Whitepaper: Understanding land-atmosphere interactions through tower-based flux and continuous atmospheric boundary layer measurements

Executive summary ● Target audience: AmeriFlux community, AmeriFlux Science Steering Committee & Department of Energy (DOE) program managers [ARM/ASR (atmosphere), TES (surface), and SBR (subsurface)] ● Problem statement: The atmospheric boundary layer mediates the exchange of energy and matter between the land surface and the free troposphere integrating a range of physical, chemical, and biological processes. However, continuous atmospheric boundary layer observations at AmeriFlux sites are still scarce. How can adding measurements of the atmospheric boundary layer enhance the scientific value of the AmeriFlux network? ● Research opportunities: We highlight four key opportunities to integrate tower-based flux measurements with continuous, long-term atmospheric boundary layer measurements: (1) to interpret surface flux and atmospheric boundary layer exchange dynamics at flux tower sites, (2) to support regionalscale modeling and upscaling of surface fluxes to continental scales, (3) to validate land-atmosphere coupling in Earth system models, and (4) to support flux footprint modelling, the interpretation of surface fluxes in heterogeneous terrain, and quality control of eddy covariance flux measurements. ● Recommended actions: Adding a suite of atmospheric boundary layer measurements to eddy covariance flux tower sites would allow the Earth science community to address new emerging research questions, to better interpret ongoing flux tower measurements, and would present novel opportunities for collaboration between AmeriFlux scientists and atmospheric and remote sensing scientists. We therefore recommend that (1) a set of instrumentation for continuous atmospheric boundary layer observations be added to a subset of AmeriFlux sites spanning a range of ecosystem types and climate zones, that (2) funding agencies (e.g., Department of Energy, NASA) solicit research on land-atmosphere processes where the benefits of fully integrated atmospheric boundary layer observations can add value to key scientific questions, and that (3) the AmeriFlux Management Project acquires loaner instrumentation for atmospheric boundary layer observations for use in experiments and short-term duration campaigns

Conserved genes and pathways in primary human fibroblast strains undergoing replicative and radiation induced senescence

Additional file 3: Figure S3. Regulation of genes of Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy pathway during senescence induction in HFF strains Genes of the “Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy” pathway which are significantly up- (green) and down- (red) regulated (log2 fold change >1) during irradiation induced senescence (120 h after 20 Gy irradiation) in HFF strains. Orange color signifies genes which are commonly up-regulated during both, irradiation induced and replicative senescence

Prediction of overall survival for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer : development of a prognostic model through a crowdsourced challenge with open clinical trial data

Background Improvements to prognostic models in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have the potential to augment clinical trial design and guide treatment strategies. In partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clinical trials to be shared broadly with researchers, we designed an open-data, crowdsourced, DREAM (Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods) challenge to not only identify a better prognostic model for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but also engage a community of international data scientists to study this disease. Methods Data from the comparator arms of four phase 3 clinical trials in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were obtained from Project Data Sphere, comprising 476 patients treated with docetaxel and prednisone from the ASCENT2 trial, 526 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone, and placebo in the MAINSAIL trial, 598 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone or prednisolone, and placebo in the VENICE trial, and 470 patients treated with docetaxel and placebo in the ENTHUSE 33 trial. Datasets consisting of more than 150 clinical variables were curated centrally, including demographics, laboratory values, medical history, lesion sites, and previous treatments. Data from ASCENT2, MAINSAIL, and VENICE were released publicly to be used as training data to predict the outcome of interest-namely, overall survival. Clinical data were also released for ENTHUSE 33, but data for outcome variables (overall survival and event status) were hidden from the challenge participants so that ENTHUSE 33 could be used for independent validation. Methods were evaluated using the integrated time-dependent area under the curve (iAUC). The reference model, based on eight clinical variables and a penalised Cox proportional-hazards model, was used to compare method performance. Further validation was done using data from a fifth trial-ENTHUSE M1-in which 266 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with placebo alone. Findings 50 independent methods were developed to predict overall survival and were evaluated through the DREAM challenge. The top performer was based on an ensemble of penalised Cox regression models (ePCR), which uniquely identified predictive interaction effects with immune biomarkers and markers of hepatic and renal function. Overall, ePCR outperformed all other methods (iAUC 0.791; Bayes factor >5) and surpassed the reference model (iAUC 0.743; Bayes factor >20). Both the ePCR model and reference models stratified patients in the ENTHUSE 33 trial into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall survival (ePCR: hazard ratio 3.32, 95% CI 2.39-4.62, p Interpretation Novel prognostic factors were delineated, and the assessment of 50 methods developed by independent international teams establishes a benchmark for development of methods in the future. The results of this effort show that data-sharing, when combined with a crowdsourced challenge, is a robust and powerful framework to develop new prognostic models in advanced prostate cancer.Peer reviewe

