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.
1,483
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
1,483 results for “trend”
LANDIS-II PnET Simulation of Recent Trends in Forest Change in New England 2010-2060
The future forests of eastern North America will be shaped by at least three broad drivers: (i) vegetation change and natural disturbance patterns associated with the protracted recovery following colonial era land use, (ii) a changing climate, and (iii) a land-use regime that consists of geographically variable rates and intensities of forest harvesting, clearing for development, and land protection. We evaluated the aggregate and relative importance of these factors for the future forests of New England, USA by simulating a continuation of the recent trends in these drivers for fifty-years, nominally spanning 2010 to 2060. The models explicitly incorporate the modern distribution of tree species and the geographical variation in climate and land-use change. Using a cellular land-cover change model in combination with a physiologically-based forest landscape model, we conducted a factorial simulation experiment to assess changes in aboveground carbon (AGC) and forest composition. In the control scenario that simulates a hypothetical absence of any future land use or future climate change, the simulated landscape experienced large increases in average AGC—an increase of 53% from 2010 to 2060 (from 4.2 to 6.3 kg m-2). By 2060, climate change increased AGC stores by 8% relative to the control while the land-use regime reduced AGC by 16%. Among land uses, timber harvesting had a larger effect on AGC storage and changes in tree composition than did forest conversion to non-forest uses, with the most pronounced impacts observed on private corporate-owned land in northern New England. Our results demonstrate a large difference between the landscape’s potential to store carbon and the landscape’s current trajectory, assuming a continuation of the modern land-use regime. They also reveal aspects of the land-use regime that will have a disproportionate impact on the ability of the landscape to store carbon in the future, such as harvest regimes on corporate-owned lands. This
Data and Code in support of Caterpillar abundance in a northern hardwood forest: exogenous effects, endogenous feedbacks, and multidecadal trends.
In this study, we analyzed caterpillar abundance and biomass measured over 50 years (1970 - 2021) in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA. We tested mechanisms for determination of caterpillar abundance that included weather, host plant quality, and predator abundance. This dataset includes data, R code, and spatial files supporting this study. These data were gathered as part of the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study (HBES). The HBES is a collaborative effort at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, which is operated and maintained by the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
The Southern Ocean carbon cycle 1985-2018: Mean, seasonal cycle, trends and storage - Data
<p>Postprocessed data set used for RECCAP2 Southern Ocean chapter:</p><p>Hauck, Gregor, et al.: The Southern Ocean carbon cycle 1985-2018: Mean, seasonal cycle, trends and storage</p><p>The raw data is available at: Müller, Jens Daniel. (2023). RECCAP2-ocean data collection [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7990823</p><p>Scripts for plotting are available at https://github.com/RECCAP2-ocean/Southern-Ocean and a frozen version of the scripts is deposited at:</p><p>Judith Hauck, Luke Gregor, Cara Nissen, Lavinia Patara, Mark Hague, & Precious Mongwe. (2023). The Southern Ocean carbon cycle 1985-2018: Mean, seasonal cycle, trends and storage - Scripts. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10076121</p><p> </p>
Survey Data on Current Open Access Terms and Future Trends (2024)
<p><strong>Description:</strong><br>This dataset contains the analysis, codebook, and raw survey data from the 2024 survey <em>"Open Access – Current Terms and Future Areas of Focus"</em>. The survey aimed to gather perspectives from Open Access experts in the German-speaking region, focusing on the evaluation of current Open Access terminology, concepts, and emerging trends.</p> <p>The survey highlights how Open Access terminology has evolved over the past two decades and explores current perceptions regarding key terms in the Open Access discourse, as well as the anticipated future developments in this field. A total of 131 complete responses (<em>N=131</em>) were collected, providing valuable insights into the views of professionals working in Open Access publishing, information infrastructures, and scientific publishing houses.