Floods in the Pampas : Insights from over a decade of satellite observations

Non peer reviewedPublisher PD

Análisis de la variabilidad de la lluvia, la evapotranspiración e índices de vegetación en áreas agrícolas de Entre Ríos

Sobre la base de los resultados del proyecto anterior ‘Integración de datos agrometeorológicos, de sensores remotos y de cultivos mediante técnicas de geoinformación y modelos en el Centro-Oeste de Entre Ríos (PICT 06-1221 PIDUNER 2128) y tomando en consideración el efecto de las anomalías en la producción de granos en la provincia de Entre Ríos se hace evidente la necesidad e importancia de llevar adelante estudios que posibiliten una mayor comprensión de la variabilidad de la lluvia, la evapotranspiración e índices de vegetación y las relaciones con la producción. Esta reseña del proyecto se refiere a dos aspectos del mismo: meteorología agrícola y teledetección aplicada. La primera dirigida a mejorar la información agrometeorológica, a conocer la variabilidad espacial y temporal e investigar asociaciones o efectos en los cultivos. La segunda para: estudiar el comportamiento de la reflectividad de los cultivos de maíz, soja y trigo mediante índices, poner a prueba técnicas avanzadas de procesamiento y manejo de datos de satélites de recursos naturales (Landsat, Modis y nuevos satélites).El proyecto pertenece a un área científica con escaso desarrollo en nuestro país y casi nula en la provincia, pero la importancia actual y el carácter prioritario para los años venideros -por el potencial impacto- señalan la necesidad de iniciar y afianzar estas líneas de investigación y formar recursos humanos capaces de conducirlas

Protecting climate with forests

Policies for climate mitigation on land rarely acknowledge biophysical factors, such as reflectivity, evaporation, and surface roughness. Yet such factors can alter temperatures much more than carbon sequestration does, and often in a conflicting way. We outline a framework for examining biophysical factors in mitigation policies and provide some best-practice recommendations based on that framework. Tropical projects-avoided deforestation, forest restoration, and afforestation-provide the greatest climate value, because carbon storage and biophysics align to cool the Earth. In contrast, the climate benefits of carbon storage are often counteracted in boreal and other snow-covered regions, where darker trees trap more heat than snow does. Managers can increase the climate benefit of some forest projects by using more reflective and deciduous species and through urban forestry projects that reduce energy use. Ignoring biophysical interactions could result in millions of dollars being invested in some mitigation projects that provide little climate benefit or, worse, are counter-productive

Contrasting CO2 and water vapour fluxes in dry forest and pasture sites of central Argentina

The dry forests of South America are a key player of the global carbon cycle and the regional water cycle, but they are being intensively deforested. We used eddy covariance measurements to compare the temporal patterns of CO2 and water vapour fluxes and their relationships with environmental variables in dry forest and pastures sites of central Argentina. Ecosystem fluxes showed clear contrasts in magnitude, timing and response to environmental controls between ecosystems. The dry forest displayed higher daily gross primary productivity (GPP, 10.6 vs. 7.8 g CO2 m−2 d−1) and ecosystem respiration (Reco, 9.1 vs. 7.0 g CO2 m−2 d−1) and lower net ecosystem exchange (NEE, −1.5 vs. −0.7 g CO2 m−2 d−1) than the pasture. These differences were explained by a lower tolerance of the pasture to cool temperatures and drought. The lowest NEE rates were observed between 26°C and 34°C in the pasture, but below this range, NEE increased sharply, switching to a carbon source with temperatures <20°C. By contrast, the dry forest remained as a strong carbon sink down to 18°C. The pasture also showed a stronger drop of GPP with drought compared with the dry forest, becoming a carbon source with soil wetness <25% of soil available water. Rainfall was strongly coupled with GPP in both ecosystems, but the dry forest responded to longer rainfall integration periods. This study helps to understand how ecosystems can respond to climate change, improve global scale modelling and increase the productivity and resilience of rangelands.Fil: Nosetto, Marcelo Daniel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Luis. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi". Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Ciencias Físico, Matemáticas y Naturales. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi"; ArgentinaFil: Luna Toledo, Emanuel Santiago. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Chilecito; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Magliano, Patricio Nicolás. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Luis. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi". Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Ciencias Físico, Matemáticas y Naturales. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi"; ArgentinaFil: Figuerola, Patricia Irene. Universidad Nacional de Chilecito; ArgentinaFil: Blanco, Lisandro Javier. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; ArgentinaFil: Jobbagy Gampel, Esteban Gabriel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Luis. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi". Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Ciencias Físico, Matemáticas y Naturales. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi"; Argentin

Soil organic carbon stocks in native forest of Argentina: a useful surrogate for mitigation and conservation planning under climate variability

Background The nationally determined contribution (NDC) presented by Argentina within the framework of the Paris Agreement is aligned with the decisions made in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the reduction of emissions derived from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as forest carbon conservation (REDD+). In addition, climate change constitutes one of the greatest threats to forest biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, the soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks of native forests have not been incorporated into the Forest Reference Emission Levels calculations and for conservation planning under climate variability due to a lack of information. The objectives of this study were: (i) to model SOC stocks to 30 cm of native forests at a national scale using climatic, topographic and vegetation as predictor variables, and (ii) to relate SOC stocks with spatial–temporal remotely sensed indices to determine biodiversity conservation concerns due to threats from high inter‑annual climate variability. Methods We used 1040 forest soil samples (0–30 cm) to generate spatially explicit estimates of SOC native forests in Argentina at a spatial resolution of approximately 200 m. We selected 52 potential predictive environmental covariates, which represent key factors for the spatial distribution of SOC. All covariate maps were uploaded to the Google Earth Engine cloud‑based computing platform for subsequent modelling. To determine the biodiversity threats from high inter‑annual climate variability, we employed the spatial–temporal satellite‑derived indices based on Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) and land surface temperature (LST) images from Landsat imagery. Results SOC model (0–30 cm depth) prediction accounted for 69% of the variation of this soil property across the whole native forest coverage in Argentina. Total mean SOC stock reached 2.81 Pg C (2.71–2.84 Pg C with a probability of 90%) for a total area of 460,790 km2, where Chaco forests represented 58.4% of total SOC stored, followed by Andean Patagonian forests (16.7%) and Espinal forests (10.0%). SOC stock model was fitted as a function of regional climate, which greatly influenced forest ecosystems, including precipitation (annual mean precipitation and precipitation of warmest quarter) and temperature (day land surface temperature, seasonality, maximum temperature of warmest month, month of maximum temperature, night land surface temperature, and monthly minimum temperature). Biodiversity was influenced by the SOC levels and the forest regions. Conclusions In the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and REDD+, information derived in the present work from the estimate of SOC in native forests can be incorporated into the annual National Inventory Report of Argentina to assist forest management proposals. It also gives insight into how native forests can be more resilient to reduce the impact of biodiversity loss.EEA Santa CruzFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Gaitan, Juan José. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Buenos Aires; Argentina.Fil: Gaitan, Juan José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Mastrangelo, Matias Enrique. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales; Argentina.Fil: Mastrangelo, Matias Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Nosetto, Marcelo Daniel. Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada San Luis. Grupo de Estudios Ambientales; Argentina.Fil: Nosetto, Marcelo Daniel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Villagra, Pablo Eugenio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA); Argentina.Fil: Villagra, Pablo Eugenio. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina.Fil: Balducci, Ezequiel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Yuto; Argentina.Fil: Pinazo, Martín Alcides. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Montecarlo; Argentina.Fil: Eclesia, Roxana Paola. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Paraná; Argentina.Fil: Von Wallis, Alejandra. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Montecarlo; Argentina.Fil: Villarino, Sebastián. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales; Argentina.Fil: Villarino, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Alaggia, Francisco Guillermo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi. Campo Anexo Villa Dolores; Argentina.Fil: Alaggia, Francisco Guillermo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Gonzalez-Polo, Marina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; Argentina.Fil: Gonzalez-Polo, Marina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. INIBIOMA; Argentina.Fil: Manrique, Silvana M. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Energía No Convencional. CCT Salta‑Jujuy; Argentina.Fil: Meglioli, Pablo A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA); Argentina.Fil: Meglioli, Pablo A. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina.Fil: Rodríguez‑Souilla, Julián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC); Argentina.Fil: Mónaco, Martín H. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Dirección Nacional de Bosques; Argentina.Fil: Chaves, Jimena Elizabeth. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC); Argentina.Fil: Medina, Ariel. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Dirección Nacional de Bosques; Argentina.Fil: Gasparri, Ignacio. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina.Fil: Gasparri, Ignacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Alvarez Arnesi, Eugenio. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario; Argentina.Fil: Alvarez Arnesi, Eugenio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe; Argentina.Fil: Barral, María Paula. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales; Argentina.Fil: Barral, María Paula. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Von Müller, Axel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Esquel Argentina.Fil: Pahr, Norberto Manuel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Montecarlo; Argentina.Fil: Uribe Echevarría, Josefina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Quimilí; Argentina.Fil: Fernandez, Pedro Sebastian. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Famaillá; Argentina.Fil: Fernandez, Pedro Sebastian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina.Fil: Morsucci, Marina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA); Argentina.Fil: Morsucci, Marina. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina.Fil: Lopez, Dardo Ruben. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi. Campo Anexo Villa Dolores; Argentina.Fil: Lopez, Dardo Ruben. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Cellini, Juan Manuel. Universidad Nacional de la Plata (UNLP). Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Laboratorio de Investigaciones en Maderas; Argentina.Fil: Alvarez, Leandro M. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA); Argentina.Fil: Alvarez, Leandro M. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina.Fil: Barberis, Ignacio Martín. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe; Argentina.Fil: Barberis, Ignacio Martín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Santa Fe; Argentina.Fil: Colomb, Hernán Pablo. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Dirección Nacional de Bosques; Argentina.Fil: Colomb, Hernán. Administración de Parques Nacionales (APN). Parque Nacional Los Alerces; Argentina.Fil: La Manna, Ludmila. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia San Juan Bosco. Centro de Estudios Ambientales Integrados (CEAI); Argentina.Fil: La Manna, Ludmila. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Barbaro, Sebastian Ernesto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul; Argentina.Fil: Blundo, Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina.Fil: Blundo, Cecilia. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Tucumán; Argentina.Fil: Sirimarco, Marina Ximena. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales (GEAP); Argentina.Fil: Sirimarco, Marina Ximena. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Cavallero, Laura. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi. Campo Anexo Villa Dolores; Argentina.Fil: Zalazar, Gualberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA); Argentina.Fil: Zalazar, Gualberto. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina.Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC); Argentina

