Organizing phenological data resources to inform natural resource conservation Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 90–97 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Biological Conservation j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / b i o c o n Organizing phenological data resources to inform natural resource conservation 0006-3207 � 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.003 ⇑ Corresponding author at: National Coordinating Office, USA National Phenology Network, 1955 East Sixth Street, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States. Tel.: +1 520 419 2585. E-mail address: alyssa@usanpn.org (A.H. Rosemartin). Open access under CC BY-NC-SA license. Alyssa H. Rosemartin a,b,⇑, Theresa M. Crimmins a,b, Carolyn A.F. Enquist a,c, Katharine L. Gerst a,b, Jherime L. Kellermann a,b, Erin E. Posthumus a,b, Ellen G. Denny a,b, Patricia Guertin a,b, Lee Marsh a,b, Jake F. Weltzin a,d a National Coordinating Office, USA National Phenology Network, 1955 East Sixth Street, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States b School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States c The Wildlife Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20816, United States d U.S. Geological Survey, 1955 East Sixth Street, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 1 December 2012 Received in revised form 29 June 2013 Accepted 4 July 2013 Available online 26 July 2013 Keywords: Data integration Climate adaptation Multi-taxa monitoring National-scale database Phenology Changes in the timing of plant and animal life cycle events, in response to climate change, are already happening across the globe. The impacts of these changes may affect biodiversity via disruption to mutu- alisms, trophic mismatches, invasions and population declines. To understand the nature, causes and consequences of changed, varied or static phenologies, new data resources and tools are being developed across the globe. The USA National Phenology Network is developing a long-term, multi-taxa phenolog- ical database, together with a customizable infrastructure, to support conservation and management needs. We present current and potential applications of the infrastructure, across scales and user groups. The approaches described here are congruent with recent trends towards multi-agency, large-scale research and action. � 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-SA license. 1. Introduction Global climate change represents one of the greatest contempo- rary threats to biological conservation not only because its effects are non-homogenous across marine and terrestrial systems (Bur- rows et al., 2011; Loarie et al., 2009), but also because variation in these effects compounds the differential responses of species, communities and ecosystems (Chen et al., 2011; Sekercioglu et al., 2007). Negative consequences of these effects include changes in species interactions and temporal mismatches (Wal- ther, 2010; Yang and Rudolf, 2009), increased risk of species extinctions (Cahill et al., 2013; Maclean and Wilson, 2011), and loss of critical ecosystem services (Mooney et al., 2009; Thackeray et al., 2010). An effective conservation response must be broadly coordi- nated and informed by a range of scientific approaches with diverse data sources (Dawson et al., 2011). Observations of biodi- versity taken across spatial and temporal scales are central to this information base, yet the long-term monitoring programs needed to generate these data are typically under-prioritized and under- funded by non-governmental organizations and governmental agencies in the United States (Lovett et al., 2007). Many US federal resource management agencies now require climate response strategies as part of conservation and management planning pro- cesses (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service, US National Park Service, US Forest Service). Although new guidance aimed at preparing for climate-related changes is appearing with increased regularity in scientific, professional, and web-based outlets (Girvetz et al., 2009; Groves et al., 2012; West et al., 2009), there remains a paucity of climate-relevant, broad-scale, multi-taxa biodiversity data for making well-informed conservation and management decisions. Changes in plant and animal phenology, such as the timing of flowering, fruiting, breeding, and migration represent a coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across the globe (Parmesan, 2007; Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; Root et al., 2003). Thus, as a key indicator of the effects of climate change on biodiversity, pheno- logical information is a critical component of the conservation toolkit (Janetos et al., 2012; Parry et al., 2007). For example, vulner- ability assessments, in which agencies and organizations evaluate http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.003&domain=pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.003 mailto:alyssa@usanpn.org http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.003 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ A.H. Rosemartin et al. / Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 90–97 91 their conservation goals relative to observed and projected climate impacts, are now part of the recommended practices for respond- ing to climate change (Glick et al., 2011). In this context, phenolog- ical data can be used to evaluate whether changes in species’ phenology are tracking changes in climate (Cleland et al., 2012; Willis et al., 2008), specifically as a measure of sensitivity and adaptive capacity (e.g., phenotypic plasticity), two of the three variables deemed essential to the vulnerability assessment process (Bagne et al., 2011; Parry et al., 2007; Young et al., 2010). However, existing phenology data resources tend to be limited geographi- cally and taxonomically, and vary substantially in their method of collection (Betancourt et al., 2005; Forrest and Miller-Rushing, 2010). Phenology has played an important role throughout human his- tory from 16th century European vintners (Maurer et al., 2009) to