All four values are included in the Plant Phenology chart on the taxon page, which leads to the following (rhetorical) question: Why is “no evidence of flowering” included in the chart?
In the chart, the “no evidence of flowering” value is green. It doesn’t seem to add anything useful to the chart. Actually, it obscures the rest the data, which should be the focus of the chart.
I’m not sure why I haven’t noticed this before now. Maybe this is new, or maybe there haven’t been enough of these values to notice. (I recently made a pass over this species, annotating as many observations as possible.)
Based on previous discussion, the “no evidence of flowering” value is largely misunderstood. Including it in the Plant Phenology chart doesn’t seem to help.
For data interpretation/analysis, actual values of “no evidence” are important for several reasons. For one, they show that an observation has been annotated/examined at all (and determined not to have evidence of flowering). This is very different than a lac of data from an unannotated observation. Without these values, it isn’t possible to distinguish lack of a pattern/status from overall lack of evidence/data.
If someone is analyzing the data further, it lets them assess patterns of annotations over time and distinguish the process of annotation from the pattern shown in the data, preventing a confound.
I also don’t think any of the data categories are really obscured in this graph (though since there isn’t a legend present, I can’t distinguish which lines/curves are which). And being colorblind doesn’t help me out here either!
I think the issue of whether the field is inconsistently or misused is a fundamentally different issue (though of clear importance for interpretation). But I wouldn’t want to obscure/hide data that has been entered, so it makes sense to include a separate curve for each annotation value to me. If someone wants to make a custom graph without a given annotation category (or with some lumped or whatever), they can always download the data and make one pretty quickly.
It’s hard to predict how this data will come in handy, or who will use this chart for what reason. I do personally find it interesting that there is a peak of ‘no evidence of flowering’ both before and after peak ‘fruiting’ season.
I like your take. The one issue with downloading data right now is that, as far as I can tell from forum discussions and my own tinkering, the only way to get phenology data is to make 4 separate data download queries, one for flowering, one for fruiting, etc. Then you have to add an extra column to each sheet, adding in the phenology data. Then you have to combine the data from the workbooks into one sheet. And only then can you make a phenology graph.
More than the inclusion of “No evidence of” data on phenology charts – negative data is data too, its usability being a matter of end-user taste… I wonder why the current plotting choice of overprinted curves, rather than “cumulative” curves for instance (can’t figure the correct term, sorry, mental software just crashed). Even with the legend and numbers as mouseover magic, it looks a bit messy at first sight.
I’ll second what @ cthawley said. The fourth choice indicates to others that this observation has been annotated and that it is neither budding, blooming, nor fruiting. As for the inclusion of the fourth choice on the graph, it shows the temporal distribution of observations that are not budding, blooming, nor fruiting–but that the plant itself has been seen at those times. Some species do not emerge from below ground during certain times of the year (e.g. those with bulbs). So it allows one to distinguish between observations that haven’t been annotated at all and those that have been annotated but are not sexually reproducing at that time.
I have used “no evidence of flowering” with some pink lady slipper orchids. The first one I found did have evidence of past flowering, the flower stalk and seed pods still there. Others I found only the two leaves, with no evidence of past flowering. Next year, I can go back and see if the ones that hadn’t flowered this year have flowers or not.
“No evidence of flowering” is important to include in the list of phenology annotations. Should it be included in the graphs? I suspect it’s sometimes useful, but I don’t have a strong opinion.
We asked for - No evidence of flowering. (Was maybe 4 or 5 years ago?)
Especially for our fynbos (endless shrubs with small leaves) - those annotated pictures help to ID yet another fynbossie. Rangers managing our nature reserves appreciate that.
Totally agree that “no evidence of flowering” is important data. I belong to a community group that focuses mainly on mapping the distribution of threatened species. All our work is done by volunteers. This question about the value of “no evidence” comes up all the time. My response is that it means that you actually looked and the feature was not evident, and removes the need for data users to wonder whether the evidence was there but the survey didn’t look for it.
As for the graph of no evidence should be shown with the others - doesn’t it provide some guidance as to whether the part of the year where the feature is not shown as present is accurate or not?
I admit I’m not overly fond of the “no evidence of flowering” annotation. Some of that is based on the way it messed with a series of projects I had set up to collect all observations with plant phenology annotations. These projects used to include just budding. flowering, and fruiting stages until “no evidence” came up. Based on previous forum threads about these annotations, I think “no evidence” was added so all plant observations could receive an annotation. By that logic, eventually all plants will end up in such projects.
Part of the value of these annotations I think is being able to search for observations that show reproductive structures that aid in identifications. The ability to limit to or exclude certain annotations is most easily accessed on the Identify page (doing it in Explore pretty much requires URL hacks). “No evidence of flowering” is mutually exclusive to the other three, meaning once it is on an observation it can no longer be annotated as budding, flowering, or fruiting. So nowadays I usually ask the question: Does this observation contain pictures showing flower/fruit parts? If yes, I try to give it an annotations that would make it pop up in a search for that.
This is somewhat different from using these annotations in their strict phenophase terms, as has been discussed before. As pointed out especially for the species in question that prompted this thread, there are some stages that do not fall into a stricter definition of budding, flowering, and fruiting. However, “no evidence” clearly would be wrong for these observations because they have pictures with persistent flower parts, e.g. calyx, seed pods, and this clearly shows evidence of flowering but at a phenology stage between the available choices. What to do with those? Do we need a fifth category? Budding, flowering, fruiting, other evidence, and no evidence?
Evidence of past flowering should be marked « no evidence of flowering »
The annotation is not about the past or future, but what is occurring at the time of the observation.
A flower stem without a flower is not flowering. A seed pod without seeds is not fruiting.
I like no evidence of flowering being on the graph, for the same reasons others noted. I do think it could be kind of put in the back and given a less bright color, maybe grey, so it is less prominent.
I really would like to see annotations like ’ no evidence of leaves’ or ‘leaf buds’ or ‘dead or dried or falling leaves’ . Here in Botswana, which is often dry from June to October, its so interesting to document how different plants respond to the long dry period. When do leaf buds form ?, when do leaves fall off the tree ? I think we worry too much about flowers and fruit and could pay more attention to the leaves of plants. Do flowers appear before or after the new leaves on a tree ?
See this is an oxymoron to me. Evidence of past flowering is still evidence. Marking it “no evidence” strikes me as illogical. It probably should be left unmarked but this appears to be another one of those instances where different iNaturalist users interpret things differently.
I’m not a botanist, but I think the annotations are most useful for showing phenology - when a plant is actively flowering or fruiting, so people can get a sense of when that happens how it changes by location or something. Showing evidence of non-active flowering will muddy those waters.
