The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982–2006
Open accessAbstract
Shifts in the timing of spring phenology are a central feature of global change research. Long‐term observations of plant phenology have been used to track vegetation responses to climate variability but are often limited to particular species and locations and may not represent synoptic patterns. Satellite remote sensing is instead used for continental to global monitoring. Although numerous methods exist to extract phenological timing, in particular start‐of‐spring (SOS), from time series of reflectance data, a comprehensive intercomparison and interpretation of SOS methods has not been conducted. Here, we assess 10 SOS methods for North America between 1982 and 2006. The techniques include consistent inputs from the 8 km Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer NDVIg dataset, independent data for snow cover, soil thaw, lake ice dynamics, spring streamflow timing, over 16 000 individual measurements of ground‐based phenology, and two temperature‐driven models of spring phenology. Compared with an ensemble of the 10 SOS methods, we found that individual methods differed in average day‐of‐year estimates by ±60 days and in standard deviation by ±20 days. The ability of the satellite methods to retrieve SOS estimates was highest in northern latitudes and lowest in arid, tropical, and Mediterranean ecoregions. The ordinal rank of SOS methods varied geographically, as did the relationships between SOS estimates and the cryospheric/hydrologic metrics. Compared with ground observations, SOS estimates were more related to the first leaf and first flowers expanding phenological stages. We found no evidence for time trends in spring arrival from ground‐ or model‐based data; using an ensemble estimate from two methods that were more closely related to ground observations than other methods, SOS trends could be detected for only 12% of North America and were divided between trends towards both earlier and later spring.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change
Parmesan, C. (2006) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100 · Cited by 8,652
Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity.
Westerling, A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R., & Swetnam, T. W. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1128834 · Cited by 5,176 · cited 1×
“Climate warming and earlier spring growth in combination with forest fuel buildup in the south-western united states also has resulted in an increasing number of large and severe wildfires (Westerling et al., 2006).”
BackgroundOnset of spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere
SCHWARTZ, M. D., AHAS, R., & AASA, A. (2006) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01097.x · Cited by 1,037
Self-citation
Cited by
Plant phenology and global climate change: Current progresses and challenges
Piao, S., Liu, Q., Chen, A., Janssens, I. A., Fu, Y., Dai, J., Liu, L., Lian, X., Shen, M., & Zhu, X. (2019) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14619 · Cited by 2,120
Influence of spring and autumn phenological transitions on forest ecosystem productivity
Richardson, A. D., Andy Black, T., Ciais, P., Delbart, N., Friedl, M. A., Gobron, N., Hollinger, D. Y., Kutsch, W. L., Longdoz, B., Luyssaert, S., et al. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0102 · Cited by 936
Self-citationCunliffe, A. M., Brazier, R. E., & Anderson, K. (2016) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2016.05.019 · Cited by 365
Mapping abandoned agriculture with multi-temporal MODIS satellite data
Alcantara, C., Kuemmerle, T., Prishchepov, A. V., & Radeloff, V. C. (2012) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.05.019 · Cited by 323
Zhou, D., Zhao, S., Zhang, L., & Liu, S. (2016) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.010 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- WHITE, M. A., De BEURS, K. M., DIDAN, K., INOUYE, D. W., RICHARDSON, A. D., JENSEN, O. P., O'KEEFE, J., ZHANG, G., NEMANI, R. R., Van LEEUWEN, W. J. D., BROWN, J. F., De WIT, A., SCHAEPMAN, M., LIN, X., DETTINGER, M., BAILEY, A. S., KIMBALL, J., SCHWARTZ, M. D., BALDOCCHI, D. D., LEE, J. T., & LAUENROTH, W. K.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-09-04
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2335-2359
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W1996463620
- Cited by
- 1,080
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 37.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982–2006. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01910.x
- The paper
- WHITE, M. A., De BEURS, K. M., DIDAN, K., INOUYE, D. W., RICHARDSON, A. D., JENSEN, O. P., O'KEEFE, J., ZHANG, G., NEMANI, R. R., Van LEEUWEN, W. J. D., BROWN, J. F., De WIT, A., SCHAEPMAN, M., LIN, X., DETTINGER, M., BAILEY, A. S., KIMBALL, J., SCHWARTZ, M. D., BALDOCCHI, D. D., . . . LAUENROTH, W. K. (2009). Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982–2006. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01910.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.