American naturalists and conservationists such as Henry David Thoreau (Miller-Rushing and Primack, 2008) and Aldo Leopold (Leopold and Jones, 1947). The history and approachability of phe- nology make it well-suited to public participation (Primack and Miller-Rushing, 2012). Globally, established and nascent national networks engaging both professional scientists and amateur natu- ralists (e.g., in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Nether- lands and Turkey) collect, store and share phenological information (Schwartz et al., 2013) . In the United States, a parallel effort, the USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN, usanp- n.org), recently emerged to provide a free, web-based, full-service phenological monitoring program and database (Schwartz et al., 2012). By providing protocols and a data management infrastruc- ture standardized across multiple taxa and bioclimatic regions, the USA-NPN enables climate-informed biodiversity conservation for organizations and land management agencies with limited re- sources for adaptation. Here, we describe the USA-NPN’s online phenological monitoring program and database, collaborative part- nerships, and applications of these resources across the country. 2. Organizing and utilizing phenological data resources for conservation in the United States 2.1. The USA national phenology network The USA National Phenology Network was established in 2007 to collect, store and share historical and contemporary phenologi- cal data on a national scale to address the growing needs for this information (Schwartz et al., 2012). The USA-NPN serves science and society by promoting a broad understanding of plant and ani- mal phenology and its relationship with climatic and environmen- tal change. The USA-NPN serves not only as a data repository, but also as a hub of phenology-related activities for researchers, prac- titioners, decision-makers, and the public. In this way, the USA- NPN aims to foster a phenology ‘‘community of practice,’’ facilitat- ing increases in knowledge and understanding specific to phenol- ogy through participation, interaction, discourse, and the establishment of best practices (Kania and Kramer, 2011; Lave and Wenger, 1991). To increase the quantity and quality of phenological data re- sources in the United States, the USA-NPN developed a compre- hensive phenological monitoring infrastructure that includes standardized protocols, an online monitoring program called Nat- ure’s Notebook, the National Phenology Database (NPDb), and a suite of tools to facilitate use of these resources. This infrastructure accommodates a range of audiences, from individual scientists and trained volunteers (‘‘backyard naturalists’’ or ‘‘citizen scientists’’) to federal research and management programs such as the National Park Service and the US Global Change Research Program’s National Climate Assessment, private organizations such as botanic gardens and conservation groups, and public extension programs, such as Master Gardeners. The overall approach sup- ports regional question-driven research and scientific discovery by providing data resources at the national level and a framework for examining the response of the biosphere to climate variation and change at multiple spatial and temporal scales (Jones et al., 2010). 2.2. Nature’s notebook Nature’s notebook (www.nn.usanpn.org) is an online phenologi- cal monitoring program that uses standardized status-based proto- cols developed by the USA-NPN for in-situ monitoring of plants and animals (Denny et al., in preparation). Ground-based organis- mal data for plants and animals entered through Nature’s Notebook are stored in the NPDb and integrated with historical phenological data sets (Fig. 1). Data are freely available for download, synthesis and visualization with external data resources (e.g., physical data). Nature’s Notebook currently supports data collection, storage and use for 243 animal species (including fish, insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals) and 654 plant species (including coniferous and deciduous trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses and cacti) for the professional scientist, resource manager and naturalist audi- ences. Over 100 partner groups and 2000 observers have partici- pated in the program since 2009. The following sections describe key components and features of the Nature’s Notebook information architecture. 2.2.1. Tools for data entry Participants in Nature’s Notebook enter data through a browser- based interface or free iPhone or Android mobile applications. The first step to log phenology observations is to register, using a name and a valid email address (anonymous contributions are not ac- cepted). Next, the participant registers a location, or ‘‘site’’ for observing. Participants then register individual plants and/or cre- ate a checklist of animal species they will observe at the site. Final- ly, participants print customized paper datasheets to take into the field for documenting up to 16 days of phenophase status observa- tions (Fig. 2). After making observations, participants transcribe them from the paper datasheets into the online Nature’s Notebook system. Alternatively, participants may log observations, as well as add new sites, plants and animals, via mobile apps. 2.2.2. Tools for data download and visualization Once entered into the NPDb, data are accessible instantaneously to the individual collecting and submitting the observations in tab- ular format, and to the public through advanced data visualization and download tools. The visualization tool allows users to select species, states or a geographic area (by bounding box) and use a time-slider to animate spatiotemporal changes in phenology (Fig. 3). To support exploration of relationships between phenology and climatic patterns, gridded monthly climate data surfaces from PRISM (Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model; http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/) can also be displayed in the background (Auer et al., 2011). A three-panel graph allows users to compare the phenology of species