Bayesian comparison of six different temperature-based budburst models for four temperate tree species

By Yongshuo H. Fu, M. Campioli, M. Oijen, G. Deckmyn, Ivan A. Janssens. 2012

87 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/afac69cceb999852c348029db7b37f5b58ef000f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

1. Florian Hartig
2. C. Körner
3. G. Hoch
4. Henrik Hartmann
5. Y. Vitasse
6. Nathan G. McDowell
7. Peili Shi
8. Anna Sala

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Shilong Piao
2. Florian Hartig
3. Andreas Huth
4. C. Körner
5. Annikki Mäkelä
6. Xi Yang
7. Andres Kiviste
8. Hiroyuki Muraoka

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Florian Hartig
2. Andreas Huth
3. C. Körner
4. Annikki Mäkelä
5. Andres Kiviste
6. S. Thackeray
7. G. Hoch
8. John‐Arvid Grytnes

Citations in the corpus

• Bayesian calibration, comparison and averaging of six forest models, using data from Scots pine stands across Europe (2013, methodology): “Van Oijen et al. (2011) included BMC in their analysis of four models for forest biogeochemistry and Fu et al. (2012) used BMC to identify the most plausible models for predicting tree budburst.”
• Emerging opportunities and challenges in phenology: a review (2016, background): “The ecodormancy phase begins at the end of the endodormancy phase and finishes after a period of increasing temperature (Chuine 2000, Fu et al. 2012) in spring.”