</p> <p><strong>Contents:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>codebook_oa_2024_2024-11-21.xlsx</strong>: The codebook, including detailed explanations of the variables, codes, and definitions used in the survey.</li> <li><strong>survey_results_oa_2024_2024-11-21.xlsx</strong>: Anonymized raw data from the survey, including both quantitative and qualitative responses from the participants.</li> <li><strong>values_oa_2024_2024-11-21.csv</strong>: CSV file containing the key terms and concepts identified by participants in response to the question on Open Access terminology.</li> <li><strong>values_oa_2024_2024-11-21.csv</strong>: An additional CSV file with detailed classification and analysis of the terms related to Open Access, including their frequency and significance based on participant responses.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Methodology:</strong><br>The survey was conducted via an online questionnaire distributed from September 7 to October 15, 2024, to professionals working in Open Access, both within information infrastructures (e.g., libraries) and in academic publishing houses. The survey gathered both qualitative and quantitative data, focusing on how Open Access terminology is understood and its future developments. The data were cleaned, anonymized, and analyzed using appropriate statistical and content analysis methods.</p> <p><strong>Purpose and Use:</strong><br>This dataset is valuable for researchers and professionals studying Open Access terminology, trends, and future developments. It provides insights into the current understanding of Open Access within the academic community and can be used for comparative studies, policy analysis, and future Open Access research.</p>
SM2RAIN-ASCAT (2007-2021) global daily satellite rainfall including aggregated values and trend parameters as 10km resolution GeoTIFFs
<p>This is a GeoTIFF version of the <a href="http://hydrology.irpi.cnr.it/download-area/sm2rain-data-sets/">SM2RAIN-ASCAT (2007-2021): global daily satellite rainfall from ASCAT soil moisture</a> data set v1.1 (Brocca et al. 2019). Conversion steps are available <a href="https://github.com/Envirometrix/LandGISmaps/tree/master/input_layers/SM2RAIN"><strong>here</strong></a>. Few important notes:</p> <ul> <li>Daily values are stored as integers, whereas in the NetCDF the dataset is rounded to one decimal place.</li> <li>The NetCDF has also a Quality Flag for a better and more informed use of the data (here omitted).</li> <li>P05, P50 and P95 indicate quantiles derived per pixel.</li> </ul> <p>Includes also long-term trends (trend.logit.ols) which was produced by fitting regression models to de-seasonalized time-series as explained in this <strong><a href="https://gitlab.com/openlandmap/global-layers/-/blob/master/input_layers/MOD13Q1/03-data-access.ipynb">python tutorial</a></strong>. Basically models are fitted for <strong>each pixel</strong> and the model parameters are saved as images.</p> <p>Monthly averages and s.d. of precipitation are available in the files:</p> <ul> <li>clm_precipitation_sm2rain.*_m_10km_s0..0cm_2007..2021_v1.5.tif = monthly precipitation in mm,</li> <li>clm_precipitation_sm2rain.*_sd.10_10km_s0..0cm_2007..2021_v1.5.tif = standard deviation of precipitation in mm * 10 per month (multiplied by 10 so Integers can be used),</li> </ul> <p>Downscaled monthly averages (1 km) are also available (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1435912">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1435912</a>).</p> <p>To cite this data set please refer to the <strong><a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2591214">original copy</a></strong> of the data set.</p> <ul> <li>Brocca, L., Filippucci, P., Hahn, S., Ciabatta, L., Massari, C., Camici, S., Schüller, L., Bojkov, B., Wagner, W. (2019). <strong><a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1583-2019">SM2RAIN–ASCAT (2007–2018): global daily satellite rainfall data from ASCAT soil moisture observations</a></strong>. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1583–1601. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1583-2019">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1583-2019</a></li> </ul>
The mass of the lowermost stratosphere (LMS): LMS mass calculation and trends in five reanalyses for the time period 1979–2019
