Tuesday pm: Observation Protocols (Group 2: Julio Betancourt, leader)
General considerations for observation protocols:
Initial list for observation protocol as an example
- varies by scientist/focus and by region
- regional differences as important as a national protocol
Protocol should include addressing: site selection, timing, frequency, location, events throughout the year
Should think broadly about what to measure: e.g., seedling emergence
There is a need to differentiate protocols for a) citizen scientists b) researchers/specialists
What considerations should we pay attention when trying to bring together networks?
- asked different networks about what definitions they used
- used BBCH (agricultural protocol based on German system) coding system to link existing networks
- considerations are different for tropical species
- protocols should consider bimodal growing seasons
- phenophases being observed do not vary much across the globe: bud burst, leaf fall, flowering, coloring (%), …
- timing and frequency of observations: select an object that you can observe within every
2-3 days
- observers don’t send in 0’s for pre-events
- GLOBE fills out yes or no for observation, but a yes needs to be preceeded with a no observation for the previous day
- for some systems, the sensitivity of timing is stronger (e.g. weekly in Arctic is too infrequent)
- observations might be every day for a defined part of the year
- the interval between important events varies from north to south (e.g., blooming to fruit set)
- at a certain location, if the third flower is open, then that is date reported (i.e., three different locations within the tree) OR should it be average date of bloom for all of the cultivars at a site; key issue is to be consistent
- similarly, if a plant has only one flower, then use three individuals
- some studies had plants tagged and that is the plant that is observed
-GLOBE protocol: budburst: observe 2 trees, where there are three different branches with budburst, that is the date of bloom

leaf out: senescence: green to orange/red/…, leaf fall
- phenological site at the beginning of measurements could be used to get an estimate of spatial relationships
- options: 1) have everyone send in observations, and this provides a good estimate of the median for the nation;2) select a group of specialist observers that look at the same individuals every year
- duration of flowering and greenup: usually don’t record end of flowering, but could estimate it with pollen observations
- there is potential for bias for recording the first thing the see; for autumnal events, recording the end
- need to distinguish between: a) easy to observe and to give simple instructions b) harder to observe and need to give more detailed instructions
- experimental data vs. observational data: differences may be because of observing different individuals or if spring vs. fall are changing differentially
- a few LTERs have some phenology data (e.g. Bonanza Creek)
- need to pay attention to scale
- locational issues are important:
- for densely populated countries, you can ask people to list against a postal code; GPS could be used but not everyone would have access; if you select observers that have web access then that can be used to identify location; large variation can exist over short differences
- location is a key component of metadata; need system where the observed can put in street address and then click where they made the observation
- many records may be on paper, so a key consideration is will we need to require observers to access the internet, or not, how will we get good locational information
- if the data are for checking remotely sensed measurements, then there are only a few observations that are important; e.g., greenup
- you could get a better estimate by having lots of observations in a small area;
- no validation of remotely sensed data using publically acquired observations yet; but this can be done backwards: what intervals best match the actual observations
- greenup vs. sensence: different integration intervals for Jornada and riparian; senescence vs. AVHRR had good comparison; some work in Konza also for greenup;
- flyover data may be of limited use for some phenological measurements of interest
- recent hyperspectral studies may have applications; it is very expensive; spatial resolution is not as good for these
- how to tie observations to weather?: can take an average of phenology dates and take average met (temperature) and could split into a few stations
- would it be useful for observers to have small instruments to measure other factors when they observe phenology?; having more related information may help in some cases, but it doesn’t help for variation from individual to individual
- based on GLOBE: have written standard protocols for all 108 countires; have had measurements taken in 14 countries for greenup and greendown; also have atmosphere, hydrology, soils, land cover measurements; if all of that is not available, then the met data

from the closest town is used; protocols being developed are being used in other locations; currently in the process of determining which protocols work best and which should be changes; e.g., if the observers are looking at dominant trees or shrubs at a site, then the observations could be compared to remotely sensed data (AVHRR);
- several key things need to be defined: definition of phenophases instructions for frequency of observations for each phenophase, has a period defined when they should look at that
(may need more frequent observations over a shorter interval farther north) location (how to get coordinates, how to pick representative sites; defining your observational area; for mountainous areas, elevation, slope, aspect) observation object (select/tag an individual if possible, and observe the same individual year after year)
- photos are not practical for large observation sets currently ongoing in Europe
- may be important to exclude or note if observations are along roadsides;
- if possible, not watered or fertilized trees used for observations; but lilac network has trees that are watered if needed
- most observations are urban
- UK does not have a close link with remote sensing; Canada does; Norway is trying to do this now, as is Germany;
- main ideas point to a system with a combination of general observers with simple measurements and more specialized measurements
- linkages between pollen (600 stations in Europe) and phenology data; currently brought together in one database; not much inclusion of pollen trap network into phenology over all; may need to address pollen coverage in US
- not many practical ways to relate how climate affects ecological processes at large scales; pollen/phenology network may be able to do this; similar linkages were made between pollen and NDVI changes at regional scales
- one way to increase public interest in the phenology network could be in terms of public health
- some key issues remain untested: e.g., pinyon masting and effects on other organisms, including linkages with deer mice and Hanta virus; how do you adequately capture masting? Europe uses a fruiting score from 1-5; these episodic events are more complicated in terms of telling observers what to look for
- may need to consider making observations on several things that are linked; including some things that are not strictly phenology, but this includes a different approach
- events like masting link climate, plant cycles and animal populations
- need to differentiate factors that influence phenology vs factors that influence production (points to question of what is the role of phenology in production)
- concern about phenology and other factors (e.g., abundance) being measured independently: how do the applications drive protocol development? Can we anticipate the needs of the user community?
- other rare event examples to consider: plant mortality or seedling emergence
- if you have on-line network, you can add an observational category to look for a rare event

- animal abundance is a related observation but again is not strictly phenological
- need to increase animal observations and perspective during network development
- important to think about links that go together (e.g., ladybirds, aphids)
- it is not necessary to use BBCH, but its value is in having a set of definitions that can then be translated among sites; it may be good to link up with those definitions and with those used in past programs;
- most often used is start of flowing, full flowering, stop of flowering (depends on species)
- categories for lilac used flat open, unshaded area away from buildings and other obstructions (and should be a site that you can access every day); GLOBE requests metadata for site, especially in mountainous areas; this raises problems if you want to include lots of urban observers
- one issue is should plants that are irrigated or receive supplemental water be excluded?
- species with distinct sexes raise additional issues; could through off observations if not identified ahead of time; we may need to exclude such species for general observations
- if you ask for too many questions, general observers may not make the observations
- plant phenology data may be as good as bird data
- how would this approach differ if you have employees making some these observations? Then you would be able to have more detailed observations and compare them to the more general observations; then decide if additional instruction is needed for the overall program.
- In the context of the global observing systems, these efforts could contribute in important ways: projections of crop failure, biodiversity forecasting, etc. (applications of phenological data)
- we did discuss automated observations, which add a whole new level of complexity; e.g. acoustic sensors and video/web cams for a period of time, some infrared cameras;