Harnessing the NEON data revolution to advance open environmental science with a diverse and data-capable community

It is a critical time to reflect on the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) science to date as well as envision what research can be done right now with NEON (and other) data and what training is needed to enable a diverse user community. NEON became fully operational in May 2019 and has pivoted from planning and construction to operation and maintenance. In this overview, the history of and foundational thinking around NEON are discussed. A framework of open science is described with a discussion of how NEON can be situated as part of a larger data constellation—across existing networks and different suites of ecological measurements and sensors. Next, a synthesis of early NEON science, based on >100 existing publications, funded proposal efforts, and emergent science at the very first NEON Science Summit (hosted by Earth Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder in October 2019) is provided. Key questions that the ecology community will address with NEON data in the next 10 yr are outlined, from understanding drivers of biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales to defining complex feedback mechanisms in human–environmental systems. Last, the essential elements needed to engage and support a diverse and inclusive NEON user community are highlighted: training resources and tools that are openly available, funding for broad community engagement initiatives, and a mechanism to share and advertise those opportunities. NEON users require both the skills to work with NEON data and the ecological or environmental science domain knowledge to understand and interpret them. This paper synthesizes early directions in the community’s use of NEON data, and opportunities for the next 10 yr of NEON operations in emergent science themes, open science best practices, education and training, and community building

Exploring discrepancies between in situ phenology and remotely derived phenometrics at NEON sites

In recent decades, the use of satellite sensors, near-surface cameras, and other remote methods for monitoring vegetation phenology at landscape and higher scales has become increasingly common. These technologies provide a means to determine the timing of phenophases and growing season length at different spatial resolutions; coverage that is not attainable by human observers. However, in situ ground observations are required to validate remotely derived phenometrics. Despite increased knowledge and expertise there still remains the persistent challenge of reconciling ground observations at the individual plant level with remotely sensed (RS) phenometrics at landscape or larger scales. We compared the timing of in situ phenophase estimates (spring and autumn) with a range of corresponding remote sensing (moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer [MODIS], visible infrared imaging radiometer suite [VIIRS], PhenoCam) phenometrics across five terrestrial sites in the United States' NEON (Harvard Forest [MA] [HARV], Onaqui [UT] [ONAQ], Abby Road [WA] [ABBY], Disney Wilderness Preserve [FL] [DSNY], and Ordway-Swisher Biological Station [FL] [OSBS]) focusing on the 3-year period from 2017 to 2019. Our main objective was to explore potential reasons for the observed discrepancies between in situ and RS phenometrics and to determine which technologies were better able to capture ground observations. Statistically significant relationships were strongest (p < 0.001) for spring phenophases, while the only RS phenometrics significantly correlated with in situ estimates of autumn phenophases were leaf fall (p < 0.01) and leaves (p < 0.000). In particular, root mean square error (RMSE) (mean bias error [MBE]) for MODIS-Enhanced Vegetation Index-2 band (EVI2), VIIRS-EVI2, and PhenoCam-green chromatic coordinate (GCC) derived early spring transition dates indicated overall differences of 21.7 days (−4.6 days), 28.4 days (−1.2 days), and 24.1 days (11.9 days) from in situ estimates of early leaf-out dates. In autumn, RMSE/MBE was smallest (10.9 days/−2.2 days) between phenesse estimates (95th percentile date) of the latest date of in situ leaf fall and VIIRS derived end of senescence, compared to the equivalent phenometric derived from MODIS (13.5 days/7.7 days) and PhenoCam (GCC greenness-falling) (13.8 days/−5.1 days). Overall, discrepancies between in situ and RS phenology related to scale, species availability, and the short duration of the time series (3 years). However, as the NEON project progresses these challenges are expected to be reduced as more data become available. © 2022 The Author(s). Ecosphere published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Ecological Society of America.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]