Global maps of soil temperature

Research in global change ecology relies heavily on global climatic grids derived from estimates of air temperature in open areas at around 2&nbsp;m above the ground. These climatic grids do not reflect conditions below vegetation canopies and near the ground surface, where critical ecosystem functions occur and most terrestrial species reside. Here, we provide global maps of soil temperature and bioclimatic variables at a 1-km2 resolution for 0\u20135 and 5\u201315&nbsp;cm soil depth. These maps were created by calculating the difference (i.e. offset) between in situ soil temperature measurements, based on time series from over 1200 1-km2 pixels (summarized from 8519 unique temperature sensors) across all the world's major terrestrial biomes, and coarse-grained air temperature estimates from ERA5-Land (an atmospheric reanalysis by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts). We show that mean annual soil temperature differs markedly from the corresponding gridded air temperature, by up to 10\ub0C (mean&nbsp;=&nbsp;3.0&nbsp;\ub1&nbsp;2.1\ub0C), with substantial variation across biomes and seasons. Over the year, soils in cold and/or dry biomes are substantially warmer (+3.6&nbsp;\ub1&nbsp;2.3\ub0C) than gridded air temperature, whereas soils in warm and humid environments are on average slightly cooler ( 120.7&nbsp;\ub1&nbsp;2.3\ub0C). The observed substantial and biome-specific offsets emphasize that the projected impacts of climate and climate change on near-surface biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are inaccurately assessed when air rather than soil temperature is used, especially in cold environments. The global soil-related bioclimatic variables provided here are an important step forward for any application in ecology and related disciplines. Nevertheless, we highlight the need to fill remaining geographic gaps by collecting more in situ measurements of microclimate conditions to further enhance the spatiotemporal resolution of global soil temperature products for ecological applications

