Back

Temperature station matching for elevation-standardised ecological meta-analysis

Boehnke, D.

2026-03-12 ecology
10.64898/2026.03.10.709008 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LIStandardising temperature data across heterogeneous study sites is essential for ecological meta-analyses, yet elevation-driven lapse rates often confound direct comparisons of coarse-grid climate data. Ecological studies frequently document only site altitude - particularly historical datasets - limiting analysis of thermal influences on spatial organism distribution. C_LIO_LIA dual-approach protocol was developed to derive regional correction factors ({Delta}H) from altitude-temperature regressions (Lapse Rate Method: SW Germany/Italian Alps, n=33 stations) and cross-regional station pairs (TAV Matching Method, n=27) with closely aligned long-term mean temperatures ({Delta}TAV [≤] 1.2{degrees}C). Applied to 109 Ixodes ricinus study sites across nine European regions, correction factors were calculated only for regions with consistent altitude shifts ({Delta}H > 100m) relative to Southwest German reference stations. C_LIO_LIRegional correction factors ({Delta}H) from both methods included +1300 m (Finland, TAV Matching), +370 m (Netherlands/NE Germany, TAV Matching), and -220 m (Italian Alps, Lapse Rate Method) across five regions. In total, 27 cross-regional TAV matched pairs demonstrated high matching precision (median {Delta}TAV = 0.05{degrees}C, 89 % [≤] 0.2{degrees}C). These factors standardised site altitudes to a common SW German thermal reference frame, enabling cross-site comparability. C_LIO_LIThe dual-method protocol requires no automation and is applicable to any taxa with documented site altitudes. The complete methodological workflow - including station data, lapse rate regressions, matching decisions, and correction calculations is publicly available at Zenodo [DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18835116], providing ecologists with a pragmatic, fully reproducible template for elevation-standardised temperature estimation in meta-analyses. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
37.0%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.3%
3
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.2%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.1%
6
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.9%
7
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.9%
8
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
9
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.7%
11
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 40%
1.7%
12
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
14
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
15
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
16
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
17
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
18
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
19
Journal of Thermal Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
20
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
21
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
22
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.6%
23
SoftwareX
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
24
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%