A call for standardization of aeolian process measurements: moving beyond relative case studies

Abstract

Progress in some areas of process-based aeolian sediment transport research is hampered by limited opportunities for data comparison, synthesis, and integration. This is partially due to a lack of reliable comparison methods. Many comparison methods are forms of calibration that are either restrictive (e.g., time-averages only) or non-existent (e.g., for field-based sediment transport thresholds or vertical mass flux profiles). It is believed that the adoption of standard methods for common measurements may improve inter-study comparison, add value and longevity to data, and advance integrative modeling efforts. Examples of approaches in allied disciplines where standards are used routinely are reviewed and we discuss how the mutual benefits of standardized data could outweigh perceived disadvantages. Overall, the goal of this commentary is to encourage discussion, selfassessment, and forethought with regard to measurement methods used in process-based aeolian geomorphology.

Evaluation of the FlowCapt Acoustic Sensor for the Aeolian Transport of Snow

“…Since no standard in the aeolian process measurements exists, it is difficult to compare measurements taken in different regions (Barchyn et al 2011). Moreover, a wide variety of instruments is used, with mechanical (Budd et al 1966), optical (Wendler 1989), piezoelectric (Tüg 1988), and acoustic (Chritin et al 1999) techniques.…”

The Shallow-Marine Architecture Knowledge Store: A database for the characterization of shallow-marine and paralic depositional systems

“…There exists a need for standardization in classifications and attribute definitions, particularly in terminology-rich disciplines like the Earth Sciences, if such meta-studies are to be conducted with rigour (cf. Barchyn et al 2011). In the methodology used for SMAKS, this need is addressed by enforcing the translation of different datasets to a common standard.…”

Many Methods, Many Microbes: Methodological Diversity and Standardization in the Deep Subseafloor Biosphere

“…One expected benefit is in the observational sciences, such as ecology, where different researchers produce datasets about different geographic sites, or about the same site but at different points in time. Standardization could enable comparisons of the same phenomena across sites, or over time (Barchyn et al, 2011). Another anticipated benefit of integration of data into larger datasets is that it will lead to new insights by allowing the use of different methods, such as meta-analyses or data-mining (Huang & Gottardo, 2012;Thessen & Patterson, 2011).…”

“…One rationale is the major driver of the standardization movement, whilst the other plays a minor role. The minor rationale, that standardized methods will enable multiple datasets to be integrated and compared, echoes some of the usual rationales advanced elsewhere (Barchyn et al, 2011;Huang & Gottardo, 2012;Thessen & Patterson, 2011). Standardization will allow for meta-analyses to answer important questions in microbiology.…”

“…Examples include geology (Dietl & Kosloski, 2013), geography (Barchyn, Hugenholtz, & Ellis, 2011), and the life sciences (Holmes, McDonald, Jones, Ozdemir, & Graham, 2010).…”