Panta Rhei benchmark dataset: socio-hydrological data of paired events of floods and droughts (version 2)

As the negative impacts of hydrological extremes increase in large parts of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of change in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management and climate adaptation. However, there is a lack of comprehensive, empirical data about the processes, interactions and feedbacks in complex human-water systems leading to flood and drought impacts. To fill this gap, we present an IAHS Panta Rhei benchmark dataset containing socio-hydrological data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area (Kreibich et al. 2017, 2019). The contained 45 paired events occurred in 42 different study areas (in three study areas we have data on two paired events), which cover different socioeconomic and hydroclimatic contexts across all continents. The dataset is unique in covering floods and droughts, in the number of cases assessed and in the amount of qualitative and quantitative socio-hydrological data contained. References to the data sources are provided in 2023-001_Kreibich-et-al_Key_data_table.xlsx where possible. Based on templates, we collected detailed, review-style reports describing the event characteristics and processes in the case study areas, as well as various semi-quantitative data, categorised into management, hazard, exposure, vulnerability and impacts. Sources of the data were classified as follows: scientific study (peer-reviewed paper and PhD thesis), report (by governments, administrations, NGOs, research organisations, projects), own analysis by authors, based on a database (e.g. official statistics, monitoring data such as weather, discharge data, etc.), newspaper article, and expert judgement. The campaign to collect the information and data on paired events started at the EGU General Assembly in April 2019 in Vienna and was continued with talks promoting the paired event data collection at various conferences. Communication with the Panta Rhei community and other flood and drought experts identified through snowballing techniques was important. Thus, data on paired events were provided by professionals with excellent local knowledge of the events and risk management practices

Panta Rhei benchmark dataset: socio-hydrological data of paired events of floods and droughts

As the negative impacts of hydrological extremes increase in large parts of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of change in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management and climate adaptation. However, there is a lack of comprehensive, empirical data about the processes, interactions and feedbacks in complex human-water systems leading to flood and drought impacts. To fill this gap, we present an IAHS Panta Rhei benchmark dataset containing socio-hydrological data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area (Kreibich et al. 2017, 2019). The contained 45 paired events occurred in 42 different study areas (in three study areas we have data on two paired events), which cover different socioeconomic and hydroclimatic contexts across all continents. The dataset is unique in covering floods and droughts, in the number of cases assessed and in the amount of qualitative and quantitative socio-hydrological data contained. References to the data sources are provided in 2022-002_Kreibich-et-al_Key_data_table.xlsx where possible. Based on templates, we collected detailed, review-style reports describing the event characteristics and processes in the case study areas, as well as various semi-quantitative data, categorised into management, hazard, exposure, vulnerability and impacts. Sources of the data were classified as follows: scientific study (peer-reviewed paper and PhD thesis), report (by governments, administrations, NGOs, research organisations, projects), own analysis by authors, based on a database (e.g. official statistics, monitoring data such as weather, discharge data, etc.), newspaper article, and expert judgement. The campaign to collect the information and data on paired events started at the EGU General Assembly in April 2019 in Vienna and was continued with talks promoting the paired event data collection at various conferences. Communication with the Panta Rhei community and other flood and drought experts identified through snowballing techniques was important. Thus, data on paired events were provided by professionals with excellent local knowledge of the events and risk management practices

Data from: Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

AbstractThe idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies