Spatial and interspecific variability in phenological responses to warming temperatures

240 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Featuring 10 phenological estimators using simulated data (2010, methodology): “Numerous methods have been used in the literature to determine phenological shifts: the first occurrence of the event has been frequently used as a proxy for the whole distribution timing (Both, Bijlsma, & Visser 2005; Sparks et al. 2005; Donnelly et al. 2009; Primack et al. 2009).”
Temperature‐driven shifts in a host‐parasite interaction drive nonlinear changes in disease risk (2012, background): “Increasingly, disruptions of interspecific interactions such as predator-prey and plant-herbivore dynamics have been observed because seasonal events such as breeding, migration, and flowering, are advancing earlier in the season in some species but not in others (Memmott et al., 2007; Post et al., ”
Emergence of a mid‐season period of low floral resources in a montane meadow ecosystem associated with climate change (2011, unknown): “…one might expect the response of flowering phenology to climate change to differ substantially between warm and cool sites, dry and wet sites, or sites with early and late snowmelt, particularly because we know that phenological responses to climate variability are nonlinear (Primack et al. 2009).”