Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
10,599
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
10,599 results for “2017”
Time-lapse camera (phenocam) imagery of sensor network plots, 2017 - ongoing.
Images from time-lapse cameras were analyzed to track the greenness curves of 16 plots in the Sensor Network at Niwot Ridge. Images were taken every 30 minutes during daylight hours throughout the growing season. Cameras were angled to view 1m^2 vegetation plots located at each sensor node. Pixels in the portion of the image capturing the vegetation plot were used to calculate the green chromatic coordinate (GCC). The change in GCC over the growing season represents the growth and phenology of the plant communities captured.
Wave and turbidity measurements, Fowling Point, Hog Island Bay, VA, Summer 2017
Time series of turbidity, water surface elevation, wave height and period, and water temperature were measured at sites along a bay-to-marsh transect along the east-facing margin of Fowling Point, Hog Island Bay, VA in summer 2017. The measurements were made to characterize suspended sediment concentrations in the water inundating Fowling Point marsh during high tides and storms, as a proxy for the availability of sediment for wetland accretion. The time series includes a spring-neap cycle and a wind-driven resuspension event. The measurements were made to support marsh depositional modeling being carried out as part of an NSF-sponsored Coastal SEES research project.
Dynamic Reconstructions of Sagittarius A* with Resolve from 2017 EHT data
<p>This repository contains the dynamic reconstructions of Sagittarius A* (SgrA*) from (EHT) data using the Resolve framework, as presented in "Resolving Horizon-Scale Dynamics of Sagittarius A*".</p>
An updated mass-radius analysis of the 2017-2018 NICER data set of PSR J0030+0451
<p>Summarised posterior sample files associated with the preprint "An updated mass-radius analysis of the 2017-2018 NICER data set of PSR J0030+0451" by Vinciguerra et al. (2023; <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.09469">arXiv</a>; accepted for publication in ApJ).</p><p>Also included are examples of model modules in the Python language using the X-PSI framework; and Jupyter analysis notebooks.</p><p>Please refer to the READme for detailed information.</p>
GlobalHighPM₂.₅: Global Daily Seamless 1 km Ground-Level PM₂.₅ Dataset over Land (2017–Present)
<p>GlobalHighPM<sub>2.5</sub> is part of a series of long-term, seamless, global, high-resolution, and high-quality datasets of air pollutants over land (i.e., GlobalHighAirPollutants, GHAP). It is generated from big data sources (e.g., ground-based measurements, satellite remote sensing products, atmospheric reanalysis, and model simulations) using artificial intelligence, taking into account the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of air pollution.</p> <p>This dataset contains input data, analysis codes, and generated dataset used for the following article. If you use the GlobalHighPM<sub>2.5</sub> dataset in your scientific research, please cite the following reference (Wei et al., NC, 2023):</p> <ul> <li> <p>Wei, J., Li, Z., Lyapustin, A., Wang, J., Dubovik, O., Schwartz, J., Sun, L., Li, C., Liu, S., and Zhu, T. <a href="https://weijing-rs.github.io/publications/Wei_et_al-NC-2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">First close insight into global daily gapless 1 km PM<sub>2.5</sub> pollution, variability, and health impact</a>. <em>Nature Communications</em>, 2023, 14, 8349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43862-3</p> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Input Data</strong></p> <p>Relevant raw data for each figure (compiled into a single sheet within an Excel document) in the manuscript.</p> <p><strong>Code</strong></p> <p>Relevant Python scripts for replicating and ploting the analysis results in the manuscript, as well as codes for converting data formats.</p> <p><strong>Generated Dataset</strong></p> <p>Here is the first big data-derived seamless (spatial coverage = 100%) daily, monthly, and yearly 1 km (i.e., D1K, M1K, and Y1K) global ground-level PM<sub>2.5</sub> dataset over land from 2017 to the present. This dataset exhibits high quality, with cross-validation coefficients of determination (CV-R<sup>2</sup>) of 0.91, 0.97, and 0.98, and root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) of 9.20, 4.15, and 2.77 µg m<sup>-3</sup> on the daily, monthly, and annual bases, respectively.</p> <p><strong>Due to data volume limitations, </strong></p> <p> all (including <strong>daily</strong>) data for the year <strong>2022 </strong>is accessible at: <strong><a href="../records/10795661">GlobalHighPM2.5 (2022)</a></strong></p> <p> all (including <strong>daily</strong>) data for the year <strong>2021 </strong>is accessible at: <strong><a href="../records/10398385">GlobalHighPM2.5 (2021)</a></strong></p> <p> all (including <strong>daily</strong>) data for the year <strong>2020 </strong>is accessible at: <strong><a href="../records/10402639">GlobalHighPM2.5 (2020)</a></strong></p> <p> all (including <strong>daily</strong>) data for the year <strong>2019 </strong>is accessible at: <strong><a href="../records/10402723">GlobalHighPM2.5 (2019)</a></strong></p> <p> all (including <strong>daily</strong>) data for the year <strong>2018 </strong>is accessible at: <strong><a href="../records/10402824">GlobalHighPM2.5 (2018)</a></strong></p> <p> all (including <strong>daily</strong>) data for the year <strong>2017 </strong>is accessible at: <strong><a href="../records/10403497">GlobalHighPM2.5 (2017)</a></strong></p> <p> continuously updated...</p> <p><strong>More GHAP datasets for different air pollutants are available at: <a href="https://weijing-rs.github.io/product.html">https://weijing-rs.github.io/product.html</a></strong></p>
Data of European University Association (EUA) Open Access Survey 2017-2018
<p>This database refers to the data collected by the European University Association (EUA) for its Open Access Survey 2017-2018, which gathered responses from universities and higher education institutions across Europe. The full report published by the association is available at <a href="https://eua.eu/resources/publications/826:2017-2018-eua-open-access-survey-results.html">https://eua.eu/resources/publications/826:2017-2018-eua-open-access-survey-results.html</a>.</p> <p>The data included in this database refers only to those universities and higher education institutions that accepted their data to be available in open access (n=266). All information that could lead to the identification of individual universities and higher education institutions was removed from the database. The following files are available:</p> <ul> <li>Questionnaire</li> <li>Database in the following formats: .sav (IBM SPSS Statistics), .xlsx (Microsoft Excel) and .csv</li> <li>Codebook: includes information on all the variables and their coding.</li> </ul>
Dataset for the IntoValue 1 + 2 studies on results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers completed between 2009 and 2017
