↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the statistical relationships among water-derived climate variables, rainfall, and remotely sensed features of vegetation: implications for evaluating the habitat of ticks

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental and Applied Acarology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Assessing the statistical relationships among water-derived climate variables, rainfall, and remotely sensed features of vegetation: implications for evaluating the habitat of ticks
Published in
Experimental and Applied Acarology, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10493-014-9849-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Alonso-Carné, A. García-Martín, A. Estrada-Peña

Abstract

Ticks are sensitive to changes in relative humidity and saturation deficit at the microclimate scale. Trends and changes in rainfall are commonly used as descriptors of field observations of tick populations, to capture the climate niche of ticks or to predict the climate suitability for ticks under future climate scenarios. We evaluated daily and monthly relationships between rainfall, relative humidity and saturation deficit over different ecosystems in Europe using daily climate values from 177 stations over a period of 10 years. We demonstrate that rainfall is poorly correlated with both relative humidity and saturation deficit in any of the ecological domains studied. We conclude that the amount of rainfall recorded in 1 day does not correlate with the values of humidity or saturation deficit recorded 24 h later: rainfall is not an adequate surrogate for evaluating the physiological processes of ticks at regional scales. We compared the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), a descriptor of photosynthetic activity, at a spatial resolution of 0.05°, with monthly averages of relative humidity and saturation deficit and also determined a lack of significant correlation. With the limitations of spatial scale and habitat coverage of this study, we suggest that the rainfall or NDVI cannot replace relative humidity or saturation deficit as descriptors of tick processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 46%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 11%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,396,539
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Experimental and Applied Acarology
#475
of 914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,619
of 240,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental and Applied Acarology
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 914 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.