ArticleInternational journal of biometeorology2026
Weather data sources influence predictive performance of disease forecasting models.
Article in International journal of biometeorology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Weather data from fine- and coarse-scale sources are increasingly used in disease forecasting models to support management decisions, yet comparisons between fine- and coarse-scale sources remain limited, largely due to the difficulty of acquiring fine-scale datasets across locations and seasons. Differences among weather sources can influence model outputs, resulting in variation in predictive performance and the timing of management decisions. This study evaluated four weather data sources, grouped as fine-scale (in-canopy and on-farm stations) and coarse-scale (regional gridded and point-based data from SILO, and Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, stations), across two production regions in Australia. Macadamia orchards were used as a case study to assess spatial variability in 10 weather variables associated with fungal infection over three seasons (2022-2024). Heterogeneous trends and associations were identified among the weather sources, primarily driven by differences in minimum temperature and minimum relative humidity. On-farm and SILO data showed high spatial variability, whereas in-canopy and BOM data were comparatively stable. Predictive performance of disease models based on each weather source was evaluated using airborne conidia dynamics for the fungal pathogens Botrytis, Cladosporium and Neopestalotiopsis/Pestalotiopsis, which cause flower blight in macadamia. In-canopy sources produced significantly lower predictive performance (p < 0.05) than BOM sources, while on-farm, SILO and BOM sources showed comparable performance (p > 0.05) across all pathogens. These findings indicate that the choice of weather data source, rather than spatial scale alone, is critical for reliable disease forecasting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.