-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
/
Copy pathexpanded_field_notes.txt
86 lines (68 loc) · 3.84 KB
/
expanded_field_notes.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
This file contains exapnded descriptions or usage notes for a number of fields in the soil respiration database.
Last updated: 14-December-2024
----------
Latitude
Decimal degrees north. The number of significant digits corresponds roughly to precision given in the original source.
----------
Longitude
Decimal degrees east. The number of significant digits corresponds roughly to precision given in the original source.
----------
Site_ID
A unique site identification code, formed by country (two letters) - site name (three letters) - treatment or distinguishing information.
----------
Study_midyear
Study midyear, rounded to the nearest 0.5 year. A study that runs from January 1 - December 31, 2015 is entered as 2015.5, whereas July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015 is entered as 2015.0.
----------
YearsOfData
Number of years from which _annual_ data are drawn (e.g., Rs_annual) and originally intended to be used as a weighting factor in regressions. As a result, this will never be less than one.
----------
Ecosystem_state
This and a number of the other 'subjective' fields (marked with an asterisk) are highly subjective. Here "natural" means unomdified by humans; "managed" means under active management; and "unmanaged" means human management or disturbance in the past, but not currently.
----------
Age_ecosystem
This is used when, e.g., the time of conversion of forest to agriculture is known. In contrast, age_disturbance records time of last disturbance in general.
----------
Meas_interval, Annual_coverage
These are approximate values for time between measurements (days, over entire year) and fraction of year covered by measurements. These fields are only filled in for records with Rs_annual values.
----------
Partition_method
See Bond-Lamberty et al. (2004, 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00816.x) for an explanation of the categories used here. Briefly, "comparison" involves comparing different sites; "exclusion" is trench plots and the like; "extraction" involves measuring respiration rates of roots taken from the soil; "isotope"; and "mass balance" that partitions using other parts of the C cycle.
----------
Rs_annual_err
This is reported error associated with Rs_annual. Typically spatial (plot-to-plot) but can be other sources too.
----------
Rs_interann_err
This is defined simply as the standard deviation between year i and year i+1, so n=2 always, and this field will be blank in at least one observation for each study.
----------
Rh_annual
This number (annual heterotrophic respiration, gC/m2) should include litter respiration (Rlitter_annual) so that Ra_annual + Rh_annual roughly equals Rs_annual.
----------
T_depth
Given in cm; a value of -200 (i.e., 2 m above ground) is used for air temperature.
----------
Litter_flux
This is reported very inconsistently--leaf only, leaf and fine woody material, all material, etc. Generally this should not include large woody material.
----------
TotDet_flux
This should be the sum of Litter_flux and Rootlitter_flux.
----------
C_veg_total
This should be the sum of C_AG and C_BG. For this and all "C_" fields, biommass has been converted to carbon using a ratio of 0.5.
----------
Quality_flag
Quality control flags are as follows:
Q0 default (none)
Q01 estimated from figure
Q02 data from another study
Q03 data estimated--other
Q04 potentially useful future data
Q10 potential problem with data
Q11 suspected problem with data
Q12 known problem with data
Q13 duplicate?
Q14 inconsistency
Q15 seasonal model, not annual
Q16 model has a soil water component or dependency
----------
Rank [ in srdb_studies.csv ]
Note this score (1-4, with 1 being "highly relevant" and 4 "not relevant") is not an assessment of the study's scientific merit or validity; it's simply a judgement, based on reading the abstract and title, of how relevant this study is to the database (i.e., is it likely to have appropriate data?).