<p><strong>Description</strong></p> <p>Python code to calculate the mass of the lowermost stratosphere (LMS) and investigate LMS mass trends with the dynamic linear regression model (DLM, Laine et al. 2014, Alsing 2019) as presented in Weyland et al. (2024). The LMS mass is calculated via a three dimensioal integral, following Appenzeller et al. (1996), given an upper and lower LMS boundary surface (4D pressure fields). Here, the lateral boundary is determined via the intersection of the tropopause with the 350K isentrope (4D pressure field). The upper LMS boundary can be defined by the isentrope according to the potential temperature at the tropical lapse rate tropopause (PPT10mean) or the cold point (PPTcp10mean) or approximated by the 380K isentrope. See Weyland et. al (2024) for further description and context.</p> <p>The mass calculation is performed with calc_LMS_mass.py.</p> <p>The DLM trend analysis is conducted with dlm_LMS_mass.py, using dlm_modules.py. In order to be able to use the provided code, the dlmmc model code has to be downloaded from <a href="https://github.com/justinalsing/dlmmc">https://github.com/justinalsing/dlmmc</a> (Alsing 2019).</p> <p>The neccesary 3D (time, lat, lon) pressure fields to define the LMS boundaries are provided for the time period 1979–2019<sup>1</sup> from five modern reanalyses: ERA5<sup>2</sup> (Hersbach et al., 2020), ERA-Interim (Dee et al., 2011), MERRA-2 (Gelaro et al., 2017) and JRA-55 (Kobayashi et al., 2015) and JRA3Q (Kosaka et al., 2024):</p> <ul> <li>lrtp*.nc : <ul> <li>3D (time, lat, lon) pressure, temperature and potential temperature at the WMO lapse rate tropopause for the time period 1979-2019<sup>1</sup>, derived from monthly mean data on pressure levels from the respective reanalysis. The lapse rate detection algorithm closely follows that of Birner et al. (2010), based on the work of Reichler et al. (2003). The lapse rate tropopause can serve as the lower LMS boundary. The potential temperature at the lapse rate tropopause between 10°N-10°S is used to define a „dynamic“ upper LMS boundary (PPT10mean).</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>cp*.nc : <ul> <li>3D (time, lat, lon) pressure, temperature and potential temperature at the cold point for the time period 1979–2019<sup>1 </sup>, derived from monthly mean data on pressure levels from the respective reanalysis. The cold point here is defined by the pressure corresponding to a lapse rate of 0K/km. The potential temperature at the cold point between 10°N–10°S is used to define a „dynamic“ upper LMS boundary (PPTcp10mean).</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>ppt10mean*.nc : <ul> <li>3D (time, lat, lon) pressure at the isentrope accroding to the potential temperature at the tropical (10°N–10°S) lapse rate tropopause (PPT10mean) for the time period 1979–2019<sup>1</sup>, derived from lrtp*.nc. PPT10mean can be used to define the upper LMS boundary.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>pptcp10mean*.nc : <ul> <li>3D (time, lat, lon) pressure at the isentrope accroding to the potential temperature at the cold point between 10°N-10°S (PPTcp10mean) for the time period 1979–2019<sup>1</sup>, derived from cp*.nc. PPTcp10mean can be used to define the upper LMS boundary.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>p380K*.nc : <ul> <li>3D (time, lat, lon) pressure at the 380K isentrope for the time period 1979–2019<sup>1</sup>, derived from monthly mean data on pressure levels from the respective reanalysis. The 380K isentropic pressure field can be used to approximate the upper LMS boundary.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>p350K*.nc : <ul> <li>3D (time, lat, lon) pressure at the 350K isentrope for the time period 1979–2019<sup>1</sup>, derived from monthly mean data on pressure levels from the respective reanalysis. The 350K isentrope is used to determine the lateral LMS boundaries via its intersection with the tropopause. This intersection approximates the location of the subtropical jet streams and the maximum PV-gradient, marking a transport barrier. It is determined by the sign change of the pressure difference between the tropopause and the 350K isentrope.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>my_enso_79-19.txt : <ul> <li>Regressor to account for El-Niño/Southern Oscillation for the time period 1979–2019. Source: <a href="https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/">https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/</a>, last accessed: 11 July 2023. The data has been normalized and centered around zero. The use of regressors is optional.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>my_qbo30_79-19.txt and my_qbo50_79-19.txt : <ul> <li>Regressor to account for the quasi-biennial oscillation at 30 and 50 hPa for the time period 1979–2019. Source: <a href="https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/qbo.dat">https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/qbo.dat</a>, last accessed: 11 July 2023. The data has been normalized and centered around zero. The use of regressors is optional.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>my_SAOD_79-19.txt : <ul> <li>Regressor to account for stratospheric (volcanic) aerosol optical depth for the time period 1979-2019. Source: <a href="https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/GloSSAC/GloSSAC_1.0">https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/GloSSAC/GloSSAC_1.0</a>, last accessed: 11 July 2023. The data has been normalized. The use of regressors is optional.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p> </p> <p>For further details see Weyland et al. (2024).</p> <p><sup>1</sup>Note that the ERA-Interim time series ends in 2018 and that the MERRA-2 time series starts in 1980.</p> <p><sup>2</sup>For the time period 2000–2006, the sub-reanalysis ERA5.1 replaces ERA5, correcting the reanalysis for a cold bias in the lower stratosphere (Simmons et al., 2020).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>How to use – example: </strong></p> <p>Assuming you are interested in the LMS mass between a lower boundary (-lb, e.g., the lapse rate tropopause) and an upper boundary (-ub, e.g., the 380K isentrope) in ERA5 for the entire Northern hemisphere (-lat=NH) covering the time period 1979-2019:</p> <p> </p> <ul> <li> <p>Calculate the respective LMS mass timeseries:</p> <p><strong>$ python calc_LMS_mass.py -lb=lrtp_ERA5.nc -ub=p380K_ERA5.nc -latb=p350K_ERA5.nc -lat=NH -fout=LMS_mass_ERA5_lrtp_p380K_NH.nc</strong></p> <p>Isentropic pressure at 350K (-latb) is required to determine the lateral LMS boundary. The LMS mass time series together with an uncertainty estimate is saved to a netCDF file (-fout), e.g. „LMS_mass_ERA5_lrtp_p380K_NH.nc“.</p> </li> </ul> <p> </p> <ul> <li> <p>Perform a DLM trend analysis for your LMS mass time series, here LMS_mass_ERA5_lrtp_p380K_NH.nc (-mf) :</p> <p>Download the DLM model code (dlmmc) from <a href="https://github.com/justinalsing/dlmmc">https://github.com/justinalsing/dlmmc</a> (Alsing 2019) and save the „dlmmc“ folder, containing the DLM modules in your working directory.</p> </li> </ul> <p><strong>$ python dlm_lms_mass.py -mf=LMS_mass_ERA5_lrtp_p380K_NH.nc -s=2000</strong></p> <p>In this example, the DLM will provide 2000 samples (-s) after an additional 1000 warm-up samples.</p> <p>The DLM time series, containing 2000 samples (-s) per time step, is saved to a netCDF file. The name of the output file can be specifyed with -fout. Default is „dlm_“ + mf, i.e. „dlm_ LMS_mass_ERA5_lrtp_p380K_NH.nc“ in this example.</p> <p>The function dlm_lms_mass.dlm_lms_mass contains an option to visualize the DLM result (plot=True). Furthermore, it can be specified whether the DLM should be run with regressors (use_regressors=True) or without regressors (use_regressors=False).</p> <p>See the DLM documentation (Laine et al. 2014, Alsing 2019) for further options.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Funding</strong>: This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – TRR 301 – Project-ID 428312742: “The tropopause region in a changing atmosphere”.</p>
Data for SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection Trends in South Africa: Monthly Report (2022-12-07)
<p>This version contains a single file, with time series data for the most recent <a href="https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/sarscov2-reinfection-trends-in-south-africa-monthly-report/">monthly report on SARS­-CoV-­2 Reinfection Trends in South Africa</a>:</p> <ul> <li><code>ts_data.csv</code> - national daily time series of newly detected putative primary infections (<code>cnt</code>), suspected second infections (<code>reinf</code>), suspected third infections (<code>third</code>), and suspected fourth infections (<code>fourth</code>) by specimen receipt date (<code>date</code>)</li> </ul> <p>Note: There may be some inconsistencies with the numbers of infections through time in earlier versions of this data set due to back-filling of late-arriving data.</p> <p> </p> <p>Note: Earlier versions of this data set included data files for Pulliam, JRC, C van Schalkwyk, B Lombard, N Govender, A von Gottberg, C Cohen, MJ Groome, J Dushoff, K Mlisana, and H Moultrie. <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn4947">Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection associated with emergence of Omicron in South Africa</a>. DOI: 0.1126/science.abn4947</p> <p>For code and more details see: <a href="https://github.com/jrcpulliam/reinfections/releases/tag/v3.0">https://github.com/jrcpulliam/reinfections/releases/tag/v3.0</a> or <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/6108448">10.5281/zenodo.6108448</a></p> <p>The version of this data set associated with the publication (available via the links above) included the following files:</p> <ul> <li><code>ts_data.csv</code> - national daily time series of newly detected putative primary infections (<code>cnt</code>), suspected second infections (<code>reinf</code>), suspected third infections (<code>third</code>), and suspected fourth infections (<code>fourth</code>) by specimen