<p>The IntoValue dataset contains clinical trials conducted at one of 35 German UMCs and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS). All trials were reported as complete between 2009 and 2017 on the trial registry at the time of data collection. The dataset also includes a results publication found via manual searches; if multiple results publications were found, the earliest was included.</p> <p>Trials were associated with a German UMC by searching for trials with a UMC listed as responsible party or lead sponsor, or with a principle investigator (PI) from a UMC ('lead_city'). Version 1 additionally includes trials with a UMC only as a facility (`facility_city`). A lookup table of regular expressions used to identify German UMCs is available at <a href="https://github.com/quest-bih/IntoValue2/blob/master/data/1_sample_generation/city_search_terms.csv">https://github.com/quest-bih/IntoValue2/blob/master/data/1_sample_generation/city_search_terms.csv</a>.</p> <p>Trials include all interventional studies and are not limited to investigational medical product trials, as regulated by the EU's Clinical Trials Directive or Germany's Arzneimittelgesetz (AMG) or Novelle des Medizinproduktegesetzes (MPG).</p> <p>DRKS data were searched (pre-filtered for completion years and study status as well as Germany as 'Country of recruitment') and downloaded as CSVs from the DRKS website (<a href="https://www.drks.de/">https://www.drks.de/</a>). ClinicalTrials.gov data were downloaded downloaded as pipe files from Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) Aggregate Content of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) (<a href="https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/pipe_files">https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/pipe_files</a>). DRKS and ClinicalTrials.gov use different terminology for various trial aspects, such as phase and masking; these different levels are captured in the data dictionary as `levels_drks` and `levels_ctgov`. For later analyses requiring parity across registries, levels for some variables were collapsed and a lookup table is provided in `iv_data_lookup_registries.csv`.</p> <p>These data were generated and used for two publications (Wieschowski et al., 2019; Riedel et al. 2021) and therefore comprises two versions (indicated as `iv_version`).</p> <p>For version 1, registry data was collected on April 17, 2017 from ClinicalTrials.gov and on July 27, 2017 for DRKS and was limited to trials with a completion date on DRKS and primary completion date on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2009 and 2013. Version 1 manual searches for results publications were conducted from 2017-07-01 to 2017-12-01.<br> For version 2, registry data was collected on June 3, 2020 and was limited to trials with a completion date on DRKS and ClinicalTrials.gov between 2014 and 2017. Version 2 manual searches for results publications were conducted from 2020-07-01 to 2020-09-01.</p> <p>Raw registry data for versions 1 and 2 is available in `raw-registries.zip`.</p> <p>Publication identifiers (DOI, PMID, URL) were manually entered during the publication search and then further enhanced using the API of Internet Archive's open-source Fatcat catalog of research publications, to add PMIDs based on DOIs, and vice versa.</p> <p>Manual search steps differed slightly in the two versions and are indicated and described in `identification_step`.<br> Version 1 includes trials with a German UMC as either a `lead_city` or a `facility_city`, whereas version 2 is limited to trials a German UMC as a `lead_city`.</p> <p>Each row indicates a single trial registration. Due to changes in completion dates, some trials are duplicated between versions as indicated in `is_dupe`. Cross-registered trials were manually deduplicated, and some cross-registered duplicates remain (e.g., DRKS00004156 and NCT00215683) and are not indicated in the dataset.</p> <p>All dates are provided as `yyyy-mm-dd`.</p> <p>Additional documentation on each variable (type, description, levels) is provided in `iv_data_dictionary.csv`.</p> <p>Additional information on the project and methods for generating the dataset is available in associated publications and at the project's OSF page (<a href="https://osf.io/98j7u/">https://osf.io/98j7u/</a>). Code for the project is available at <a href="https://github.com/quest-bih/IntoValue2">https://github.com/quest-bih/IntoValue2</a>.</p> <p><strong>References:</strong></p> <p>Wieschowski, S., Riedel, N., Wollmann, K., Kahrass, H., Müller-Ohlraun, S., Schürmann, C., Kelley, S., Kszuk, U., Siegerink, B., Dirnagl, U., Meerpohl, J., & Strech, D. (2019). Result dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers was delayed and incomplete. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 115, 37–45. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.002">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.002</a></p> <p>Riedel, N., Wieschowski, S., Bruckner, T., Holst, M. R., Kahrass, H., Nury, E., Meerpohl, J. J., Salholz-Hillel, M., & Strech, D. (2021). Results dissemination from completed clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers remained delayed and incomplete. The 2014-2017 cohort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 0(0). <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.012">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.012</a><br> </p>
Raw Particle Number Size-Distribution Data of twin-DMPS equipped with two CPCs for nanoparticle detection for SMEAR II station, Hyytiälä, Finland, Spring 2017
<p>Raw size-Distribution data from twin-DMPS system (Aalto et al., 2001), where the nano-DMA (measuring up to 40 nm, short Hauke type DMA) is quipped with two detectors:<br> a TSI 3776 and a modified Airmodus A20 (Kangasluoma et al., 2015)</p> <p>Data acquired during in March-May 2017 at the SMEAR II station in Hyytiälä, Finland.<br> Data associated with the publication Stolzenburg, Laurila et al. (2023), Atmos. Meas. Techn., "Improved counting statistics of an ultrafine differential mobility particle size spectrometer system"</p> <p>Files DMYYDDMM_A20.Dat contain the raw DMPS data, with YYMMDD indicating the day of the measurement.<br> Data are provided alternating between data acquired with the nano-DMA and with the long-DMA, on a scan by scan basis.<br> First line of each scan cycle (for both DMAs) always indicates the start and end times of the voltage scan.<br> Second line gives the parameters related to the DMPS as given below:<br> (sheath flow in [l per min], aerosol flow in [l per min], DMA inner electrode diameter in [m], DMA outer electrode diameter in [m], DMA classification length in [m], other parameters)<br> Following lines give<br> (for long-DMA): set voltage at DMA [in V], concentration measured by TSI3772 in [per cm3]<br> (for nano_DMA): et voltage at DMA [in V], concentration measured by TSI 3776 in [per cm3], concentration measured by mod. Airmodus A20 in [per cm3]</p> <p>File dmps_data_format_specifier.text gives a conversion from voltage to diameter and indicates the measurement time at each voltage during the stepping of the DMPS.<br> Needs to be used to convert measured concentrations in counts per set-interval.</p> <p>Files GR_J_overview.xlsx gives size-distribution derived quantities during that campaign.<br> Header defines Date, Growth Rate and Formation Rate measured at different sizes [in nm] and by the two different CPCs connected to the nano-DMA.<br> Growth rates in [nm per h], formation rate in [per cm3 per s].</p> <p>Other data related to the campaign can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.<br> juha.kangasluoma@helsinki.fi</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Stolzenburg, Laurila et al. "Improved counting statistics of an ultrafine differential mobility particle size spectrometer system",<br> Atmos. Meas. Techn., in press, 2023</p> <p>Aalto et al., "Physical characterization of aerosol particles during nucleation events",<br> Tellus B, vol. 53, pp. 344-358, 2001</p> <p>Kangasluoma et al., "Sub-3 nm Particle Detection with Commercial TSI 3772 and Airmodus A20 Fine Condensation Particle Counters",<br> Aerosol Sci. Techn., vol. 49, pp. 674-681, 2015</p>
Monthly aggregated GLASS FAPAR V6 (250 m): 5th percentile monthly time-series (2017)
<p><strong>List of Subdatasets:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Long-term data: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8381409">2000-2021</a></li> <li>5th percentile (p05) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408654">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411611">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412712">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8413021">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8413689">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414639">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411609">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414085">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414960">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415476">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415686">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412154">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414082">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411364">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414933">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415414">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412246">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414083">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411366">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415203">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415549">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8387608">2021</a></li> <li>50th percentile (p50) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408710">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408798">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408866">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415319">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415619">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415878">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416080">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416619">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417164">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417513">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417708">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415669">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416000">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416542">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417055">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417467">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415747">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416333">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416835">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417326">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417589">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8388078">2021</a></li> <li>95th percentile (p95) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408949">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409059">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409154">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409362">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416487">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417029">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417833">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417996">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418308">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418669">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418986">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417649">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417816">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417959">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418253">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418625">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417759">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417898">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418076">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418442">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418751">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8392976">2021</a></li> </ul> <p><strong>General Description</strong></p> <p>The <i>monthly aggregated Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR)</i> dataset is derived from <abbr title="glass.umd.edu/FAPAR/MODIS/250m/">250m 8d GLASS V6 FAPAR</abbr>. The data set is derived from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) reflectance and LAI data using several other FAPAR products (MODIS Collection 6, GLASS FAPAR V5, and PROBA-V1 FAPAR) to generate a bidirectional long-short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) model to estimate FAPAR. The dataset time spans from March 2000 to December 2021 and provides data that covers the entire globe. The dataset can be used in many applications like land degradation modeling, land productivity mapping, and land potential mapping. The dataset includes:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Long-term:</strong></li> </ul> <p>Derived from monthly time-series. This dataset provides linear trend model for the p95 variable: (1) slope beta mean (p95.beta_m), p-value for beta (p95.beta_pv), intercept alpha mean (p95.alpha_m), p-value for alpha (p95.alpha_pv), and coefficient of determination R<sup>2</sup> (p95.r2_m).</p> <ul> <li><strong>Monthly time-series:</strong></li> </ul> <p>Monthly aggregation with three standard statistics: (1) 5th percentile (p05), median (p50), and 95th percentile (p95). For each month, we aggregate all composites within that month plus one composite each before and after, ending up with 5 to 6 composites for a single month depending on the number of images within that month.</p> <p><strong>Data Details</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Time period:</strong> March 2000 – December 2021</li> <li><strong>Type of data:</strong> Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR)</li> <li><strong>How the data was collected or derived:</strong> Derived from 250m 8 d GLASS V6 FAPAR using Python running in a local HPC. The time-series analysis were computed using the <a href="https://github.com/scikit-map/scikit-map">Scikit-map</a> Python package.</li> <li><strong>Statistical methods used:</strong> for the long-term, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) of p95 monthly variable; for the monthly time-series, percentiles 05, 50, and 95.</li> <li><strong>Limitations or exclusions in the data:</strong> The dataset does not include data for Antarctica.</li> <li><strong>Coordinate reference system:</strong> EPSG:4326</li> <li><strong>Bounding box (Xmin, Ymin, Xmax, Ymax):</strong> (-180.00000, -62.0008094, 179.9999424, 87.37000)</li> <li><strong>Spatial resolution:</strong> 1/480 d.d. = 0.00208333 (250m)</li> <li><strong>Image size:</strong> 172,800 x 71,698</li> <li><strong>File format:</strong> Cloud Optimized Geotiff (COG) format.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Support</strong></p> <p>If you discover a bug, artifact, or inconsistency, or if you have a question please raise a GitHub issue: <a href="https://github.com/Open-Earth-Monitor/Global_FAPAR_250m/issues">https://github.com/Open-Earth-Monitor/Global_FAPAR_250m/issues</a></p> <p><strong>Reference</strong></p> <p>Hackländer, J., Parente, L., Ho, Y.