ALBERT

All Library Books, journals and Electronic Records Telegrafenberg

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Publication Date: 2022-10-27
    Description: © The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Loescher, H., Vargas, R., Mirtl, M., Morris, B., Pauw, J., Yu, X., Kutsch, W., Mabee, P., Tang, J., Ruddell, B., Pulsifer, P., Bäck, J., Zacharias, S., Grant, M., Feig, G., Zheng, L., Waldmann, C., & Genazzio, M. Building a global ecosystem research infrastructure to address global grand challenges for macrosystem ecology. Earth’s Future, 10(5), (2022): e2020EF001696, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ef001696.
    Description: The development of several large-, “continental”-scale ecosystem research infrastructures over recent decades has provided a unique opportunity in the history of ecological science. The Global Ecosystem Research Infrastructure (GERI) is an integrated network of analogous, but independent, site-based ecosystem research infrastructures (ERI) dedicated to better understand the function and change of indicator ecosystems across global biomes. Bringing together these ERIs, harmonizing their respective data and reducing uncertainties enables broader cross-continental ecological research. It will also enhance the research community capabilities to address current and anticipate future global scale ecological challenges. Moreover, increasing the international capabilities of these ERIs goes beyond their original design intent, and is an unexpected added value of these large national investments. Here, we identify specific global grand challenge areas and research trends to advance the ecological frontiers across continents that can be addressed through the federation of these cross-continental-scale ERIs.
    Description: This manuscript is in part the product of several workshops and ongoing GERI development. The first workshop was the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN) sponsored and entitled: “Towards a Global Ecosystem Observatory”, 5–7 March 2017, University of Queensland, Brisbane Australia. Another workshop was sponsored by Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and entitled: “Global Integrated Research Infrastructure component in Next Generation ILTER”, 17–20 April, 2018, South China Botanical Garden, Zhaoqing, Guangdong Province, China. The National Science Foundation (NSF) supported two workshops. The first was entitled: ‘Building a Global Ecological Understanding’ held at the University of Delaware, Newark Delaware, 3–6 June, 2016 (NSF 1347883) and the second entitled: “Global Environmental Research Infrastructure (GERI) Planning Workshop”, held at NEON HQ, Boulder Colorado, 25–27 June 2019 (NSF 1917180). The authors wish to thank the workshop attendees for their thoughtful contributions. NEON is a project sponsored by the NSF and managed under cooperative support agreement (DBI-1029808) to Battelle.
    Keywords: Environmental research infrastructure ; Macrosystem science ; Interoperability ; Societal benefit ; New capabilities ; Federating infrastructure
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Publication Date: 2022-05-27
    Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Chu, H., Luo, X., Ouyang, Z., Chan, W. S., Dengel, S., Biraud, S. C., Torn, M. S., Metzger, S., Kumar, J., Arain, M. A., Arkebauer, T. J., Baldocchi, D., Bernacchi, C., Billesbach, D., Black, T. A., Blanken, P. D., Bohrer, G., Bracho, R., Brown, S., Brunsell, N. A., Chen, J., Chen, X., Clark, K., Desai, A. R., Duman, T., Durden, D., Fares, S., Forbrich, I., Gamon, J. A., Gough, C. M., Griffis, T., Helbig, M., Hollinger, D., Humphreys, E., Ikawa, H., Iwata, H., Ju, Y., Knowles, J. F., Knox, S. H., Kobayashi, H., Kolb, T., Law, B., Lee, X., Litvak, M., Liu, H., Munger, J. W., Noormets, A., Novick, K., Oberbauer, S. F., Oechel, W., Oikawa, P., Papuga, S. A., Pendall, E., Prajapati, P., Prueger, J., Quinton, W. L., Richardson, A. D., Russell, E. S., Scott, R. L., Starr, G., Staebler, R., Stoy, P. C., Stuart-Haentjens, E., Sonnentag, O., Sullivan, R. C., Suyker, A., Ueyama, M., Vargas, R., Wood, J. D., & Zona, D. Representativeness of eddy-covariance flux footprints for areas surrounding AmeriFlux sites. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 301, (2021): 108350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108350.
    Description: Large datasets of greenhouse gas and energy surface-atmosphere fluxes measured with the eddy-covariance technique (e.g., FLUXNET2015, AmeriFlux BASE) are widely used to benchmark models and remote-sensing products. This study addresses one of the major challenges facing model-data integration: To what spatial extent do flux measurements taken at individual eddy-covariance sites reflect model- or satellite-based grid cells? We evaluate flux footprints—the temporally dynamic source areas that contribute to measured fluxes—and the representativeness of these footprints for target areas (e.g., within 250–3000 m radii around flux towers) that are often used in flux-data synthesis and modeling studies. We examine the land-cover composition and vegetation characteristics, represented here by the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), in the flux footprints and target areas across 214 AmeriFlux sites, and evaluate potential biases as a consequence of the footprint-to-target-area mismatch. Monthly 80% footprint climatologies vary across sites and through time ranging four orders of magnitude from 103 to 107 m2 due to the measurement heights, underlying vegetation- and ground-surface characteristics, wind directions, and turbulent state of the atmosphere. Few eddy-covariance sites are located in a truly homogeneous landscape. Thus, the common model-data integration approaches that use a fixed-extent target area across sites introduce biases on the order of 4%–20% for EVI and 6%–20% for the dominant land cover percentage. These biases are site-specific functions of measurement heights, target area extents, and land-surface characteristics. We advocate that flux datasets need to be used with footprint awareness, especially in research and applications that benchmark against models and data products with explicit spatial information. We propose a simple representativeness index based on our evaluations that can be used as a guide to identify site-periods suitable for specific applications and to provide general guidance for data use.
    Description: We thank the AmeriFlux site teams for sharing their data and metadata with the network. Funding for these flux sites is acknowledged in the site data DOI, shown in Table S1. This analysis was supported in part by funding provided to the AmeriFlux Management Project by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. All footprint climatologies, site-level representativeness indices, and monthly EVI and sensor location biases can be accessed via the Zenodo Data Repository (Datasets S1–S6, http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4015350).
    Keywords: Flux footprint ; Spatial representativeness ; Landsat EVI ; Land cover ; Sensor location bias ; Model-data benchmarking
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...