Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
While we generally agree with Slette et al. (Global Change Biol, 2019), that ecologists 'should do better' when defining drought in ecological studies, we argue against the uncritical use of a standardized drought index (such as the Standardized Precipitation and Evapotranspiration Index, SPEI; Vicente-Serrano et al. J Climate, 23: 1696-1718, 2010), as a stand-alone criterium for quantifying and reporting drought conditions. Specifically, we raise the following issues: (a) standardization can lead to a misrepresentation of actual water supply, especially for moist climates; (b) standardized values are not directly comparable between different reference periods; and finally, (c) spatially coarsely resolved data sources are unlikely to represent site-level water supply. This article is a commentary on Slette et al., 25, 3193-3200; See also the response to this Letter to the Editor by Slette et al., 26, e1-e3.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14809 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!