-F., Hengl, T., Simoes, R., Consoli, D., Şahin, M., Tian, X., Herold, M., Jung, M., Duveiller, G., Weynants, M., Wheeler, I., (2023?) "Land potential assessment and trend-analysis using 2000–2021 FAPAR monthly time-series at 250 m spatial resolution", submitted to PeerJ, preprint available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3415685/v1">https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3415685/v1</a></p> <p><strong>Name convention</strong></p> <p>To ensure consistency and ease of use across and within the projects, we follow the standard Open-Earth-Monitor file-naming convention. The convention works with 10 fields that describes important properties of the data. In this way users can search files, prepare data analysis etc, without needing to open files. The fields are:</p> <ol> <li><strong>generic variable name:</strong> fapar = Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation</li> <li><strong>variable procedure combination:</strong> essd.lstm = Earth System Science Data with bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi–LSTM)</li> <li><strong>Position in the probability distribution / variable type:</strong> p05/p50/p95 = 5th/50th/95th percentile</li> <li><strong>Spatial support:</strong> 250m</li> <li><strong>Depth reference:</strong> s = surface</li> <li><strong>Time reference begin time:</strong> 20000301 = 2000-03-01</li> <li><strong>Time reference end time:</strong> 20211231 = 2022-12-31</li> <li><strong>Bounding box:</strong> go = global (without Antarctica)</li> <li><strong>EPSG code:</strong> epsg.4326 = EPSG:4326</li> <li><strong>Version code:</strong> v20230628 = 2023-06-28 (creation date)</li> </ol>
Monthly aggregated GLASS FAPAR V6 (250 m): 50th percentile monthly time-series (2017)
<p><strong>List of Subdatasets:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Long-term data: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8381409">2000-2021</a></li> <li>5th percentile (p05) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408654">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411611">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412712">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8413021">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8413689">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414639">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411609">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414085">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414960">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415476">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415686">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412154">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414082">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411364">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414933">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415414">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412246">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414083">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411366">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415203">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415549">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8387608">2021</a></li> <li>50th percentile (p50) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408710">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408798">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408866">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415319">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415619">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415878">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416080">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416619">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417164">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417513">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417708">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415669">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416000">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416542">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417055">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417467">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415747">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416333">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416835">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417326">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417589">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8388078">2021</a></li> <li>95th percentile (p95) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408949">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409059">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409154">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409362">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416487">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417029">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417833">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417996">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418308">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418669">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418986">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417649">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417816">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417959">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418253">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418625">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417759">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417898">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418076">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418442">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418751">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8392976">2021</a></li> </ul> <p><strong>General Description</strong></p> <p>The <i>monthly aggregated Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR)</i> dataset is derived from <abbr title="glass.umd.edu/FAPAR/MODIS/250m/">250m 8d GLASS V6 FAPAR</abbr>. The data set is derived from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) reflectance and LAI data using several other FAPAR products (MODIS Collection 6, GLASS FAPAR V5, and PROBA-V1 FAPAR) to generate a bidirectional long-short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) model to estimate FAPAR. The dataset time spans from March 2000 to December 2021 and provides data that covers the entire globe. The dataset can be used in many applications like land degradation modeling, land productivity mapping, and land potential mapping. The dataset includes:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Long-term:</strong></li> </ul> <p>Derived from monthly time-series. This dataset provides linear trend model for the p95 variable: (1) slope beta mean (p95.beta_m), p-value for beta (p95.beta_pv), intercept alpha mean (p95.alpha_m), p-value for alpha (p95.alpha_pv), and coefficient of determination R<sup>2</sup> (p95.r2_m).