Forecasting plant phenology: evaluating the phenological models for Betula pendula and Padus racemosa spring phases, Latvia.

Andis Kalvāns, Māra Bitāne, Gunta Kalvāne
Author Information
  1. Andis Kalvāns: Faculty of Science and Technology, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Ravila 14a, Tartu, 50411, Estonia, andis.kalvans@ut.ee.

Abstract

A historical phenological record and meteorological data of the period 1960-2009 are used to analyse the ability of seven phenological models to predict leaf unfolding and beginning of flowering for two tree species-silver birch Betula pendula and bird cherry Padus racemosa-in Latvia. Model stability is estimated performing multiple model fitting runs using half of the data for model training and the other half for evaluation. Correlation coefficient, mean absolute error and mean squared error are used to evaluate model performance. UniChill (a model using sigmoidal development rate and temperature relationship and taking into account the necessity for dormancy release) and DDcos (a simple degree-day model considering the diurnal temperature fluctuations) are found to be the best models for describing the considered spring phases. A strong collinearity between base temperature and required heat sum is found for several model fitting runs of the simple degree-day based models. Large variation of the model parameters between different model fitting runs in case of more complex models indicates similar collinearity and over-parameterization of these models. It is suggested that model performance can be improved by incorporating the resolved daily temperature fluctuations of the DDcos model into the framework of the more complex models (e.g. UniChill). The average base temperature, as found by DDcos model, for B. pendula leaf unfolding is 5.6 °C and for the start of the flowering 6.7 °C; for P. racemosa, the respective base temperatures are 3.2 °C and 3.4 °C.

References

  1. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47324 [PMID: 23071786]
  2. Int J Biometeorol. 2013 Jan;57(1):45-58 [PMID: 22410824]
  3. Int J Biometeorol. 2000 Aug;44(2):88-96 [PMID: 10993563]
  4. Int J Biometeorol. 2004 Feb;48(3):109-18 [PMID: 14564495]
  5. J Theor Biol. 2000 Dec 7;207(3):337-47 [PMID: 11082304]
  6. Int J Biometeorol. 2003 May;47(3):117-25 [PMID: 12748841]
  7. Tree Physiol. 1999 Jul;19(9):613-618 [PMID: 12651536]
  8. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27439 [PMID: 22087317]
  9. Int J Biometeorol. 2006 Sep;51(1):17-26 [PMID: 16738902]
  10. Trends Plant Sci. 2011 Aug;16(8):412-6 [PMID: 21640632]
  11. Int J Biometeorol. 2003 Aug;47(4):193-201 [PMID: 12698325]
  12. Int J Biometeorol. 2000 Aug;44(2):60-6 [PMID: 10993559]

MeSH Term

Betula
Latvia
Models, Theoretical
Plant Leaves
Prunus
Seasons

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0modelmodelstemperature°CphenologicalpendulafittingrunsDDcosfoundbasedatausedleafunfoldingfloweringBetulaPadusLatviausinghalfmeanerrorperformanceUniChillsimpledegree-dayfluctuationsspringphasescollinearitycomplex6racemosa3historicalrecordmeteorologicalperiod1960-2009analyseabilitysevenpredictbeginningtwotreespecies-silverbirchbirdcherryracemosa-inModelstabilityestimatedperformingmultipletrainingevaluationCorrelationcoefficientabsolutesquaredevaluatesigmoidaldevelopmentraterelationshiptakingaccountnecessitydormancyreleaseconsideringdiurnalbestdescribingconsideredstrongrequiredheatsumseveralbasedLargevariationparametersdifferentcaseindicatessimilarover-parameterizationsuggestedcanimprovedincorporatingresolveddailyframeworkegaverageB5start7Prespectivetemperatures24Forecastingplantphenology:evaluating

Similar Articles

Cited By