Broadscale Assessment of Groundhog (Marmota monax) Predictions of Spring Onset No Better than Chance
Groundhog Day is a widespread North American ritual that marks the onset of spring, with festivities centered around animals that humans believe have abilities to make seasonal predictions. Yet, the collective success of groundhog Marmota monax prognosticators has never been rigorously tested. Here,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Weather, climate, and society climate, and society, 2021-07, Vol.13 (3), p.503-510 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 510 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 503 |
container_title | Weather, climate, and society |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Ross, Alexander J. Grow, Ryan C. Hayhurst, Lauren D. MacLeod, Haley A. McKee, Graydon I. Stratton, Kyle W. Wegher, Marissa E. Rennie, Michael D. |
description | Groundhog Day is a widespread North American ritual that marks the onset of spring, with festivities centered around animals that humans believe have abilities to make seasonal predictions. Yet, the collective success of groundhog Marmota monax prognosticators has never been rigorously tested. Here, we propose the local climate-predicted phenology of early blooming spring plants (Carolina spring beauty, or Claytonia caroliniana, which overlaps in native range with groundhogs) as a novel and relevant descriptor of spring onset that can be applied comparatively across a broad geographical range. Of 530 unique groundhog-year predictions across 33 different locations, spring onset was correctly predicted by groundhogs exactly 50% of the time. While no singular groundhog predicted the timing of spring with any statistical significance, there were a handful of groundhogs with notable records of both successful and unsuccessful predictions: Essex Ed (Essex, Connecticut), Stonewall Jackson (Wantage, New Jersey), and Chuckles (Manchester, Connecticut) correctly predicted spring onset over 70% of the time. By contrast, Buckeye Chuck (Marion, Ohio), Dunkirk Dave (Dunkirk, New York), and Holland Huckleberry (Holland, Ohio) made incorrect predictions over 70% of the time. The two most widely recognized and long-tenured groundhogs in their respective countries—Wiarton Willie (Canada) and Punxsutawney Phil (United States)—had success rates of 54% and 52%, respectively, despite over 150 collective guesses. Using a novel phenological indicator of spring, this study determined, without a shadow of a doubt, that groundhog prognosticating abilities for the arrival of spring are no better than chance. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0171.1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2676540055</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27089920</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27089920</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c288t-818299b13d5d4dd4d81eb7df937fa837ea443e9dc6e56e830ec60e0206a86ef63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGrvXoSAFz1szcfuJntst1qFaoUqHkO6me0H3aQmKei_d5dKh2FmDs_M8L4IXVMypFRkD1_laJFMEkYSQgUd0jPUo0UqE8l5dn6ambhEgxC2pI0sFZKxHjJj77QJld4BHoUAITRgI3Y1nnp3sGbtVvjuVfvGRY0bZ_XPPX73YDZV3DgbOnCx9xu7wnMbIOI3h8cQI3gc19risi0VXKGLWu8CDP57H30-PX6Uz8lsPn0pR7OkYlLGRFLJimJJuclMatqUFJbC1AUXtZZcgE5TDoWpcshykJxAlRMgjORa5lDnvI9uj3f33n0fIES1dQdv25eK5SLP0lZ31lLkSFXeheChVq2ARvtfRYnq7FSdnWqiGFGdnYq2KzfHlW2Izp94JogsCkb4H88zcb0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2676540055</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Broadscale Assessment of Groundhog (Marmota monax) Predictions of Spring Onset No Better than Chance</title><source>American Meteorological Society</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ross, Alexander J. ; Grow, Ryan C. ; Hayhurst, Lauren D. ; MacLeod, Haley A. ; McKee, Graydon I. ; Stratton, Kyle W. ; Wegher, Marissa E. ; Rennie, Michael D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ross, Alexander J. ; Grow, Ryan C. ; Hayhurst, Lauren D. ; MacLeod, Haley A. ; McKee, Graydon I. ; Stratton, Kyle W. ; Wegher, Marissa E. ; Rennie, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><description>Groundhog Day is a widespread North American ritual that marks the onset of spring, with festivities centered around animals that humans believe have abilities to make seasonal predictions. Yet, the collective success of groundhog Marmota monax prognosticators has never been rigorously tested. Here, we propose the local climate-predicted phenology of early blooming spring plants (Carolina spring beauty, or Claytonia caroliniana, which overlaps in native range with groundhogs) as a novel and relevant descriptor of spring onset that can be applied comparatively across a broad geographical range. Of 530 unique groundhog-year predictions across 33 different locations, spring onset was correctly predicted by groundhogs exactly 50% of the time. While no singular groundhog predicted the timing of spring with any statistical significance, there were a handful of groundhogs with notable records of both successful and unsuccessful predictions: Essex Ed (Essex, Connecticut), Stonewall Jackson (Wantage, New Jersey), and Chuckles (Manchester, Connecticut) correctly predicted spring onset over 70% of the time. By contrast, Buckeye Chuck (Marion, Ohio), Dunkirk Dave (Dunkirk, New York), and Holland Huckleberry (Holland, Ohio) made incorrect predictions over 70% of the time. The two most widely recognized and long-tenured groundhogs in their respective countries—Wiarton Willie (Canada) and Punxsutawney Phil (United States)—had success rates of 54% and 52%, respectively, despite over 150 collective guesses. Using a novel phenological indicator of spring, this study determined, without a shadow of a doubt, that groundhog prognosticating abilities for the arrival of spring are no better than chance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1948-8327</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1948-8335</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0171.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: American Meteorological Society</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Climate prediction ; Local climates ; Marmota monax ; Phenology ; Predictions ; Snow ; Spring ; Spring (season) ; Success</subject><ispartof>Weather, climate, and society, 2021-07, Vol.13 (3), p.503-510</ispartof><rights>2021 American Meteorological Society</rights><rights>Copyright American Meteorological Society Jul 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27089920$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27089920$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,3681,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ross, Alexander J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grow, Ryan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayhurst, Lauren D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacLeod, Haley A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKee, Graydon I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stratton, Kyle W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wegher, Marissa E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rennie, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><title>Broadscale Assessment of Groundhog (Marmota monax) Predictions of Spring Onset No Better than Chance</title><title>Weather, climate, and society</title><description>Groundhog Day is a widespread North American ritual that marks the onset of spring, with festivities centered around animals that humans believe have abilities to make seasonal predictions. Yet, the collective success of groundhog Marmota monax prognosticators has never been rigorously tested. Here, we propose the local climate-predicted phenology of early blooming spring plants (Carolina spring beauty, or Claytonia caroliniana, which overlaps in native range with groundhogs) as a novel and relevant descriptor of spring onset that can be applied comparatively across a broad geographical range. Of 530 unique groundhog-year predictions across 33 different locations, spring onset was correctly predicted by groundhogs exactly 50% of the time. While no singular groundhog predicted the timing of spring with any statistical significance, there were a handful of groundhogs with notable records of both successful and unsuccessful predictions: Essex Ed (Essex, Connecticut), Stonewall Jackson (Wantage, New Jersey), and Chuckles (Manchester, Connecticut) correctly predicted spring onset over 70% of the time. By contrast, Buckeye Chuck (Marion, Ohio), Dunkirk Dave (Dunkirk, New York), and Holland Huckleberry (Holland, Ohio) made incorrect predictions over 70% of the time. The two most widely recognized and long-tenured groundhogs in their respective countries—Wiarton Willie (Canada) and Punxsutawney Phil (United States)—had success rates of 54% and 52%, respectively, despite over 150 collective guesses. Using a novel phenological indicator of spring, this study determined, without a shadow of a doubt, that groundhog prognosticating abilities for the arrival of spring are no better than chance.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Climate prediction</subject><subject>Local climates</subject><subject>Marmota monax</subject><subject>Phenology</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Snow</subject><subject>Spring</subject><subject>Spring (season)</subject><subject>Success</subject><issn>1948-8327</issn><issn>1948-8335</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGrvXoSAFz1szcfuJntst1qFaoUqHkO6me0H3aQmKei_d5dKh2FmDs_M8L4IXVMypFRkD1_laJFMEkYSQgUd0jPUo0UqE8l5dn6ambhEgxC2pI0sFZKxHjJj77QJld4BHoUAITRgI3Y1nnp3sGbtVvjuVfvGRY0bZ_XPPX73YDZV3DgbOnCx9xu7wnMbIOI3h8cQI3gc19risi0VXKGLWu8CDP57H30-PX6Uz8lsPn0pR7OkYlLGRFLJimJJuclMatqUFJbC1AUXtZZcgE5TDoWpcshykJxAlRMgjORa5lDnvI9uj3f33n0fIES1dQdv25eK5SLP0lZ31lLkSFXeheChVq2ARvtfRYnq7FSdnWqiGFGdnYq2KzfHlW2Izp94JogsCkb4H88zcb0</recordid><startdate>20210701</startdate><enddate>20210701</enddate><creator>Ross, Alexander J.</creator><creator>Grow, Ryan C.</creator><creator>Hayhurst, Lauren D.</creator><creator>MacLeod, Haley A.</creator><creator>McKee, Graydon I.</creator><creator>Stratton, Kyle W.</creator><creator>Wegher, Marissa E.</creator><creator>Rennie, Michael D.