</p> <ul> <li><strong>Monthly time-series:</strong></li> </ul> <p>Monthly aggregation with three standard statistics: (1) 5th percentile (p05), median (p50), and 95th percentile (p95). For each month, we aggregate all composites within that month plus one composite each before and after, ending up with 5 to 6 composites for a single month depending on the number of images within that month.</p> <p><strong>Data Details</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Time period:</strong> March 2000 – December 2021</li> <li><strong>Type of data:</strong> Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR)</li> <li><strong>How the data was collected or derived:</strong> Derived from 250m 8 d GLASS V6 FAPAR using Python running in a local HPC. The time-series analysis were computed using the <a href="https://github.com/scikit-map/scikit-map">Scikit-map</a> Python package.</li> <li><strong>Statistical methods used:</strong> for the long-term, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) of p95 monthly variable; for the monthly time-series, percentiles 05, 50, and 95.</li> <li><strong>Limitations or exclusions in the data:</strong> The dataset does not include data for Antarctica.</li> <li><strong>Coordinate reference system:</strong> EPSG:4326</li> <li><strong>Bounding box (Xmin, Ymin, Xmax, Ymax):</strong> (-180.00000, -62.0008094, 179.9999424, 87.37000)</li> <li><strong>Spatial resolution:</strong> 1/480 d.d. = 0.00208333 (250m)</li> <li><strong>Image size:</strong> 172,800 x 71,698</li> <li><strong>File format:</strong> Cloud Optimized Geotiff (COG) format.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Support</strong></p> <p>If you discover a bug, artifact, or inconsistency, or if you have a question please raise a GitHub issue: <a href="https://github.com/Open-Earth-Monitor/Global_FAPAR_250m/issues">https://github.com/Open-Earth-Monitor/Global_FAPAR_250m/issues</a></p> <p><strong>Reference</strong></p> <p>Hackländer, J., Parente, L., Ho, Y.-F., Hengl, T., Simoes, R., Consoli, D., Şahin, M., Tian, X., Herold, M., Jung, M., Duveiller, G., Weynants, M., Wheeler, I., (2023?) "Land potential assessment and trend-analysis using 2000–2021 FAPAR monthly time-series at 250 m spatial resolution", submitted to PeerJ, preprint available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3415685/v1">https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3415685/v1</a></p> <p><strong>Name convention</strong></p> <p>To ensure consistency and ease of use across and within the projects, we follow the standard Open-Earth-Monitor file-naming convention. The convention works with 10 fields that describes important properties of the data. In this way users can search files, prepare data analysis etc, without needing to open files. The fields are:</p> <ol> <li><strong>generic variable name:</strong> fapar = Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation</li> <li><strong>variable procedure combination:</strong> essd.lstm = Earth System Science Data with bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi–LSTM)</li> <li><strong>Position in the probability distribution / variable type:</strong> p05/p50/p95 = 5th/50th/95th percentile</li> <li><strong>Spatial support:</strong> 250m</li> <li><strong>Depth reference:</strong> s = surface</li> <li><strong>Time reference begin time:</strong> 20000301 = 2000-03-01</li> <li><strong>Time reference end time:</strong> 20211231 = 2022-12-31</li> <li><strong>Bounding box:</strong> go = global (without Antarctica)</li> <li><strong>EPSG code:</strong> epsg.4326 = EPSG:4326</li> <li><strong>Version code:</strong> v20230628 = 2023-06-28 (creation date)</li> </ol>
Monthly aggregated GLASS FAPAR V6 (250 m): 95th percentile monthly time-series (2017)
<p><strong>List of Subdatasets:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Long-term data: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8381409">2000-2021</a></li> <li>5th percentile (p05) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408654">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411611">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412712">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8413021">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8413689">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414639">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411609">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414085">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414960">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415476">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415686">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412154">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414082">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411364">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414933">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415414">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8412246">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8414083">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8411366">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415203">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415549">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8387608">2021</a></li> <li>50th percentile (p50) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408710">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408798">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408866">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415319">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415619">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415878">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416080">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416619">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417164">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417513">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417708">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415669">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416000">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416542">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417055">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417467">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8415747">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416333">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416835">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417326">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417589">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8388078">2021</a></li> <li>95th percentile (p95) monthly time-series: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408949">2000</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409059">2001</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409154">2002</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8409362">2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8416487">2004</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417029">2005</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417833">2006</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417996">2007</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418308">2008</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418669">2009</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418986">2010</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417649">2011</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417816">2012</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417959">2013</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418253">2014</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418625">2015</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417759">2016</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8417898">2017</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418076">2018</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418442">2019</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8418751">2020</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8392976">2021</a></li> </ul> <p><strong>General