receipt date (<code>date</code>)</li> <li><code>demog_data.csv</code> - counts of individuals eligible for reinfection (<code>total</code>), who have 0 suspected reinfections (<code>no_reinf</code>) or >0 suspected reinfections (<code>reinf</code>) by province (<code>province</code>), age group (5-year bands, <code>agegrp5</code>), and sex (M = Male, F = Female, U = Unknown, <code>sex</code>)</li> <li><code>posterior_90_null.RData</code> - posterior samples from the MCMC fitting procedure (as used in the manuscript)</li> <li><code>sim_90_null.RDS</code> - simulation results (as used in the manuscript)</li> <li><code>emp_haz_sens_an.RDS</code> - output of sensitivity analysis of relative empirical hazard estimation to assumed observation probabilities (as used in the manuscript)</li> </ul>
FAPAR monthly time-series (250 m): Long-term trend (2000-2021)
<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>generic variable name: fapar = Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation</li> <li>variable procedure combination: essd.lstm = Earth System Science Data with bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi–LSTM)</li> <li>Position in the probability distribution / variable type: p05/p50/p95 = 5th/50th/95th percentile</li> <li>Spatial support: 250m</li> <li>Depth reference: s = surface</li> <li>Time reference begin time: 20000301 = 2000-03-01</li> <li>Time reference end time: 20211231 = 2022-12-31</li> <li>Bounding box: go = global (without Antarctica)</li> <li>EPSG code: epsg.4326 = EPSG:4326</li> <li>Version code: v20230628 = 2023-06-28 (creation date)</li> </ol>
Long-term trends in pesticide residues and physical chemical parameters of superficial water samples with accompanying macro-benthic invertebrate community surveys from the Palo Verde National Park, Costa Rica: 1993-1994; 2001; 2004-2005; 2009-2011
During the years 1993-1994, 2001, 2003-2005 and 2009-2011, the Central American Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances (IRET-UNA) executed independent research projects which quantified the presence of pesticide residues on superficial water samples from the Palo Verde National Park (PVNP) and surrounding areas. The PVNP (5460 sq km) is a RAMSAR wetland of international importance, which has been subjected to pesticide pressure from agricultural fields (mainly rice and sugarcane) since the 1960s and 1970s. In 1993, the PVNP wetlands were placed on the RAMSAR Montreux Record, indicating that it was considered an “impaired ecosystem” due to ecotoxicology concerns. Water is the key component of all issues regarding the biodiversity, management, restoration, and economic development of this region. Therefore, water quality is a critical component of many social ecological discussions and research efforts. This data package contains uniform pesticide, biological and water quality data from all PVNP wetland projects (1993- 2011) in order to present long-term trends in the environmental water quality and accompanying biological patterns for this conservation area. Study sites were spatially determined to compare clean upstream waters with a gradient of pesticide-affected waters. Superficial water samples were collected at various sites for chemical (pesticide) analysis and water quality parameters were recorded in situ for environmental monitoring. Corresponding biological sampling was completed to survey benthic macroinvertebrate communities and compare with local eco-toxicological profiles. This data package contains information from four separate projects.
Model Simulations of The Effects of Shifts in High-frequency Weather Variability (No Long-term Weather Trend) Control Carbon Loss from Land to the Atmosphere, Toolik Lake, Alaska, 2022-2122
Climate change is increasing extreme weather events, but effects on high-frequency weather variability and the resultant impacts on ecosystem function are poorly understood. We assessed ecosystem responses of arctic tundra to changes in day-to-day weather variability using a biogeochemical model and stochastic simulations of daily temperature, precipitation, and light. Changes in weather variability altered ecosystem carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stocks and cycling rates. Some responses of processes (e.g., respiration) were inconsistent with expectations, indicating that whole-ecosystem interactions and feedbacks moderate or even reverse responses to weather variability. More weather variability led to greater carbon losses from land to atmosphere, and less variability led to higher carbon sequestration on land. The magnitude of response to weather variability was similar to that predicted from climate mean trend effects. This dataset consists of the MEL parameter file, driver files and output files for simulations without a long term weather trend.