Global maps of soil temperature

Research in global change ecology relies heavily on global climatic grids derived from estimates of air temperature in open areas at around 2 m above the ground. These climatic grids do not reflect conditions below vegetation canopies and near the ground surface, where critical ecosystem functions occur and most terrestrial species reside. Here, we provide global maps of soil temperature and bioclimatic variables at a 1-km² resolution for 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil depth. These maps were created by calculating the difference (i.e., offset) between in-situ soil temperature measurements, based on time series from over 1200 1-km² pixels (summarized from 8500 unique temperature sensors) across all the world’s major terrestrial biomes, and coarse-grained air temperature estimates from ERA5-Land (an atmospheric reanalysis by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts). We show that mean annual soil temperature differs markedly from the corresponding gridded air temperature, by up to 10°C (mean = 3.0 ± 2.1°C), with substantial variation across biomes and seasons. Over the year, soils in cold and/or dry biomes are substantially warmer (+3.6 ± 2.3°C) than gridded air temperature, whereas soils in warm and humid environments are on average slightly cooler (-0.7 ± 2.3°C). The observed substantial and biome-specific offsets emphasize that the projected impacts of climate and climate change on near-surface biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are inaccurately assessed when air rather than soil temperature is used, especially in cold environments. The global soil-related bioclimatic variables provided here are an important step forward for any application in ecology and related disciplines. Nevertheless, we highlight the need to fill remaining geographic gaps by collecting more in-situ measurements of microclimate conditions to further enhance the spatiotemporal resolution of global soil temperature products for ecological applications

Global maps of soil temperature.

Research in global change ecology relies heavily on global climatic grids derived from estimates of air temperature in open areas at around 2 m above the ground. These climatic grids do not reflect conditions below vegetation canopies and near the ground surface, where critical ecosystem functions occur and most terrestrial species reside. Here, we provide global maps of soil temperature and bioclimatic variables at a 1-km &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; resolution for 0-5 and 5-15 cm soil depth. These maps were created by calculating the difference (i.e. offset) between in situ soil temperature measurements, based on time series from over 1200 1-km &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; pixels (summarized from 8519 unique temperature sensors) across all the world's major terrestrial biomes, and coarse-grained air temperature estimates from ERA5-Land (an atmospheric reanalysis by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts). We show that mean annual soil temperature differs markedly from the corresponding gridded air temperature, by up to 10°C (mean = 3.0 ± 2.1°C), with substantial variation across biomes and seasons. Over the year, soils in cold and/or dry biomes are substantially warmer (+3.6 ± 2.3°C) than gridded air temperature, whereas soils in warm and humid environments are on average slightly cooler (-0.7 ± 2.3°C). The observed substantial and biome-specific offsets emphasize that the projected impacts of climate and climate change on near-surface biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are inaccurately assessed when air rather than soil temperature is used, especially in cold environments. The global soil-related bioclimatic variables provided here are an important step forward for any application in ecology and related disciplines. Nevertheless, we highlight the need to fill remaining geographic gaps by collecting more in situ measurements of microclimate conditions to further enhance the spatiotemporal resolution of global soil temperature products for ecological applications

Author Correction: The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data

The following authors were omitted from the original version of this Data Descriptor: Markus Reichstein and Nicolas Vuichard. Both contributed to the code development and N. Vuichard contributed to the processing of the ERA-Interim data downscaling. Furthermore, the contribution of the co-author Frank Tiedemann was re-evaluated relative to the colleague Corinna Rebmann, both working at the same sites, and based on this re-evaluation a substitution in the co-author list is implemented (with Rebmann replacing Tiedemann). Finally, two affiliations were listed incorrectly and are corrected here (entries 190 and 193). The author list and affiliations have been amended to address these omissions in both the HTML and PDF versions