↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of downscaled, gridded climate data for the conterminous United States

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of downscaled, gridded climate data for the conterminous United States
Published in
Ecological Applications, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/15-1061
Pubmed ID
Authors

R Behnke, S Vavrus, A Allstadt, T Albright, W E Thogmartin, V C Radeloff

Abstract

Weather and climate affect many ecological processes, making spatially continuous yet fine-resolution weather data desirable for ecological research and predictions. Numerous downscaled weather data sets exist, but little attempt has been made to evaluate them systematically. Here we address this shortcoming by focusing on four major questions: (1) How accurate are downscaled, gridded climate data sets in terms of temperature and precipitation estimates? (2) Are there significant regional differences in accuracy among data sets? (3) How accurate are their mean values compared with extremes? (4) Does their accuracy depend on spatial resolution? We compared eight widely used downscaled data sets that provide gridded daily weather data for recent decades across the United States. We found considerable differences among data sets and between downscaled and weather station data. Temperature is represented more accurately than precipitation, and climate averages are more accurate than weather extremes. The data set exhibiting the best agreement with station data varies among ecoregions. Surprisingly, the accuracy of the data sets does not depend on spatial resolution. Although some inherent differences among data sets and weather station data are to be expected, our findings highlight how much different interpolation methods affect downscaled weather data, even for local comparisons with nearby weather stations located inside a grid cell. More broadly, our results highlight the need for careful consideration among different available data sets in terms of which variables they describe best, where they perform best, and their resolution, when selecting a downscaled weather data set for a given ecological application.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Unknown 128 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 23%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 7 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 40 30%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 14%
Engineering 16 12%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 32 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 May 2016.
All research outputs
#12,956,939
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#2,350
of 3,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,345
of 355,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#40
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 355,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.