Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38478477›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Weather or not-Global climate databases: Reliable on tropical mountains?

Andreas Hemp, Judith Hemp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andreas HempDepartment of Plant Systematics, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5369-2122
Judith HempFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global, spatially interpolated climate datasets such as WorldClim and CHELSA, widely used in research, are based on station data, which are rare in tropical mountains. However, such biodiversity hotspots are of high ecological interest and require accurate data. Therefore, the quality of such gridded datasets needs to be assessed. This poses a kind of dilemma, as proving the reliability of these potentially weakly modelled data is usually not possible due to the lack of stations. Using a unique climate dataset with 170 stations, mainly from the montane and alpine zones of sixteen mountains in Tanzania including Kilimanjaro, we show that the accuracy of such datasets is very poor. Not only is the maximum amount of mean annual precipitation drastically underestimated (partly more than 50%), but also the elevation of the precipitation maximum deviates up to 850m. Our results show that, at least in tropical regions, they should be used with greater caution than before.

Indexed as

ClimateWeatherReproducibility of ResultsTanzaniaTemperatureTropical Climate

Identifiers

PMID38478477
PMCPMC10936801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.