Search

This bibliometric study of a large publication set dealing with research on climate change aims at mapping the relevant literature from a bibliometric perspective and presents a multitude of quantitative data: (1) The growth of the overall publication output as well as (2) of some major subfields, (3) the contributing journals and countries as well as their citation impact, and (4) a title word analysis aiming to illustrate the time evolution and relative importance of specific research topics. The study is based on 222,060 papers (articles and reviews only) published between 1980 and 2014. The total number of papers shows a strong increase with a doubling every 5–6 years. Continental biomass related research is the major subfield, closely followed by climate modeling. Research dealing with adaptation, mitigation, risks, and vulnerability of global warming is comparatively small, but their share of papers increased exponentially since 2005. Research on vulnerability and on adaptation published the largest proportion of very important papers (in terms of citation impact). Climate change research has become an issue also for disciplines beyond the natural sciences. The categories Engineering and Social Sciences show the strongest field-specific relative increase. The Journal of Geophysical Research, the Journal of Climate, the Geophysical Research Letters, and Climatic Change appear at the top positions in terms of the total number of papers published. Research on climate change is quantitatively dominated by the USA, followed by the UK, Germany, and Canada. The citation-based indicators exhibit consistently that the UK has produced the largest proportion of high impact papers compared to the other countries (having published more than 10,000 papers). Also, Switzerland, Denmark and also The Netherlands (with a publication output between around 3,000 and 6,000 papers) perform top—the impact of their contributions is on a high level. The title word analysis shows that the term climate change comes forward with time. Furthermore, the term impact arises and points to research dealing with the various effects of climate change. The discussion of the question of human induced climate change towards a clear fact (for the majority of the scientific community) stimulated research on future pathways for adaptation and mitigation. Finally, the term model and related terms prominently appear independent of time, indicating the high relevance of climate modeling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the consequences of ignoring the clustered data structure on allometric models. Clustered data, in the form of multiple trees sampled from multiple forest stands is commonly used to develop biomass allometric models. Of 102 reviewed papers published between 2012 and 2016 that reported biomass allometric models, 84 (82%) have used a clustered sampling design. However, in as many as 80% of these, the clustered data structure was ignored, potentially violating the independence assumption in ordinary least squares methods. The consequences of ignoring clustered data structure were empirically validated using two clustered biomass datasets (of 110 and 220 trees, with the cluster size of 5 and 10 trees respectively). We showed that when Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was higher than zero, ignoring the clustered data structure returned underestimated standard errors, affecting further the confidence interval and t-test results. The underestimation level depended on ICC (which shows the variance proportion that was caused by the forest stand) and on cluster size (the number of trees sampled from one forest stand). We also showed that using first-order autocorrelation tests, such as the traditional Durbin-Watson statistic, to detect the autocorrelation due to clustered structure could be misleading as the test may show lack of autocorrelation even though ICC is different from zero. In conclusion, when ICC is higher than zero, ignoring the clustered data structure yields over-confident biomass predictions (due to underestimated confidence interval) and/or incorrect research conclusions (due to overestimated evidence against null hypothesis in t-test). Therefore, using a modelling approach that accounts for the hierarchical structure of the data is highly recommended when any form of clustering can be identified, even if the autocorrelation is not significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]