or organisms across years or locations. Data and graphics can be downloaded in several formats. A filterable data download tool allows for further custom- ization of output, by partner group, date range, species, location and phenophases. Data may also be entered or accessed dynami- cally through web services. Metadata (compliant with the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s ‘‘Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata’’), versioning information and supplementary information on sites, organisms and observers are available for each data file. http://www.nn.usanpn.org http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/ 3 Milkweed-3: Do you see…? Status Initial growth No Leaves Yes Flowers or flower buds Yes Open flowers Yes Fruit No Ripe fruit No Recent fruit or seed drop No Monarch: Do you see…? Status Active adults Yes Flower visitation Yes Migrating adults No Mating No Active caterpillars No Caterpillars feeding No Date 07/05/12 Time 4:30 pm Site Wilson Park Plant Milkweed-3 Observer Willow Tamias Fig. 2. Example of data collection instance. In this example, an observer records flowering of her registered common milkweed plant (‘‘milkweed-3’’) at her ‘‘Wilson Park’’ site, together with observations of an active adult monarch butterfly on July 5, 2012 (photo credit: Howard B. Eskin). Products Curation and integration Sources Data collected via Nature’s Notebook National Phenology Database Historical data sets Climate Data Visualization & Synthesis User interfaces Data Download Nature’s Notebook Bulk upload tools Fig. 1. Information architecture diagram for USA-NPN data resources. Data enters the USA-NPN system from current Nature’s Notebook participants and historical sources, is stored in the National Phenology Database and is subsequently available for download, and visualization with auxiliary data (unpublished image courtesy of Wim van Leeuwen, University of Arizona, 2010). 92 A.H. Rosemartin et al. / Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 90–97 2.2.3. Data storage and integration All data collected through Nature’s Notebook are stored in the NPDb, a MySQL relational database (Widenius et al., 2002). The NPDb is also intended to serve as an archive for historical and con- temporary phenological datasets collected following protocols other than the standardized protocols developed by the USA-NPN. As a pilot project for historical data integration, the USA-NPN integrated 15 000 event-based records from historic lilac phenology observing efforts, dating back to 1955 (Schwartz et al., 2012). In the interest of furthering the accessibility, visibility and traceability of the data resources (Arzberger et al., 2004), datasets will be formally published, with unique digital object identifiers (Brase, 2004), and federated with data clearinghouses (e.g., Data- ONE, Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity). 2.3. Public participation in Nature’s Notebook and issues of data quality and compliance Public participation in scientific data collection has dramatically increased recently (Silvertown, 2009); technological advances to support distributed participation in such efforts have shown simi- lar rapid advances (Dickinson et al., 2012). Involving the public in data collection can both reduce costs and increase the spatial and Fig. 3. Screen capture of the USA-NPN visualization tool’s graph interface comparing common lilac (Syringa vulgaris) leafing and blooming phenophases in 2012 and 2013 across the United States (screen capture on May 16th, 2013). The record-breaking early spring of 2012 can be seen in the earlier leaf and bloom dates for common lilac in the top panel. A.H. Rosemartin et al. / Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 90–97 93 temporal coverage of monitoring programs (Devictor et al., 2010). Added benefits of involving the public in scientific data collection include an increased awareness of natural history and the scientific method, as well as increased community engagement among par- ticipants (Brossard et al., 2005; Cooper et al., 2007; Cosquer et al., 2012). While some have expressed concern over quality and reliability in data collected by non-professionals (Foster-Smith and Evans, 2003; Genet and Sargent, 2003), there is growing evidence that cit- izen science projects provide valuable results (Boudreau and Yan, 2004; Haklay, 2010; Lovell et al., 2009). To rapidly develop a long-term, national scale, multi-taxa data resource, the USA-NPN is recruiting and retaining thousands of volunteer and professional observers to participate in Nature’s Notebook. Given nationwide public participation in Nature’s Notebook, the USA-NPN has ad- dressed issues of data quality, data use and attribution, federal compliance, and liability, described below. 2.3.1. Quality assurance and quality control A number of quality assurance measures have been imple- mented to minimize the amount of inaccurate data entering the NPDb. For example, when entering data, participants select from lists of predefined values for species, date, phenophase status and intensity, rather than filling in free text fields. Datasheets match the online user interface in terms of color, font, layout and order of species to facilitate accurate transcription. Observers have access to extensive training materials, including resources for spe- cies identification and guidance for selecting sites and species. Fi- nally, validation rules in the user interface prevent observations on future dates and illogical values for phenophase status. In addi- tion, post-processing (quality control) measures are in place, such as the provision of site and organism level metadata to enable the identification of outliers by data end-users. Other measures, including flagging species out of range and phenophases out of sea- son are under development. 