% across species compared to RF and GBM, and performed on par with the best process models. These findings highlight the potential of deep learning for phenology modelling and call for further research in this direction, particularly for future climate projections. Meanwhile, the advancements achieved by PhenoFormer can provide valuable insights for anticipating species‐specific phenological responses to climate change.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".