Model Simulations of The Effects of Shifts in High-frequency Weather Variability (With a Long-term Trend) on Carbon Loss from Land to the Atmosphere, Toolik Lake, Alaska, 2022-2122
Climate change is increasing extreme weather events, but effects on high-frequency weather variability and the resultant impacts on ecosystem function are poorly understood. We assessed ecosystem responses of arctic tundra to changes in day-to-day weather variability using a biogeochemical model and stochastic simulations of daily temperature, precipitation, and light. Changes in weather variability altered ecosystem carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stocks and cycling rates. Some responses of processes (e.g., respiration) were inconsistent with expectations, indicating that whole-ecosystem interactions and feedbacks moderate or even reverse responses to weather variability. More weather variability led to greater carbon losses from land to atmosphere, and less variability led to higher carbon sequestration on land. The magnitude of response to weather variability was similar to that predicted from climate mean trend effects. This dataset consists of the MEL parameter file, driver files and output files for simulations with a long-term weather trend.
Cross-site comparison of historical trends in marsh change at three LTER sites: GCE, VCR, and PIE.
The data provided here are shapefiles which were generated from digitizing historical maps and aerial photographs for a cross site comparison of changes in marshes at the Plum Island Ecosystem (PIE), Virginia Coast Reserve (VCR), and Georgia Coastal Ecosystems (GCE) Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites. This dataset includes shoreline shapefiles digitized for 3 time intervals at each site: 1930s/40s, 1950s/70s, and 2013 as well as a table of results from the shoreline change analysis. Centerlines for all the channels were generated from the shoreline shapefiles and are attributed with Strahler (1965) channel order and sinuosity. Additionally, this dataset includes shapefiles of important features (channels, upland, ponds, tidal flats) digitized for each of three sites at three time intervals.
Summary statistics and annual trends in chloride concentration in urban Minnesota lakes and streams
These data tables describe statistical summaries of chloride concentration, temporal trends in annual chloride, and projected risk of future chloride pollution in lakes and streams of the 17 most urban counties in Minnesota. Data were summarized separately for lakes and for streams, and include statistics (mean, median, standard deviation, upper and lower confidence intervals, and maximum) over the entire data record, over the warm season (May - October), and over the most recent 5 years (i.e., since 2018). Trends were computed on annual means and medians. For lakes, data were aggregated by lake basin (MN DNR Lake ID, or DOW) as well as by depth of sample (surface and deep). For streams, data were aggregated by individual site level as well as by stream reach (per MN Pollution Control Agency assessment units). Risk of chloride pollution was also determined for sites with longer records (10+ years) based on current concentration, number of exceedances of chronic standards, and projected chloride concentration based on current trends. Raw data were extracted from two sources: (1) the National Water Quality Portal (USGS & EPA) and (2) the Metropolitan Council Environmental Information Management System. The data were originally collected by a large number of entities, including watershed management authorities in the state of Minnesota, tribal groups, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, municipalities, university researchers, private consultants, and the Metropolitan Council. Some data records begin as early as the 1950's or 1960's, with many sites still including active data collection. A total of approximately 45,000 observations of chloride were included for lakes and wetlands, and approximately 70,000 observations for streams. Nearly 1600 stream sites and 700 lake/wetland sites were represented in the raw data, with 356 stream sites and 600 lakes represented in the summaries (after filtering out sites with less than 1 year of data collection). Primary data retr
Long-term trends and synchrony in dissolved organic matter characteristics in Wisconsin, USA lakes: quality, not quantity, is highly sensitive to climate
Dissolved organic matter (DOM) is a fundamental driver of many lake processes. In the past several decades, many lakes have exhibited a substantial increase in DOM quantity, measured as dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration. While increasing DOC is now widely recognized, fewer studies have sought to understand how characteristics of DOM (DOM quality) change over time. Quality can be measured in several ways, including the optical characteristics spectral slope (S275-295), spectral ratio (SR), absorbance at 254 nm (a254), and DOC-specific absorbance (SUVA; a254:DOC). However, long-term measurements of quality are not nearly as common as long-term measurements of DOC concentration. We used 24 years of DOC and absorbance data for seven lakes in the North Temperate Lakes Long Term Ecological Research site in northern Wisconsin, USA to examine temporal trends and synchrony in both DOC concentration and quality. We predicted lower SR and S275-295 and higher a254 and SUVA trends, consistent with increasing DOC and greater allochthony. DOC concentration exhibited both significant positive and negative trends among lakes. In contrast, DOC quality exhibited trends suggesting reduced allochthony or increased degradation, with significant long-term increases in SR in three lakes. Patterns and synchrony of DOM quality parameters suggest they are more responsive to climatic variations than DOC concentration. SUVA in particular tended to increase with greater moisture and decrease with drier conditions. These results demonstrate that DOC quantity and quality can exhibit different complex long-term trends and responses to climate components, with important implications for aquatic ecosystems.