2.3.2. Policies Policies to protect individuals and institutions are as important as technological infrastructure to the utility and persistence of data resources. The USA-NPN has developed policies for data use and attribution, as well as policies related to liability (available at www.usanpn.org/terms). Under US law, federal agencies must be cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before col- lecting information from the public. To remove this barrier for fed- eral partners interested in engaging the public in data collection, the USA-NPN obtained OMB clearance (Control #: 1028-0103) for information collection by the public via Nature’s Notebook. 2.4. Collaborations and partnerships The USA-NPN engages partners at many levels, understanding that the programs and technologies it provides are supportive of the actions taken by individuals and organizations. Nature’s Note- book provides a flexible and extensible infrastructure suitable for use by a wide range of organizations, and is a ready-to-use tool for many applications. Organizations, such as nature centers and arboreta, interested in tracking phenology for the purpose of engaging people with the natural world, often use Nature’s Note- book, to avoid developing their own observation protocols, data ar- chive integration and visualization tools. Nature’s Notebook can also be adapted in a variety of ways to support local to regional conservation and management goals or questions. The USA-NPN works with its partners to provide customizations, which depend on scientific questions of interest, geographic and taxonomic scope, audience, logistics and resources available. These services include: partner affiliation for regis- tered participants, organization-specific data visualization and download, landing pages and project-specific recruitment and retention efforts. Organizations already using this model include university researchers, US National Parks, and state and county Cooperative Extension programs (Table 1; www.usanpn.org/ partner/current). A recent example of a regional collaboration is the California Phenology Project (CPP; www.usanpn.org/cpp), an effort estab- lished by universities and National Parks across California, which leverages tools developed by the USA-NPN to understand how cli- mate change is impacting species and ecosystems. California has particularly high species diversity within a wide range of ecosys- tems, and is expected to have unique and diverse responses to cli- matic variation and change (Kueppers et al., 2005). For example, precipitation often plays a greater role than temperature in cueing phenological activity in Mediterranean habitats (Peñuelas et al., 2004), and deciduous plants in semi-arid systems frequently exhi- bit multiple leaf-out cycles in a single season. To capture these potentially diverse responses, phenological monitoring has been underway since 2011 in seven park units that represent three bio- geographic regions: mountain, desert, and coastal. The effort aims to establish the influence of environmental factors on phenological metrics, such as onset and duration of flowering. Analyses have fo- cused on the role of precipitation in driving phenological patterns and understanding spatial phenological patterns across broad envi- ronmental gradients for widespread species that occupy multiple habitat types. Ultimately, these data will inform management deci- sions by providing national parks with baseline phenological information on ecologically important species, and will support http://www.usanpn.org/partner/current http://www.usanpn.org/partner/current http://www.usanpn.org/cpp Table 1 Phenology data supports applications with societal benefits across geographic scales. Arborists Tree phenology data supports effective timing of herbicide and fungicide spraying Municipal Saguaro National Park Buffelgrass and native vegetation phenology inform optimal control windows (Fig. 4) Municipal Maine SeaGrant, Signs of the Seasons Nature’s Notebook connects the public with climate change research, including experiential learning focused on the local impacts of climate change (Posthumus et al., 2013) Regional Natural Resource Managers Phenology information informs vulnerability assessments in terms of sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Glick et al., 2011; Young et al., 2010) Regional Researchers, foresters, arborists Leaf out data, combined with remotely-sensed phenology data, informs models to predict future atmospheric and ecological conditions (Jeong et al., 2013) Regional State Health Departments, commercial allergy medicine distributors Flowering phenology for allergenic species supports predictions of timing and intensity of allergy seasons (e.g., www.usanpn.org/nn/jpp) Regional Western Hummingbird Partnership Flowering data for hummingbird nectar resource plants across western migratory corridors can be combined with hummingbird presence data to understand potential spatial and temporal mismatch Regional Environmental Protection Agency Lilac leaf and bloom dates (The Spring Indices) have been identified as indicators of climate change impacts (EPA 2012) National Natural Resource Managers Data on phenology and phenotypic plasticity support predictions of species vulnerability to climate change (Cleland et al., 2012; Glick et al., 2011) National Pollinator Partnership/NAPPC, farmers Crop flowering and bee phenology data shed light on temporal mismatch, and can inform valuation of pollination as an ecosystem service National USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Grassland Reserve Program Nesting times of protected bird species can inform Grassland Management Plans, allowing participants to comply with the program guidelines and receive federal funding National Atmospheric Scientists, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change First leaf and flower data integrated across continents serve to understand and predict atmospheric circulation patterns Global 94 A.H. Rosemartin et al. / Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 90–97 planning for the effects of climate change on species activity, inter- actions, and distributions. The CPP is typical of the USA-NPN’s collaborations in that the partnering organization provides much of the human and social infrastructure, while the USA-NPN provides protocols and tools for data collection, entry, long-term archive, visualization and download. This significantly reduces the cost of developing a phe- nology project for partners and provides a platform for standard- ized data collection across diverse and sometimes remote or inaccessible regions such as national parks and wildlife refuges. Continued adoption of Nature’s Notebook will eventually enable Fig. 4. Buffelgrass phenology near Tucson, Arizona. Canopy foliar greenness (solid line; % and November 2012 along Pima Canyon trail near Tucson, Arizona, USA. Closed circles rep dates; boxes highlight potential manual control windows. Note that canopy foliar green Notebook provide for reporting canopy greenness in six categorical classes. cross-project and cross-site comparisons and synthetic analyses of data collected by many distinct efforts. 