9 research outputs found

    The High–Low Arctic boundary: How is it determined and where is it located?

    Full text link
    Geobotanical subdivision of landcover is a baseline for many studies. The High–Low Arctic boundary is considered to be of fundamental natural importance. The wide application of different delimitation schemes in various ecological studies and climatic scenarios raises the following questions: (i) What are the common criteria to define the High and Low Arctic? (ii) Could human impact significantly change the distribution of the delimitation criteria? (iii) Is the widely accepted temperature criterion still relevant given ongoing climate change? and (iv) Could we locate the High–Low Arctic boundary by mapping these criteria derived from modern open remote sensing and climatic data? Researchers rely on common criteria for geobotanical delimitation of the Arctic. Unified circumpolar criteria are based on the structure of vegetation cover and climate, while regional specifics are reflected in the floral composition. However, the published delimitation schemes vary greatly. The disagreement in the location of geobotanical boundaries across the studies manifests in poorly comparable results. While maintaining the common principles of geobotanical subdivision, we derived the boundary between the High and Low Arctic using the most up‐to‐date field data and modern techniques: species distribution modeling, radar, thermal and optical satellite imagery processing, and climatic data analysis. The position of the High–Low Arctic boundary in Western Siberia was clarified and mapped. The new boundary is located 50–100 km further north compared to all the previously presented ones. Long‐term anthropogenic press contributes to a change in the vegetation structure but does not noticeably affect key species ranges. A previously specified climatic criterion for the High–Low Arctic boundary accepted in scientific literature has not coincided with the boundary in Western Siberia for over 70 years. The High–Low Arctic boundary is distinctly reflected in biodiversity distribution. The presented approach is appropriate for accurate mapping of the High–Low Arctic boundary in the circumpolar extent

    Vegetation type is an important predictor of the arctic summer land surface energy budget

    Get PDF
    Despite the importance of high-latitude surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the rapidly changing Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. Here, we harmonize SEB observations across a network of vegetated and glaciated sites at circumpolar scale (1994-2021). Our variance-partitioning analysis identifies vegetation type as an important predictor for SEB-components during Arctic summer (June-August), compared to other SEB-drivers including climate, latitude and permafrost characteristics. Differences among vegetation types can be of similar magnitude as between vegetation and glacier surfaces and are especially high for summer sensible and latent heat fluxes. The timing of SEB-flux summer-regimes (when daily mean values exceed 0 Wm(-2)) relative to snow-free and -onset dates varies substantially depending on vegetation type, implying vegetation controls on snow-cover and SEB-flux seasonality. Our results indicate complex shifts in surface energy fluxes with land-cover transitions and a lengthening summer season, and highlight the potential for improving future Earth system models via a refined representation of Arctic vegetation types.An international team of researchers finds high potential for improving climate projections by a more comprehensive treatment of largely ignored Arctic vegetation types, underscoring the importance of Arctic energy exchange measuring stations.Peer reviewe

    Vegetation type is an important predictor of the arctic summer land surface energy budget

    Get PDF
    Despite the importance of high-latitude surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the rapidly changing Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. Here, we harmonize SEB observations across a network of vegetated and glaciated sites at circumpolar scale (1994–2021). Our variance-partitioning analysis identifies vegetation type as an important predictor for SEB-components during Arctic summer (June-August), compared to other SEB-drivers including climate, latitude and permafrost characteristics. Differences among vegetation types can be of similar magnitude as between vegetation and glacier surfaces and are especially high for summer sensible and latent heat fluxes. The timing of SEB-flux summer-regimes (when daily mean values exceed 0 Wm−2) relative to snow-free and -onset dates varies substantially depending on vegetation type, implying vegetation controls on snow-cover and SEB-flux seasonality. Our results indicate complex shifts in surface energy fluxes with land-cover transitions and a lengthening summer season, and highlight the potential for improving future Earth system models via a refined representation of Arctic vegetation types

    Harmonized in-situ observations of surface energy fluxes and environmental drivers at 64 Arctic vegetation and glacier sites - Metadata

    No full text
    Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models. This dataset contains metadata information about surface energy budget components measured at 64 tundra and glacier sites >60° N across the Arctic. This information was taken from the open-access repositories FLUXNET, Ameriflux, AON, GC-Net and PROMICE. The contained datasets are associated with the publication vegetation type as an important predictor of the Arctic Summer Land Surface Energy Budget by Oehri et al. 2022, and intended to support research of surface energy budgets and their relationship with environmental conditions, in particular vegetation characteristics across the terrestrial Arctic

    Harmonized in-situ observations of surface energy fluxes and environmental drivers at 64 Arctic vegetation and glacier sites - Surface energy budget componenent data

    No full text
    Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models. This dataset comprises harmonized, standardized and aggregated in-situ observations of surface energy budget components measured at 64 sites on vegetated and glaciated sites north of 60° latitude, in the time period from 1994 till 2021. The surface energy budget components include net radiation, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, ground heat flux, net shortwave radiation, net longwave radiation, surface temperature and albedo, which were aggregated to daily mean, minimum and maximum values from hourly and half-hourly measurements. Data were retrieved from the monitoring networks FLUXNET, AmeriFlux, AON, GC-Net and PROMICE

    Literature synthesis data of surface energy fluxes and environmental drivers from Arctic vegetation and glacier sites

    No full text
    Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models. This dataset describes the data generated in a literature synthesis, covering 358 study sites on vegetation or glacier (>=60°N latitude), which contained surface energy budget observations. The literature synthesis comprised 148 publications searched on the ISI Web of Science Core Collection

    Harmonized in-situ observations of surface energy fluxes and environmental drivers at 64 Arctic vegetation and glacier sites - Environmental conditions

    No full text
    Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models. This dataset describes the environmental conditions for 64 tundra and glacier sites (>=60°N latitude) across the Arctic, for which in situ measurements of surface energy budget components were harmonized (see Oehri et al. 2022). These environmental conditions are (proxies of) potential drivers of SEB-components and could therefore be called SEB-drivers. The associated environmental conditions, include the vegetation types graminoid tundra, prostrate dwarf-shrub tundra, erect-shrub tundra, wetland complexes, barren complexes (≀ 40% horizontal plant cover), boreal peat bogs and glacier. These land surface types (apart from boreal peat bogs) correspond to the main classification units of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM, Raynolds et al. 2019). For each site, additional climatic and biophysical variables are available, including cloud cover, snow cover duration, permafrost characteristics, climatic conditions and topographic conditions

    Harmonized in-situ observations of surface energy fluxes and environmental drivers at 64 Arctic vegetation and glacier sites

    No full text
    Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In-situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models. Therefore, we here provide four datasets comprising: 1. Harmonized, standardized and aggregated in situ observations of SEB components at 64 vegetated and glaciated sites north of 60° latitude, in the time period 1994-2021 2. A description of all study sites and associated environmental conditions, including the vegetation types, which correspond to the classification of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM, Raynolds et al. 2019). 3. Data generated in a literature synthesis from 358 study sites on vegetation or glacier (>=60°N latitude) covered by 148 publications. 4. Metadata, including data contributor information and measurement heights of variables associated with Oehri et al. 2022
    corecore