Description</strong></p> <p>The <i>monthly aggregated Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR)</i> dataset is derived from <abbr title="glass.umd.edu/FAPAR/MODIS/250m/">250m 8d GLASS V6 FAPAR</abbr>. The data set is derived from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) reflectance and LAI data using several other FAPAR products (MODIS Collection 6, GLASS FAPAR V5, and PROBA-V1 FAPAR) to generate a bidirectional long-short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) model to estimate FAPAR. The dataset time spans from March 2000 to December 2021 and provides data that covers the entire globe. The dataset can be used in many applications like land degradation modeling, land productivity mapping, and land potential mapping. The dataset includes:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Long-term:</strong></li> </ul> <p>Derived from monthly time-series. This dataset provides linear trend model for the p95 variable: (1) slope beta mean (p95.beta_m), p-value for beta (p95.beta_pv), intercept alpha mean (p95.alpha_m), p-value for alpha (p95.alpha_pv), and coefficient of determination R<sup>2</sup> (p95.r2_m).</p> <ul> <li><strong>Monthly time-series:</strong></li> </ul> <p>Monthly aggregation with three standard statistics: (1) 5th percentile (p05), median (p50), and 95th percentile (p95). For each month, we aggregate all composites within that month plus one composite each before and after, ending up with 5 to 6 composites for a single month depending on the number of images within that month.</p> <p><strong>Data Details</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Time period:</strong> March 2000 – December 2021</li> <li><strong>Type of data:</strong> Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR)</li> <li><strong>How the data was collected or derived:</strong> Derived from 250m 8 d GLASS V6 FAPAR using Python running in a local HPC. The time-series analysis were computed using the <a href="https://github.com/scikit-map/scikit-map">Scikit-map</a> Python package.</li> <li><strong>Statistical methods used:</strong> for the long-term, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) of p95 monthly variable; for the monthly time-series, percentiles 05, 50, and 95.</li> <li><strong>Limitations or exclusions in the data:</strong> The dataset does not include data for Antarctica.</li> <li><strong>Coordinate reference system:</strong> EPSG:4326</li> <li><strong>Bounding box (Xmin, Ymin, Xmax, Ymax):</strong> (-180.00000, -62.0008094, 179.9999424, 87.37000)</li> <li><strong>Spatial resolution:</strong> 1/480 d.d. = 0.00208333 (250m)</li> <li><strong>Image size:</strong> 172,800 x 71,698</li> <li><strong>File format:</strong> Cloud Optimized Geotiff (COG) format.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Support</strong></p> <p>If you discover a bug, artifact, or inconsistency, or if you have a question please raise a GitHub issue: <a href="https://github.com/Open-Earth-Monitor/Global_FAPAR_250m/issues">https://github.com/Open-Earth-Monitor/Global_FAPAR_250m/issues</a></p> <p><strong>Reference</strong></p> <p>Hackländer, J., Parente, L., Ho, Y.-F., Hengl, T., Simoes, R., Consoli, D., Şahin, M., Tian, X., Herold, M., Jung, M., Duveiller, G., Weynants, M., Wheeler, I., (2023?) "Land potential assessment and trend-analysis using 2000–2021 FAPAR monthly time-series at 250 m spatial resolution", submitted to PeerJ, preprint available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3415685/v1">https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3415685/v1</a></p> <p><strong>Name convention</strong></p> <p>To ensure consistency and ease of use across and within the projects, we follow the standard Open-Earth-Monitor file-naming convention. The convention works with 10 fields that describes important properties of the data. In this way users can search files, prepare data analysis etc, without needing to open files. The fields are:</p> <ol> <li><strong>generic variable name:</strong> fapar = Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation</li> <li><strong>variable procedure combination:</strong> essd.lstm = Earth System Science Data with bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi–LSTM)</li> <li><strong>Position in the probability distribution / variable type:</strong> p05/p50/p95 = 5th/50th/95th percentile</li> <li><strong>Spatial support:</strong> 250m</li> <li><strong>Depth reference:</strong> s = surface</li> <li><strong>Time reference begin time:</strong> 20000301 = 2000-03-01</li> <li><strong>Time reference end time:</strong> 20211231 = 2022-12-31</li> <li><strong>Bounding box:</strong> go = global (without Antarctica)</li> <li><strong>EPSG code:</strong> epsg.4326 = EPSG:4326</li> <li><strong>Version code:</strong> v20230628 = 2023-06-28 (creation date)</li> </ol>
City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities, Restoration Thinning Trial, 2005 - 2017, Cedar River Municipal Watershed, King County, WA
The Restoration Thinning (RT) Program in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed (CRMW) was one of three forest restoration programs (the others being Ecological Thinning and Planting) defined and funded through the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that was signed and initiated in April of 2000. Restoration thinning and ecological thinning projects were combined into the 'Upland Forest Thinning' project and are ongoing today to meet objectives outlined in the Habitat Conservation Plan and Forest Managment Plan. The primary goal of the RT program, which is analogous to pre-commercial thinning, was to actively thin dense young second-growth forest stands (generally less than 30 years old) to facilitate ecological development towards old-growth forest habitat conditions. Objectives of RT include: Reduce competition among trees. Stimulate tree growth. Increase light penetration under the top tree canopy. Increase tree and understory plant species diversity. Accelerate forest development beyond the competitive exclusion stage towards a more biologically diverse stage. Extend the forest development stand initiation stage such that diverse species become established and diverse stand structures develop. Provide multiple development pathways for variable forest stand structures. Reduce long-term fire hazard. Increase resilience to catastrophic windthrow, insect, or disease outbreak. Increase habitat connectivity and structural variability of riparian areas. This data package describes a forest restoration trial in young conifer forests of the western central Cascade Range in Washington State, USA. Young second-growth forests often regenerate as very dense, homogeneous stands following harvesting. These forests have low species diversity and trees often experience strong competition for resources. To increase tree vigor and growth and stimulate development of diverse understory, shrub species stands are thinned with the long-term goal to restore diverse func
The Jefferson Project 2017 water quality data from two vertical profiler stations in Lake George, NY, USA.