2.5. Current data resources The USA-NPN has developed a taxonomically, spatially and temporally rich data set through the implementation of the tools, policies and collaborations described above. As of May 2013, the database contained 2 064 419 records, reported by 2400 observers at 3500 sites across the nation, on 16 000 organisms. With the completion of the first version of the monitoring and cyber ; mean ±1 standard deviation) for buffelgrass, Pennisetum ciliare, between July 2010 resent sampling dates; closed triangles represent the presence of seeds on sampling ness was estimated to the nearest 5%, while the standardized protocols in Nature’s A.H. Rosemartin et al. / Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 90–97 95 infrastructure, and new and increasingly active partnerships, we expect to see sustained growth and expansion of these data re- sources into the future. 2.6. Applications A wide range of public agencies and private organizations are partnering with the USA-NPN to build a greater understanding of how phenological information can be used to inform conservation issues related to invasive species, ecosystem services, biogeochem- ical processes, species vulnerability to climate change, and the effi- cacy of adaptive management. Here we present an overview of these applications (Table 1) and illustrate the uses of Nature’s Note- book data in support of invasive species management and predic- tive modeling of deciduous tree leaf out. Phenology data inform invasive species management by enabling the identification of reproduction and green-up win- dows—the two timeframes that are critical for mechanical removal or herbicide application. For example, in desert habitats of the southwestern US, the invasive perennial grass Pennisetum ciliare (buffelgrass) is expanding exponentially and threatens biodiversity by disrupting fire and soil moisture regimes (Olsson et al., 2012; Rogstad, 2008; Rutman et al., 2002). Managers seek to minimize inadvertent spread of propagules during mechanical control and to maximize photosynthetic uptake of herbicide during chemical control activities. Thus, to inform future control efforts, researchers collected seed production and canopy foliar greenness data using Nature’s Notebook for a population of buffelgrass in the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains outside of Tucson, Arizona, USA. They found that, because seeds are almost always present on the plants, there are only brief windows of opportunity for mechanical control to minimize seed spread (e.g., July 2011, Fig. 4). Local land managers seek to expand this research, in order to inform the timing of existing invasive abatement treatments. Phenology data at a much broader scale is important for under- standing global biogeochemical cycles and climate change feed- backs, particularly in a predictive framework (Peñuelas and Filella, 2001). Predictive climate models using leaf out data for deciduous trees (collected through Nature’s Notebook), show leaf budburst across the northeastern United States advancing by up to 17 days by 2100, as well as a swifter spring ‘‘green wave’’ under multiple emission scenarios (Jeong et al., 2013). These changes have implications for migratory birds dependent on foraging for in- sects among young leaves, as well as global carbon and water bud- gets (Ewert and Hamas, 1996; Jeong et al., 2013). 3. Discussion Key climate-relevant biodiversity variables monitoring are re- quired to inform this new era of conservation and management (Pereira et al., 2013). As species vary in their responses to changing climate conditions, the probability of trophic mismatches is ex- pected to increase, often resulting in negative consequences for population dynamics (Conroy et al., 2011; Thackeray et al., 2010; Yang and Rudolf, 2009) that, in turn, may lead to increased risk of species extinctions, non-native species invasions, loss of ecosys- tem functions, and decreased provision of ecosystem services (Ca- hill et al., 2013; Schweiger et al., 2008). Long-term, multi-taxa phenological data are critical to support scientists and managers in confronting the uncertainty and variability in species and eco- system responses to ongoing variation and change. Over the past five years, building on the efforts of the prior fifty years (Schwartz et al., 2012), the USA-NPN has engaged partners and individuals, from neighborhood organizations to large, com- plex agencies, in developing a robust data set together with flexible tools and processes that serve stakeholder needs in many contexts (Table 1). As the USA-NPN continues to mature, development will focus on customization of data entry, output and decision-support tools for particular stakeholder groups and conservation needs. As evidenced by the range of initial applications, the USA-NPN is developing a valuable, national data resource. These data can be used to assess ecosystem services, species interactions, biologi- cal invasions, species vulnerability and the efficacy of adaptive management. As parallel advances in data collection, analysis, inte- gration and access take place in the fields of climate modeling, genetics and species distributions, new and exciting avenues of re- search into the causes and consequences of species phenology, as well as near- to long-term forecasts, will become possible (Pau et al., 2011). In addition, the USA-NPN’s Nature’s Notebook