About: Spatial variability is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 15607 publications have been published within this topic receiving 482953 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas (excluding Antarctica) at a spatial resolution of 30 arc s (often referred to as 1-km spatial resolution).
Abstract: We developed interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas (excluding Antarctica) at a spatial resolution of 30 arc s (often referred to as 1-km spatial resolution). The climate elements considered were monthly precipitation and mean, minimum, and maximum temperature. Input data were gathered from a variety of sources and, where possible, were restricted to records from the 1950–2000 period. We used the thin-plate smoothing spline algorithm implemented in the ANUSPLIN package for interpolation, using latitude, longitude, and elevation as independent variables. We quantified uncertainty arising from the input data and the interpolation by mapping weather station density, elevation bias in the weather stations, and elevation variation within grid cells and through data partitioning and cross validation. Elevation bias tended to be negative (stations lower than expected) at high latitudes but positive in the tropics. Uncertainty is highest in mountainous and in poorly sampled areas. Data partitioning showed high uncertainty of the surfaces on isolated islands, e.g. in the Pacific. Aggregating the elevation and climate data to 10 arc min resolution showed an enormous variation within grid cells, illustrating the value of high-resolution surfaces. A comparison with an existing data set at 10 arc min resolution showed overall agreement, but with significant variation in some regions. A comparison with two high-resolution data sets for the United States also identified areas with large local differences, particularly in mountainous areas. Compared to previous global climatologies, ours has the following advantages: the data are at a higher spatial resolution (400 times greater or more); more weather station records were used; improved elevation data were used; and more information about spatial patterns of uncertainty in the data is available. Owing to the overall low density of available climate stations, our surfaces do not capture of all variation that may occur at a resolution of 1 km, particularly of precipitation in mountainous areas. In future work, such variation might be captured through knowledgebased methods and inclusion of additional co-variates, particularly layers obtained through remote sensing. Copyright 2005 Royal Meteorological Society.
TL;DR: Cressie et al. as discussed by the authors presented the Statistics for Spatial Data (SDS) for the first time in 1991, and used it for the purpose of statistical analysis of spatial data.
Abstract: 5. Statistics for Spatial Data. By N. Cressie. ISBN 0 471 84336 9. Wiley, Chichester, 1991. 900 pp. £71.00.
TL;DR: In this paper, field-scale distributions and spatial trends for 28 different soil parameters at two sites within a watershed in central Iowa were investigated using semivariograms and the ratio of nugget to total semivariance, expressed as a percentage, was used to classify spatial dependence.
Abstract: Spatial distributions of soil properties at the field and watershed scale may affect yield potential, hydrologic responses, and transport of herbicides and NO⁻₃ to surface or groundwater. Our research describes field-scale distributions and spatial trends for 28 different soil parameters at two sites within a watershed in central Iowa. Two of 27 parameters measured at one site and 10 of 14 parameters measured at the second site were normally distributed. Spatial variability was investigated using semivariograms and the ratio of nugget to total semivariance, expressed as a percentage, was used to classify spatial dependence. A ratio of 75% indicated weak spatial dependence. Twelve parameters at Site one, including organic C, total N, pH, and macroaggregation, and four parameters at Site two, including organic C and total N, were strongly spatially dependent. Six parameters at Site one, including biomass C and N, bulk density, and denitrification, and 9 parameters at Site two, including biomass C and N and bulk density, were moderately spatially dependent. Three parameters at Site one, including NO⁻₃ N and ergosterol, and one parameter at Site two, mineral-associated N, were weakly spatially dependent. Distributions of exchangeable Ca and Mg at Site one were not spatially dependent. Spatial distributions for some soil properties were similar for both field sites. We will be able to exploit these similarities to improve our ability to extrapolate information taken from one field to other fields within similar landscapes.
TL;DR: In this article, a suite of climate models are used to predict changes in surface air temperature on decadal timescales and regional spatial scales, and it is shown that the uncertainty for the next few decades is dominated by model uncertainty and internal variability that are potentially reducible through progress in climate science.
Abstract: Faced by the realities of a changing climate, decision makers in a wide variety of organizations are increasingly seeking quantitative predictions of regional and local climate. An important issue for these decision makers, and for organizations that fund climate research, is what is the potential for climate science to deliver improvements—especially reductions in uncertainty—in such predictions? Uncertainty in climate predictions arises from three distinct sources: internal variability, model uncertainty, and scenario uncertainty. Using data from a suite of climate models, we separate and quantify these sources. For predictions of changes in surface air temperature on decadal timescales and regional spatial scales, we show that uncertainty for the next few decades is dominated by sources (model uncertainty and internal variability) that are potentially reducible through progress in climate science. Furthermore, we find that model uncertainty is of greater importance than internal variability. Our findin...
Trending Questions (10)