Long-Term Trends in Seagrass Metabolism Data from Figures Covering 2007-2018
This dataset contains the data used to create figures 2, 4 and 5 in: Berger, A.C., Berg, P., McGlathery, K.J. and Delgard, M.L. (2020), Long-term trends and resilience of seagrass metabolism: A decadal aquatic eddy covariance study. Limnol Oceanogr, 65: 1423-1438. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11397
Coastal landcover change and the associated biomass trends in the mid-Atlantic sea-level rise hotspot
Climate change is driving worldwide landscape reorganization. In the coastal ecosystem, climate-driven sea level rise is forcing landward marsh migration and forest die-off, with potentially large consequences on coastal carbon balance. Here we used 30 m resolution Landsat images to study coastal landcover change from 1984 to 2020, and analyzed the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI, a proxy of plant biomass) trend between 1984 and 2020 in the mid-Atlantic sea level rise hotspot. Our study region stretches across the entire Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware Bay to encompass all areas between 0-5m above sea level (total area ~12,500 km2). Specifically, the data package includes 3 raster datasets derived from the Landsat images. All datasets cover the identical mid-Atlantic region and have identical spatial resolution of 30 m. The two landcover datasets, named as 'Landcover_year1984.tif' and'Landcover_year2020.tif', respectively refer to landcover map in 1984 and 2020. Each of the maps has 7 landcover classes differentiated by different integers, and they are: water (0), farmland (1), urban area(2), upland forest (3), transition forest (4), marsh (5) and sandbar (6). Both landcover maps were generated using a combination of random forest classification and manual delineation, and the resultswere validated with high-resolution aerial photos and satellite images with an overall mapping accuracybeyond 90%. The third raster dataset, named as 'NDVItrend_1984to2020.tif', is the NDVI trend map. The value of each 30 by 30 m pixel in the map represents the slope of the NDVI trendline estimated using annual peak-growing season NDVI images acquired between 1984 and 2020. Negative values in the dataset represent decreases of NDVI (i.e. biomass loss, or ecosystem browning) from 1984 and 2020,whereas positive values correspond to an increase of NDVI (i.e. biomass gain, or ecosystem greening)between 1984 and 2020. The data package is completed.
High-mountain Asia glacier elevation change trend (dh/dt) map for the period spanning 2000 to 2018
<p>See manuscript for methodology and dataset description:</p> <p>Shean DE, Bhushan S, Montesano P, Rounce DR, Arendt A and Osmanoglu B (2020) A Systematic, Regional Assessment of High-Mountain Asia Glacier Mass Balance. Front. Earth Sci. 7:363. DOI: 10.3389/feart.2019.00363</p> <p>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00363/full</p> <p>GeoTiff header contains relevant metadata and georeferencing information (30 m pixel size, Albers Equal Area projection). Proj string is '+proj=aea +lat_1=25 +lat_2=47 +lat_0=36 +lon_0=85 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=WGS84 +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs'</p> <p>External overview file (.ovr) contains pyramidal overviews for improved visualization performance at different zoom levels.</p>
Supplementary data for the article: Future environmental impacts of metals: a systematic review of impact trends, modelling approaches, and challenges
<p>This repository provides the supplementary data to the paper titled <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107572" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>"Future environmental impacts of metals: a systematic review of impact trends, modelling approaches, and challenges"</em></a>, published 2024 in <em>Resources, Conservation and Recycling</em>.</p> <h4><strong>Contents</strong></h4> <p>The repository is split in 3 parts and comprises the following files (more details are provided in the <em>README.md</em>):</p> <p><strong>A_Database of reviewed studies:</strong></p> <ul> <li>contains the detailed review data, meant for readers to use as an overview file to gather studies relevant to them. It also includes an overview of all data sources that the reviewed studies used.</li> </ul> <p><strong>B_Scientific supplement to paper:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Contains all data relevant to the related publication Harpprecht et al. (2024), such as studies screened , FAIR data analysis, or analyzed impact trends.</li> </ul> <p><strong>C_Data for figures in paper:</strong></p> <ul> <li>This file contains all the data for Figures 3, 4 and 5 in tabular form, representing impact trends, scenario variables, scenario modelling approaches and data sources used.