在不同的中尺度涡数据中,涡旋的识别,跟踪方法以及物理参数的定义存在差异,因此需要对涡旋结果进行相互比较和验证.本文比较了Chelton,GEM-M,Faghmous和Dong四套中尺度涡数据在黑潮延伸体区域的基本特征.结果表明,各数据的中尺度涡数量,特征和轨迹均存在差异.经过归一化处理后,涡特征的地理分布和时间变化高度相似,特别是Chelton,Fahgmous和Dong三套数据.“,”Some relatively mature mesoscale eddy products have been released for scientific purposes in recent decades.However,the metrics used to identify eddies,the tracking methods,and the definition of the physical parameters are all different across the different datasets,so intercomparisons and validation of these datasets are badly needed.Here,the authors intercompare the basic features of ocean mesoscale eddies in the Kuroshio extension region from four eddy datasets—namely,Chelton,GEM-M,Faghmous,and Dong.In the case study,eddy numbers and locations as well as the eddy tracks identified by the four datasets are compared for a specific date.The authors find that all the datasets have different eddy numbers,but more than 50％ of identified eddies coincide.GEM-M,with the so-called “segmentation” algorithm,can identify considerably more eddies than others,while Chelton identifies fewer eddies due to tracking errors,which also lead to a long lifespan.From the analysis of the probability distribution function of eddy features,GEM-M eddies tend to have a larger amplitude and radius and Chelton tends to have long-life eddies.It is further found that the geographic distributions and temporal variation of normalized eddy features are highly similar among the four datasets—particularly among Chelton,Fahgmous,and Dong.In addition,the mean trajectories of the four datasets are generally overlapped initially,and then spread after 245 days.The findings help toward better understanding the uncertainties of eddy features in the Kuroshio extension region.