2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10841-021-00318-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in phenology and abundance of an at-risk butterfly

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
11
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
3
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3 . As expected, given the correlation between the observable activity period and egg abundance [ 55 ], the number of the days when predicted mEggs w was > 1 decreased with increasing altitude, from ~ 220 days within the lowest range (0–200 m asl) to ~ 140 days within the highest range (801–1000 m asl). The time interval of 80EA, which had a mean of 74 days (± 3.5), did not show a clear decreasing trend with increasing altitude, since it is not correlated with egg abundance [ 57 ].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…3 . As expected, given the correlation between the observable activity period and egg abundance [ 55 ], the number of the days when predicted mEggs w was > 1 decreased with increasing altitude, from ~ 220 days within the lowest range (0–200 m asl) to ~ 140 days within the highest range (801–1000 m asl). The time interval of 80EA, which had a mean of 74 days (± 3.5), did not show a clear decreasing trend with increasing altitude, since it is not correlated with egg abundance [ 57 ].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 72%
“…The time interval within which 80% of the eggs (mEggs w ) were laid (80EA) was calculated as the number of days between the 10th and 90th percentiles. The observable activity period was calculated as the number of days when the predicted mEggs w was > 1 [ 55 ]. Furthermore, the first and last DOY of egg-laying activity were determined, respectively, as the day when mEggs w exceeded zero or dropped to zero, according to the predicted values from the Gaussian models.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 0.1 quantile (hereafter, the start of migration range) corresponds to the day when 10% of the migration curve has occurred; the 0.5 (hereafter, the migration midpoint) corresponds to the median day of the migration (which differed from the day of the peak if the migration was not symmetric); and the 0.9 quantile (hereafter, the end of migration range) corresponds to the day when 90% of the migration curve has occurred. These specific quantiles are similar to those used in other recent phenology studies (e.g., Bonoan et al, 2021;Jonzén et al, 2006;Newson et al, 2016).…”
Section: Southbound Migrationsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…However, such measures are subject to individual variation and population size biases (Edwards & Crone, 2021 ; Tryjanowski & Sparks, 2001 ) and do not describe the population‐level phenomenon of migration phenology (Carter et al, 2018 ; Goodenough et al, 2015 ; Inouye et al, 2019 ). One solution is to use quantiles (or percentiles) representing proportions of a population's phenological distribution, as they are unbiased analogs for describing relative timing within the distribution (Bonoan et al, 2021 ). For example, the 0.05 or 0.1 quantile are phenological landmarks (i.e., identifiable points within the migration distribution) representing initial or early activity, while the 0.9 or 0.95 quantile similarly represents late activity (Jonzén et al, 2006 ; Newson et al, 2016 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, many North American solitary bee species are in decline (Bartomeus et al, 2013; LeCroy et al, 2020), and we want to understand the causes of these declines. Changes in phenology can have positive impacts on insect populations (Duchenne, Thébault, Michez, Gérard, et al, 2020; Macgregor et al, 2019; Michielini et al, 2021), including matching of life cycles to new environmental conditions (Bonoan et al, 2021) and the possibility for additional generations in multivoltine species (Kerr et al, 2020). However, there are also notable examples of shifts having negative impacts on population viability, due to mismatches between altered phenology and interacting species (Kudo & Ida, 2013) or environmental cues for different life cycle events (Van Dyck et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%