The Jefferson Project at Lake George – a partnership between Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, IBM Research, and Lake George Association – combines Internet of Things technology and powerful analytics with science to create a new model for environmental monitoring and prediction. The project is building a computing platform that captures and analyzes data from a network of sensors tracking water quality and movement. These sensor data are combined with other monitoring and experimental data to create a thorough understanding of the factors that drive the lake’s food web and overall water quality. More information about The Jefferson Project is available at https://jeffersonproject.rpi.edu/ In 2017, The Jefferson Project deployed two vertical profiler stations on the lake, collecting data on water quality and meteorology. Meteorological data have been included with the Jefferson Project Weather Station dataset for 2017. These vertical profiler stations are named VP_AnthonysNose and VP_TeaIsland. The water quality data are collected by EXO2 Multi-parameter sonde sensors. The sensors collect data at 1 meter depth increments, starting at 1 meter and proceeding to 2 meters off bottom. The data is transferred in near real-time to an off-site database for monitoring and review. The data provided have undergone data correction by Jefferson Project researchers.
The Jefferson Project 2017 weather data from seven surface weather stations on Lake George, NY, USA.
The Jefferson Project at Lake George – a partnership between Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, IBM Research, and Lake George Association – combines Internet of Things technology and powerful analytics with science to create a new model for environmental monitoring and prediction. The project is building a computing platform that captures and analyzes data from a network of sensors tracking water quality and movement. These sensor data are combined with other monitoring and experimental data to create a thorough understanding of the factors that drive the lake’s food web and overall water quality. More information about The Jefferson Project is available at https://jeffersonproject.rpi.edu/ In 2017, The Jefferson Project had five weather monitoring stations around the lake collecting data on precipitation, temperature, wind, and air quality. These stations are 'WX-CedarLane', 'WX-DFWI', 'WX-GullRock', 'WX-MossyPoint' and 'WX-WhaleRock'. Weather data from two vertical profiler sites, 'VP-AnthonysNose' and 'VP-TeaIsland', are also included in this dataset. The stations have a sensor payload that include some combination of the following sensors: HC2-S3 sensor, Campbell Scientific CS616 soil moisture sensor, LiCor LI-200R pyranometers, RM Young 85006 anemometer, Vaisala Weather Transmitter WXT series (520 & 530 models), HyQuest TB3 tipping bucket rain gauge, N-Con wet deposition sampler. The sensors collect data at high-frequency (~1 sample per minute) and the data is transferred in near real-time to off-site databases for monitoring and review by Jefferson Project researchers. Data provided is level 4 data which has undergone data correction and down sampling to an hourly frequency.
Influence of soil amendment and crop species on nutrient cycling in a St. Paul urban garden, 2017-2023
An experiment was conducted from 2017-2023 at the University of St. Thomas research garden (Saint Paul, MN) to determine rates of nutrient recycling and loss from compost applied to urban gardens. Thirty-two 4 m2 study plots received one of six different soil amendment treatments, with four different crops growing on each plot. Meteorological data includes hourly measurements of rainfall, solar radiation, temperature and relative humidity, and wind speed and direction, from June 2017-October 2023. Hourly soil moisture measurements were recorded at depths of 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm, from June-December 2021, June-October 2022, and June-October 2023. Annual crop harvest totals from each subplot are reported for 2017-2023. Leachate was collected from lysimeters installed in each of the 132 subplots weekly from June-October of each year (2017-2023), recording total volume. Leachate subsamples were analyzed for NO3-N, NH4-N, and PO4-P. Soil samples were collected at the beginning and end of the growing season in 2017, and every two weeks during the growing season from 2018-2023, and analyzed for pH, organic matter, Bray-1 extractable P, available K, nitrate, and ammonium, at the University of Minnesota Analytical Research Laboratory.