</creator><general>American Meteorological Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210701</creationdate><title>Broadscale Assessment of Groundhog (Marmota monax) Predictions of Spring Onset No Better than Chance</title><author>Ross, Alexander J. ; Grow, Ryan C. ; Hayhurst, Lauren D. ; MacLeod, Haley A. ; McKee, Graydon I. ; Stratton, Kyle W. ; Wegher, Marissa E. ; Rennie, Michael D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c288t-818299b13d5d4dd4d81eb7df937fa837ea443e9dc6e56e830ec60e0206a86ef63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Climate prediction</topic><topic>Local climates</topic><topic>Marmota monax</topic><topic>Phenology</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Snow</topic><topic>Spring</topic><topic>Spring (season)</topic><topic>Success</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ross, Alexander J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grow, Ryan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayhurst, Lauren D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacLeod, Haley A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKee, Graydon I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stratton, Kyle W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wegher, Marissa E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rennie, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>Weather, climate, and society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ross, Alexander J.</au><au>Grow, Ryan C.</au><au>Hayhurst, Lauren D.</au><au>MacLeod, Haley A.</au><au>McKee, Graydon I.</au><au>Stratton, Kyle W.</au><au>Wegher, Marissa E.</au><au>Rennie, Michael D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Broadscale Assessment of Groundhog (Marmota monax) Predictions of Spring Onset No Better than Chance</atitle><jtitle>Weather, climate, and society</jtitle><date>2021-07-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>503</spage><epage>510</epage><pages>503-510</pages><issn>1948-8327</issn><eissn>1948-8335</eissn><abstract>Groundhog Day is a widespread North American ritual that marks the onset of spring, with festivities centered around animals that humans believe have abilities to make seasonal predictions. Yet, the collective success of groundhog Marmota monax prognosticators has never been rigorously tested. Here, we propose the local climate-predicted phenology of early blooming spring plants (Carolina spring beauty, or Claytonia caroliniana, which overlaps in native range with groundhogs) as a novel and relevant descriptor of spring onset that can be applied comparatively across a broad geographical range. Of 530 unique groundhog-year predictions across 33 different locations, spring onset was correctly predicted by groundhogs exactly 50% of the time. While no singular groundhog predicted the timing of spring with any statistical significance, there were a handful of groundhogs with notable records of both successful and unsuccessful predictions: Essex Ed (Essex, Connecticut), Stonewall Jackson (Wantage, New Jersey), and Chuckles (Manchester, Connecticut) correctly predicted spring onset over 70% of the time. By contrast, Buckeye Chuck (Marion, Ohio), Dunkirk Dave (Dunkirk, New York), and Holland Huckleberry (Holland, Ohio) made incorrect predictions over 70% of the time. The two most widely recognized and long-tenured groundhogs in their respective countries—Wiarton Willie (Canada) and Punxsutawney Phil (United States)—had success rates of 54% and 52%, respectively, despite over 150 collective guesses. Using a novel phenological indicator of spring, this study determined, without a shadow of a doubt, that groundhog prognosticating abilities for the arrival of spring are no better than chance.</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>American Meteorological Society</pub><doi>10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0171.1</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1948-8327 |
ispartof | Weather, climate, and society, 2021-07, Vol.13 (3), p.503-510 |
issn | 1948-8327 1948-8335 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2676540055 |
source | American Meteorological Society; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Accuracy Climate prediction Local climates Marmota monax Phenology Predictions Snow Spring Spring (season) Success |
title | Broadscale Assessment of Groundhog (Marmota monax) Predictions of Spring Onset No Better than Chance |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T02%3A39%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Broadscale%20Assessment%20of%20Groundhog%20(Marmota%20monax)%20Predictions%20of%20Spring%20Onset%20No%20Better%20than%20Chance&rft.jtitle=Weather,%20climate,%20and%20society&rft.au=Ross,%20Alexander%20J.&rft.date=2021-07-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=503&rft.epage=510&rft.pages=503-510&rft.issn=1948-8327&rft.eissn=1948-8335&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0171.1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27089920%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2676540055&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27089920&rfr_iscdi=true |