supports community-based monitoring, opening avenues for constituent engagement in confronting climate-related challenges for biodi- versity conservation. Nature’s Notebook can be leveraged as an edu- cational tool to increase scientific literacy and to foster in participants a meaningful, local connection to the abstract and large-scale challenge of climate change. Moreover, the USA-NPN is a model for international efforts which seek to standardize data collection across species and land- scapes. With several well-established and other incipient national- scale efforts to organize phenology research (Schwartz et al., 2013), the USA-NPN is taking steps to share methods and technologies internationally, including the development of protocols that align to the international agricultural standard for phenology data (BBCH; Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt and CHemi- sche Industrie) and support for an emergent version of Nature’s Notebook in Turkey. Beyond sharing tools and best practices, we also hope to see globally-integrated phenological data resources in the future. Today’s conservation challenges call for an unprecedented stan- dardization and integration of data collection efforts (Reichman et al., 2011). Recent trends towards multi-agency, landscape-level research and action (Austen, 2011; Rickenbach et al., 2011) are en- hanced by monitoring tools and approaches, such as those de- scribed here, that cross taxonomic, public-private and geographic boundaries. Moreover, advancing, web-enabling and standardizing phenological data resources in the United States holds promise for understanding biological responses to climate impacts. 4. Contributions AHR led the development of the manuscript; TMC, CAFE, KLG, JLK, EEP and JFW contributed ideas and sections of text. All authors contributed to the development of the data resources, infrastruc- ture and efforts described here. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Abraham Miller-Rushing and Kathryn Thomas, as well as Bruce Wilson, Mark Schwartz, Julio Betancourt, Angela Evenden, Brian Haggerty, Elizabeth Matthews and Susan Mazer for their contributions to these efforts. We thank Andrea Thorpe for insightful comments on an earlier draft. The manuscript benefitted a great deal from three anonymous reviews. Data for the buffelgrass case study were provided by the USA National Phenology Network. The USA-NPN gratefully acknowledges sponsoring organizations: US Geological Survey, University of Ari- zona, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, The Wildlife Society, US National Park Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation (IOS-0639794), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Any use of trade, product, or firm 96 A.H. Rosemartin et al. / Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 90–97 names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. References Arzberger, P., Schroeder, P., Beaulieu, A., Bowker, G., Casey, K., Laaksonen, L., Moorman, D., Uhlir, P., Wouters, P., 2004. Promoting access to public research data for scientific, economic, and social development. Data Sci. J. 3, 135–152. Auer, T., Rosemartin, A., Miller, D., Marsh, L., Crawford, S., 2011. Web-based Visualization of Phenology Data. VisWeek in Providence, RI. Austen, D., 2011. Landscape conservation cooperatives: a science-based network in support of conservation. Wildl. Prof. 5, 12–15. Bagne, K.E., Friggens, M.M., Finch, D.M., 2011. A system for assessing vulnerability of species (SAVS) to climate change. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Betancourt, J.L., Schwartz, M.D., Breshears, D.D., Cayan, D.R., Dettinger, M.D., Inouye, D.W., Post, E., Reed, B.C., 2005. Implementing a U.S. national phenology network. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 86, 539. Boudreau, S.A., Yan, N.D., 2004. Auditing the accuracy of a volunteer-based surveillance program for an aquatic invader bythotrephes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 91, 17–26. Brase, J., 2004. Using digital library techniques–registration of scientific primary data. Res. Adv. Technol. Digital Libr. 3232, 488–494. Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., Bonney, R., 2005. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1099–1121. Burrows, M.T., Schoeman, D.S., Buckley, L.B., Moore, P., Poloczanska, E.S., Brander, K.M., Brown, C., Bruno, J.F., Duarte, C.M., Halpern, B.S., 2011. The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science 334, 652–655. Cahill, A.E., Aiello-Lammens, M.E., Fisher-Reid, M.C., Hua, X., Karanewsky, C.J., Ryu, H.Y., Sbeglia, G.C., Spagnolo, F., Waldron, J.B., Warsi, O., 2013. How does climate change cause extinction? Proc. R. Soc. B: Biolog. Sci. 280. Chen, I.C., Hill, J.K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D.B., Thomas, C.D., 2011. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024– 1026. Cleland, E.E., Allen, J.M., Crimmins, T.M., Dunne, J.A., Pau, S., Travers, S.E., Zavaleta, E.S., Wolkovich, E.M., 2012. Phenological tracking enables positive species responses to climate change. Ecology 93, 1765–1771. Conroy, M.J., Runge, M.C., Nichols, J.D., Stodola, K.W., Cooper, R.J., 2011. Conservation in the face of climate change: the roles of alternative models, monitoring, and adaptation in confronting and reducing uncertainty. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1204–1213. Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., Bonney, R., 2007. Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol. Soc. 12, 11. Cosquer, A., Raymond, R., Prevot-Julliard, A., 2012. Observations of everyday biodiversity: a new perspective for conservation? Ecol. Soc. 17, 2. Dawson, T.P., Jackson, S.T., House, J.I., Prentice, I.C., Mace, G.M., 2011. Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science 332, 53– 58. Denny, E.G., Gerst, K.L., Miller-Rushing, A., Tierney, G.L., Crimmins, T.M., Enquist, C., Guertin, P., Rosemartin, A., Schwartz, M.D., Thomas, K.A., Weltzin, J.F., 2013. Standardized phenology monitoring methods to track plant and animal activity for science and resource management applications. Int. J. Biometerol. (in preparation) Devictor, V., Whittaker, R.J., Beltrame, C., 2010. Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers. Distrib. 16, 354–362. Dickinson, J.L., Shirk, J., Bonter, D., Bonney, R., Crain, R.L., Martin, J., Phillips, T., Purcell, K., 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 291–297. EPA, 2012. Climate Change Indicators in the United States. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 1–84. Ewert, D.N., Hamas, M.J., 1996. Ecology of migratory landbirds during migration in the Midwest. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report, pp. 200–208. Forrest, J., Miller-Rushing, A.J., 2010. Toward a synthetic understanding of the role of phenology in ecology and evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 365, 3101–3112. Foster-Smith, J., Evans, S.M., 2003. The value of marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biol. Conserv. 113, 199–213. Genet, K.S., Sargent, L.G., 2003. Evaluation of methods and data quality from a volunteer-based amphibian call survey. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 703–714. Girvetz, E.H., Zganjar, C., Raber, G.T., Maurer, E.P., Kareiva, P., Lawler, J.J., 2009. Applied climate-change analysis: the climate wizard tool. PLoS ONE 4, e8320. Glick, P., Stein, B.A., Edelson, N.A., 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: a Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC, USA. Groves, C.R., Game, E.T., Anderson, M.G., Cross, M., Enquist, C., Ferdaña, Z., Girvetz, E., Gondor, A., Hall, K.R., Higgins, J., 2012. Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation planning. Biodiver. Conserv. 2, 1–21. Haklay, M., 2010. How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and ordnance survey datasets. Environ. Plan. B, Plan. Des. 37, 682. Janetos, A.C., Chen, R.S., Arndt, D., Kenney, M.A., 2012. National Climate Assessment Indicators: Background, Development, & Examples. US Global Change Research Program, USGCRP.gov, pp. 1–59. Jeong, S.-J., Medvigy, D., Shevliakova, E., Malyshev, S., 2013. Predicting changes in temperate forest budburst using continental-scale observations and models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 1944–8007. Jones, K.B., Bogena, H., Vereecken, H., Weltzin, J.F., 2010. Design and importance of multi-tiered ecological monitoring networks. In: Müller, F., Baessler, C., Schubert, H., Klotz, S. (Eds.), Long-term Ecological Research: Between Theory and Application. Springer, New York, USA, pp. 355–374. Kania, J., Kramer, M., 2011. Collective impact. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. Winter, 36–41. Kueppers, L.M., Snyder, M.A., Sloan, L.C., Zavaleta, E.S., Fulfrost, B., 2005. Modeled regional climate change and California endemic oak ranges. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 16281–16286. Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, first ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Leopold, A., Jones, S.E., 1947. A phenological record for Sauk and Dane Counties, Wisconsin, 1935–1945. Ecol. Monogr. 17, 81–122. Loarie, S.R., Duffy, P.B., Hamilton, H., Asner, G.P., Field, C.B., Ackerly, D.D., 2009. The velocity of climate change. Nature 462, 1052–1055. Lovell, S., Hamer, M., Slotow, R., Herbert, D., 2009. An assessment of the use of volunteers for terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity surveys. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 3295–3307. Lovett, G.M., Burns, D.A., Driscoll, C.T., Jenkins, J.C., Mitchell, M.J., Rustad, L., Shanley, J.B., Likens, G.E., Haeuber, R., 2007. Who needs environmental monitoring? Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 253–260. Maclean, I.M.D., Wilson, R.J., 2011. Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 108, 12337– 12342. Maurer, C., Koch, E., Hammerl, C., Hammerl, T., Pokorny, E., 2009. BACCHUS temperature reconstruction for the period 16th to 18th centuries from Viennese and Klosterneuburg grape harvest dates. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D22106. Miller-Rushing, A.J., Primack, R.B., 2008. Global warming and flowering times in Thoreau’s Concord: a community perspective. Ecology 89, 332–341. Mooney, H., Larigauderie, A., Cesario, M., Elmquist, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lavorel, S., Mace, G.M., Palmer, M., Scholes, R., Yahara, T., 2009. Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 46–54. Olsson, A., Betancourt, J., Crimmins, M., Marsh, S., 2012. Constancy of local spread rates for buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare L.) in the Arizona Upland of the Sonoran Desert. J. Arid Environ. 87, 136–143. Parmesan, C., 2007. Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1860–1872. Parmesan, C., Yohe, G., 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E., 2007. IPCC, 2007: climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pau, S., Wolkovich, E.M., Cook, B.I., Davies, T.J., Kraft, N.J.B., Bolmgren, K., Betancourt, J.L., Cleland, E.E., 2011. Predicting phenology by integrating ecology, evolution and climate science. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3633–3643. Peñuelas, J., Filella, I., 2001. Responses to a warming world. Science 294, 793– 795. Peñuelas, J., Filella, I., Zhang, X., Llorens, L., Ogaya, R., Lloret, F., Comas, P., Estiarte, M., Terradas, J., 2004. Complex spatiotemporal phenological shifts as a response to rainfall changes. New Phytol. 161, 837–846. Pereira, H.M., Ferrier, S., Walters, M., Geller, G.N., Jongman, R.H.G., Scholes, R.J., Bruford, M.W., Brummitt, N., Butchart, S.H.M., Cardoso, A.C., Coops, N.C., Dulloo, E., Faith, D.P., Freyhof, J., Gregory, R.D., Heip, C., Höft, R., Hurtt, G., Jetz, W., Karp, D.S., McGeoch, M.A., Obura, D., Onoda, Y., Pettorelli, N., Reyers, B., Sayre, R., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Stuart, S.N., Turak, E., Walpole, M., Wegmann, M., 2013. