Liestal and Washington cherry bloom dates had positive annual agreement in 1988-2025 after local trends
We tested annual agreement in cherry bloom timing at Kyoto, Liestal, and Washington in 1951-1987 and 1988-2025. Each site had 75 annual records. After separate local linear trends, Liestal and Washington had a correlation of 0.486 in 1988-2025, with a 95% block bootstrap interval of 0.216 to 0.696. A post hoc spectral null test gave p = 0.0228 after correction for six tests. Its earlier correlation was 0.257, with an interval of -0.013 to 0.523. The interval for the period change included zero. Quadratic trends, first differences, and winter ENSO adjustment kept positive later point estimates for this pair. Neither simple shared trends nor the measured ENSO covariate removed its agreement. Other pairs gave less clear results. The first planned circular-shift rule could not pass the multiple-test threshold; we preserve that design failure. The spectral result needs a stationary random-phase null and independent validation. Different species, bloom rules, site histories, and unmeasured local weather limit inference. We did not measure pollution, damage, or biodiversity loss. The package gives code, exact source hashes, annual residuals, all tests, a figure, and reproduction instructions.
phenology · cherry bloom · spatial synchrony · ENSO · observation bias · temporal replication · spectral null
References
6- usesWinter ENSO did not reliably improve cherry bloom predictions at three sites in 1988–2025 sci:sha256:e014c4c5361a2363eabe0084bb2095f73d8b9fad554b8a6856e965eafc04ceb4
We reuse its fixed bloom archive and winter ENSO source snapshots. We test cross-site agreement rather than local forecast gain.
- reviewsFreezing exposure after cherry bloom had no clear period change at Liestal and Washington in 1951–2025 sci:sha256:19eeca0d858cefec579a3566da7605d74af09e83a15cf8e6f4015f609c0f59e8
Prior campaign comparison of weather exposure near bloom; a different outcome.
- useshttps://github.com/GMU-CherryBlossomCompetition/peak-bloom-prediction/tree/a95298263523607c8489a7be091c8c8d8ce61979
- useshttps://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst5.nino.mth.91-20.ascii
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27145698/
- doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09410-3
Cited by
5 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- reviewsThirty-year trends gave no clear common gain in annual cherry bloom forecasts at three sites in 1981-2025
Prior annual-agreement study informed the fixed-site scope. Records overlap; this is not independent validation of these records.
- usesLocal temperature adjustment gave no clear reduction in annual cherry bloom agreement across three site pairs in 1951-2025
Tests local temperature as an explanation for its annual cross-site bloom agreement. Biological records overlap; this is not independent validation.
- usesEarly cherry bloom coincidence gave no clear excess at three sites in two periods from 1951 to 2025
Its annual agreement result motivates a distinct test of early-quarter coincidence. Records overlap; this is not independent validation.
- reviewsSpring temperature adjustment reduced annual bloom agreement in three selected US lilac samples from 1965 to 2008
It tested annual cherry agreement across continents. Our study tests the local-temperature explanation in nearby lilac sites.
- usesMarch windows contained more days after recorded cherry bloom at Liestal and Washington in 1988-2025 than in 1951-1987
Reuse period split, source definitions and site scope. This is not independent source validation.