Otsego Lake (NY, USA) high-frequency buoy data 2017-2021
Yokota Lab, SUNY Oneonta BIological Field Station Volunteer Dive Team and Otsego Lake Association has been operating an NSF-funded (award #1624527) automated lake data buoy since 2017. This data set contains Ice-free season data from 2017 to 2021. Additional support for this project has been provided by New York State Water Research Institute, SUNY Oneonta Faculty Research Grant, and NSF awards to the Global Ecological Lake Observatory Network (GLEON.org).Yokota Lab, SUNY Oneonta BIological Field Station Volunteer Dive Team and Otsego Lake Association has been operating an NSF-funded (award #1624527) automated lake data buoy since 2017. This data set contains Ice-free season data from 2017 to 2021. Additional support for this project has been provided by New York State Water Research Institute, SUNY Oneonta Faculty Research Grant, and NSF awards to the Global Ecological Lake Observatory Network (GLEON.org).
NEON soil inorganic nitrogen measurements 2017-2020, derived data and code for Earth's Future manuscript
Nitrogen (N) is a key limiting nutrient in terrestrial ecosystems, but there remain critical gaps in our ability to predict and model controls on soil N cycling. This may be in part due to lack of standardized sampling across broad spatial-temporal scales. In a paper submitted for publication in Earth's future, we introduce a continentally distributed, publicly available dataset collected by the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) that can help fill these gaps. To overcome methodological challenges and generate a standardized dataset, we produced a derived data version of soil inorganic N pools and net N transformation rate tables, which accounts for nitrite contamination in blanks. This derived dataset is then used to evaluate sources of variation within the NEON sampling design with mixed effects models, and we also compare measured net N mineralization to simulated fluxes from the Community Earth System Model 2 (CESM2).
Nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction) and denitrification (acetylene block) data from streams across ecoclimatic domains in the United States, 2017-2019
We conducted a cross-ecoregion study to test the hypothesis that N-fixation and denitrification would co-occur in streams and rivers across a range of reactive N concentrations. Between 2017 and 2019, we sampled 30 streams in 13 ecoregions, using chambers to quantify N-fixation using acetylene reduction and denitrification using acetylene block. 25 of the study streams were part of the National Ecological Observatory Network or the StreamPULSE network, which provided data on water temperature, light, nutrients, discharge and metabolism. Although N-fixation and denitrification occur under contrasting environmental conditions, we found that they co-occurred in ca. 40% of stream ecosystems surveyed, and microbes capable of carrying out each process were found in all surveyed streams. This dataset includes the chamber data used to calculate nitrogen fixation and denitrification rates, stream substrate information used to scale rates from substrate to whole-reach scale, and a variety of reach-to-landscape scale covariates used to evaluate predictors of rates across the study streams.
Root fungi isolated from common Louisiana marsh plants 2017-18.
Nearly all plants are colonized by fungal endophytes, and a growing body of work shows that both environment and host species shape plant-associated fungal communities. However, few studies place their work in a phylogenetic context to understand endophyte community assembly through an evolutionary lens. Here we collected data to investigate environmental and host effects on root endophyte assemblages in coastal Louisiana marshes. We isolated and sequenced culturable fungal endophytes from roots of three-four dominant plant species from each of three sites of varying salinity. We provide data on abundance and taxonomy of the isolated fungal taxa as well as phylogenetic diversity (mean phylogenetic distance, MPD) and phylogenetic composition (based on MPD).
Sacramento trawl – Genetic Determination of Population of Origin 2017-2023
Central Valley Chinook Salmon populations differ in their Endangered Species Act listing status. It is often difficult to distinguish individuals from the different Evolutionarily Significant Units. As such, many of the salmon monitoring and evaluation efforts in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay-Delta are hampered by uncertainty about population (stock) identification and proportional effects of management actions (Dekar et al. 2013; IEP 2019). Studies have identified that the current identification method (length-at-date models) of juvenile Chinook salmon (Fisher 1992) captured in the watershed vary in their accuracy, particularly for spring-run (NMFS 2013; Harvey et al. 2014; Merz et al. 2014). The inaccuracy of the size-based methods is likely due to differences in fish distribution during early rearing, habitat-specific growth rates, and inter-annual variability in temperatures and food availability that lead to overlap in size ranges among stocks. The primary objective of this project was the genetic classification (to race; Evolutionary Significant Unit) of Chinook Salmon captured from State Water Project and Central Valley Project fish protection facilities and Interagency Ecological Program monitoring programs. The population-of-origin was determined for sampled fish by comparing their genotypes to reference genetic baselines. Genetic methods, having less statistical uncertainty that size-based models for population identification, were intended to directly target (and reduce) one source of uncertainty in the estimation of loss (take) from water diversions (operations) and develop the information necessary for understanding stock-specific distribution, habitat utilization, abundance, and life history variation. This project supports recommendations from the Interagency Ecological Program’s Salmon and Sturgeon Assessment of Indicators by Life Stage and Interagency Ecological Program Science Agenda efforts to improve Central Valley salmonid monitoring
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.