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278. Posthumus, E.E., Barnett, L., Crimmins, T.M., Kish, G.R., Sheftall, W., Stancioff, E., Warren, P., 2013. Nature’s Notebook and Extension: Engaging Citizen-Scientists and 4-H Youth to Observe a Changing Environment. Primack, R.B., Miller-Rushing, A.J., 2012. Uncovering, collecting, and analyzing records to investigate the ecological impacts of climate change: a template from thoreau’s concord. Bioscience 62, 170–181. Reichman, O., Jones, M.B., Schildhauer, M.P., 2011. Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science (Washington) 331, 703–705. Rickenbach, M., Schulte, L.A., Kittredge, D.B., Labich, W.G., Shinneman, D.J., 2011. Cross-boundary cooperation: a mechanism for sustaining ecosystem services from private lands. J. Soil Water Conserv. 66, 91A–96A. Rogstad, A., 2008. Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Strategic Plan. Buffelgrass Working Group, Tucson, AZ. Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C., Pounds, J.A., 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421, 57– 60. Rutman, S., Dickson, L., Tellman, B., 2002. Management of buffelgrass on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Invasive Exotic Species in the Sonoran Region. Schwartz, M. D. (Ed.), 2013. Phenology: An Integrative Environmental Science, second ed. Springer, Netherlands. Schwartz, M.D., Betancourt, J.L., Weltzin, J.F., 2012. From Caprio’s lilacs to the USA National Phenology Network. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 324–327. Schwartz, M.D., Enquist, C.A.F., Denny, E.G., 2013. Phenological implications of warming temperatures and extreme climatic events. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 94, 99. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0155 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0155 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0160 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0160 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0160 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0165 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0165 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0165 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0170 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0170 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0170 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0175 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0175 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0175 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0195 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0195 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0200 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0200 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0210 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0210 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0225 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0225 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0225 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0250 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0250 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0255 A.H. Rosemartin et al. / Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 90–97 97 Schweiger, O., Settele, J., Kudrna, O., Klotz, S., Kühn, I., 2008. Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. Ecology 89, 3472– 3479. Sekercioglu, C.H., Schneider, S.H., FAY, J.P., Loarie, S.R., 2007. Climate change, elevational range shifts, and bird extinctions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 140–150. Silvertown, J., 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 467– 471. Thackeray, S.J., Sparks, T.H., Frederiksen, M., Burthe, S., Bacon, P.J., Bell, J.R., Botham, M.S., Brereton, T.M., Bright, P.W., Carvalho, L., 2010. Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 3304–3313. Walther, G.R., 2010. Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 365, 2019–2024. West, J.M., Julius, S.H., Kareiva, P., Enquist, C., Lawler, J.J., Petersen, B., Johnson, A.E., Shaw, M.R., 2009. US natural resources and climate change: concepts and approaches for management adaptation. Environ. Manage. 44, 1001–1021. Widenius, M., Axmark, D., MySQL, A., 2002. MySQL Reference Manual: Documentation from the Source. O’Reilly Media, Incorporated. Willis, C.G., Ruhfel, B., Primack, R.B., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Davis, C.C., 2008. Phylogenetic patterns of species loss in Thoreau’s woods are driven by climate change. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 105, 17029–17033. Yang, L.H., Rudolf, V., 2009. Phenology, ontogeny and the effects of climate change on the timing of species interactions. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1–10. Young, B., Byers, E., Gravuer, K., Hall, K., Hammerson, G., Redder, A., 2010. Guidelines for Using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0275 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0275 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0275 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0275 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0280 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0280 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0285 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0285 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0285 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0295 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0295 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0300 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0300 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00233-4/h0300 Organizing phenological data resources to inform natural resource conservation 1 Introduction 2 Organizing and utilizing phenological data resources for conservation in the United States 2.1 The USA national phenology network 2.2 Nature’s notebook 2.2.1 Tools for data entry 2.2.2 Tools for data download and visualization 2.2.3 Data storage and integration 2.3 Public participation in Nature’s Notebook and issues of data quality and compliance 2.3.1 Quality assurance and quality control 2.3.2 Policies 2.4 Collaborations and partnerships 2.5 Current data resources 2.6 Applications 3 Discussion 4 Contributions Acknowledgements References