</li> </ul> <h4><strong>Summary</strong></h4> <p>These files allow to reproduce the results of our study. In this work, we systematically reviewed studies which assessed future environmental impacts of metal supply chains. Our review yielded 40 publications covering 15 metals: copper, iron, aluminium, nickel, zinc, lead, cobalt, lithium, gold, manganese, neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium, terbium, and titanium. We evaluated their results regarding future impact trends, and their methods, i.e., modelling approaches, scenario variables, and data sources of scenario variables. We identified 15 scenario variables. The most common variables are background electricity mix, ore grade, recycling shares, demand, and energy efficiency. We identified 229 unique data sources for the reviewed scenario variables.</p> <h4><strong>Related publication</strong></h4> <p>More details on the data and its interpretation as well as the scientific context are provided in the publication itself:</p> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107572" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harpprecht, C., Miranda Xicotencatl, B., van Nielen, S., van der Meide, M., Li, C. , Li, Z., Tukker, A., Steubing, B. (2024). <em>Future environmental impacts of metals: a systematic review of impact trends, modelling approaches, and challenges.</em> Resources, Conservation and Recycling.</a></p> <h4><strong>Funding </strong></h4> <p>Carina Harpprecht received funding from the Energy Program of the German Aerospace Center in 2022. Zhijie Li received funding from the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) under the project Valomag (Project No. 14049).</p> <h4><strong>License</strong></h4> <p>CC-BY 4.0 license for DLR (German Aerospace Center)</p>
Attributing decadal climate variability in coastal sea-level trends
<p>The data produced from analysis to be published in Ocean Science Discussions, paper entitled "Attributing decadal climate variability in coastal sea-level trends". NetCDF contains the following sets of fields:</p> <p>1. Indexing: An <em>index</em> and location (<em>lat, lon</em>) of the coastal grid cells, a locator index attributing each cell to Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean basin, a <em>time</em> (decimal year) index.</p> <p>2. NEMO model trends (<em>nemo_<component>_trend</em>): Rolling decadal trends at each coastal grid cell from the NEMO model run for steric, manometric (dynamic) and GRD. The sum of these components gives the equivalent to absolute sea level trend. </p> <p>3. Climate and oceanographic mode indices: The rolling decadal trends in climate indices and the AMOC index calculated from the AMOC model (<em>ci_trend</em>) and their names (<em>ci_index</em>).</p> <p>4. Empirical Orthogonal Function spatial pattern (<em>eof_<basin>_<component>_D</em>) and Principal Component time series (<em>eof_<basin>_<component>_PC</em>)<em> </em>of the NEMO model trends.</p> <p>5. Coefficient of linear regression between PC and climate indices (<em>recon_<basin>_<component>_beta</em>) and the rolling trend time series at each grid cell from the reconstruction, sum{ci_trend*beta} (<em>recon_<basin>_<component>_trend</em>).</p> <p>In 4 and 5, the indices are given by basin. The total coastline is a concatenation of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian basin data in that order. The absolute SSH is given by the sum of components. i.e. the SSH for all coastal cells in order <em>index</em>:</p> <p>recon_sum_trend([index(Atlantic_index); index(Pacific_index); index(Indian_index)] = ...</p> <p> [recon_Atlantic_manometric_trend+recon_Atlantic_steric_trend+recon_Atlantic_grd_trend; ...</p> <p> recon_Pacific_manometric_trend+recon_Pacific_steric_trend+recon_Pacific_grd_trend; ...</p> <p> recon_Indian_manometric_trend+recon_Indian_steric_trend+recon_Indian_grd_trend]</p>
Plant Atlas 2020 — British and Irish vascular plant and charophyte 10 x 10 km distribution trends for 1930–2019 (long-term) and 1987–2019 (short-term), including country-level breakdowns
<p>Plant Atlas 2020 is the most comprehensive survey of plants (flowering plants, ferns and charophytes) ever undertaken in Britain and Ireland. It is based on over 30 million records, collected mainly by volunteer recorders of the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) between 2000 and 2019, as well as previous nationwide surveys undertaken in the 1950s and 1990s. This resource provides the data for the long- (1930–2019) and short- term (1987–2019) 10 x 10 km (“hectad”) distribution trends, presented in both the <em>Plant Atlas 2020</em> book (Stroh et al., 2023) and website (www.plantatlas2020.org).</p>
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.