The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO 2 , water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible.
The Moderate Resolution Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor has provided near real-time estimates of gross primary production (GPP) since March 2000. We compare four years (2000 to 2003) of satellite-based calculations of GPP with tower eddy CO 2 flux-based estimates across diverse land cover types and climate regimes. We examine the potential error contributions from meteorology, leaf area index (LAI)/fPAR, and land cover. The error between annual GPP computed from NASA's Data Assimilation Office's (DAO) and tower-based meteorology is 28%, indicating that NASA's DAO global meteorology plays an important role in the accuracy of the GPP algorithm. Approximately 62% of MOD15-based estimates of LAI were within the estimates based on field optical measurements, although remaining values
[1] Temporal and spatial variability in the Arctic introduces considerable uncertainty in the estimation of the current carbon budget and Arctic ecosystem response to climate change. Few representative measurements are available for land-surface parameterization of the Arctic tundra in regional and global climate models. In this study, the eddy covariance technique was used to measure net ecosystem CO 2 exchange (NEE) of Alaskan wet sedge tundra and moist tussock tundra ecosystems during the summer (i.e., 1 June to 31 August) from 1999 to 2003 in order to quantify the seasonal and spatial variability in NEE and to determine controlling factors on NEE in these tundra ecosystems. Warmer and drier conditions prevailed for the moist tussock tundra compared with that of the wet sedge tundra. Over the 5-year period, the wet sedge tundra was a sink for carbon of 46.4 to 70.0 gC m À2 season À1 , while the moist tussock tundra either lost carbon of up to 60.8 gC m À2 season À1 or was in balance. The contrasting patterns of carbon balance at the two sites demonstrate that ecosystem difference can be more important in determining landscape NEE than intraseasonal and interseasonal variability due to environmental factors with respect to NEE. The wet sedge tundra showed an acclimation (e.g., over days) to temperature, while the moist tussock tundra illustrated a strong temperature dependence. Warming and drying accentuated ecosystem respiration in the moist tussock tundra, causing a net loss of carbon. Better characterization of spatial variability in NEE and associated environmental controls is required to improve current and future estimates of the Arctic terrestrial carbon balance.Citation: Kwon, H.-J., W. C. Oechel, R. C. Zulueta, and S. J. Hastings (2006), Effects of climate variability on carbon sequestration among adjacent wet sedge tundra and moist tussock tundra ecosystems,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.