Download
Last update

Chamber: 2018-08-20

EC_Tower: 2019-04-23

ATM_Tower: 2018-10-19

How to use this application

Map

The central element of this tool is the map, here all sites are shown.

Zoom: either us the mouse scroll button, or the + - boxes in the top left corner.
Pan: hold the map and drag.
Layers: different layers can be selected in the top right corner.

Hover: hovering the mouse over a site will show its name and site ID if available.
Select: Selecting a site shows a box with key site characteristics:
  • Site name
  • Site ID
  • Contact information
  • Years with measurements
  • Biome
  • Publication

Selection controls

In the right hand pane the site selection controls can be found

Measurement Period: the range of years can be selected, it shows all the sites that have at least measured in one year in the selected period.
Total years: selects sites with a total number of measurement years within the selection range.
Latitude and longitude: to make a selection (box) based on the input coordinates.
Country: select based on the location of a site (not the ownership).
Download: download the table of selected sites as csv. We plan to add more meta data to the downloaded records in future releases.

Table

The table in the bottom shows the metadata for each site, it can be scrolled to the right if not all columns are visible

Ordering: The header row can be selected to sort records based on the selected variable.
Search box: The search box searches among all fields of all selected records, but can't be used to make sub selections for download or the map as with the right hand pane.
Data: The link button (if present) in the right most tab links to the actual data, not all sites have data available.

Known issues

Metadata collection for this tool is still a work in progress as part of the ADC and INTAROS initiatives.

  • Chamber site, survey is still in progress and many records are incomplete
  • Atm towers, survey will commence soon, most records incomplete and 2017 used as placeholder for measurement window

Mapping Tool – ABOUT

 

Scientific Foundation for this project:

Carbon (C) stored in the vast forests and soils of northern latitudes remains one of the most important, but least addressed, challenges for evaluating global climate change trajectories. Permafrost soil C has accumulated in perennially frozen soil over thousands of years and currently holds twice as much C as the atmosphere 1-3. As the Arctic warms, this C becomes vulnerable to decomposition. Release of just a fraction of this frozen C as greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), into the atmosphere would dramatically increase the rate of future global climate warming4,5.

Regional and global observation networks are showing rapid and unprecedented change in Earth’s cryosphere such as retreating glaciers6, melting ice sheets7, declining sea ice8, and warming permafrost9. Despite forecasts of significant C cycle changes in the permafrost zone4, there is no equivalent network able to document regional changes in permafrost C. Part of the reason is that permafrost C is not readily detectable at the circumpolar scale with remote sensing technologies. Instead, measurements of permafrost C dynamics occur at individual locations around the Arctic, and efforts to integrate information across sites occur only sporadically rather than systematically. This leaves the science community unable to rapidly report on changes in the permafrost C pool. Systematic synthesis across sites is required to provide the up-to-date, pan-Arctic view needed by society10.

 

About the mapping tool:

This tool maps the locations of current and historic CO2 and CH4 flux measurement locations across the Arctic and Boreal zones. We include chamber, eddy covariance, and atmospheric tall towers for greenhouse gas monitoring which complement each other in scale and provide the most comprehensive ground-based measurement of surface-atmosphere exchange fluxes. The sites shown here were gathered from community surveys conducted within the context of the EU-funded INTAROS project (www.intaros.eu), and literature syntheses11-14. This tool is a culmination of independent efforts that were united in a workshop titled ‘Reconciling historical and contemporary trends in terrestrial carbon exchange of the northern permafrost-zone’ (link: https://arcticdata.io/reconciling-historical-and-contemporary-trends-in-terrestrial-carbon-exchange-of-the-northern-permafrost-zone/ ), funded by the Arctic Data Center (link: https://arcticdata.io) and supported by the Permafrost Carbon Network (link: http://permafrostcarbon.org) .

 

We hope that this tool will:

  • facilitate an easy overview on existing C flux observational infrastructure in high Northern latitudes across disciplines,
  • enhance the visibility of sites that are not (yet) listed within the common databases such as e.g. FLUXNET,
  • allow a quick selection of sites available for studies within certain Arctic regions, or biomes, and (where applicable) link to the data. 

 

We very much hope you'll find this tool useful. If you do, we would appreciate if you would share it with interested colleagues, and help us to maintain and extend the underlying database:

 

  • Metadata correctness: if you find missing and/or incorrect information for some of the sites listed, please let us know which updates and/or corrections are required. 
  • Data gaps: If you are aware of additional sites that are not yet listed, but should be included, please tell us about them. 

 

References

 

1          Zimov, S. A. et al. Permafrost carbon: Stock and decomposability of a globally significant carbon pool. Geophysical Research Letters 33, doi: 10.1029/2006GL027484 (2006).

2          Hugelius, G. et al. Improved estimates show large circumpolar stocks of permafrost carbon while quantifying substantial uncertainty ranges and identifying remaining data gaps. 11, 4771–4822, doi: 10.5194/bgd-11-4771-2014 (2014).

3          Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J. G., Mazhitova, G., Schuur, E. A. G. & Kuhry, P. Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23, doi: 10.1029/2008GB003327 (2009).

4          Schuur, E. A. G. et al. Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520, 171-179, doi:10.1038/nature14338 (2015).

5          Koven, C. et al. Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming. PNAS 108, 14769-14774, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1103910108 (2011).

6          Zemp, M. et al. Historically unprecedented global glacier decline in the early 21st century. Journal of Glaciology 61, 745-762, doi:10.3189/2015JoG15J017 (2015).

7          Vaughan, D. G. et al. Observations: Cryosphere. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013).

8          Perovich, D. et al. Sea Ice [in Arctic Report Card 2016]. (NOAA, http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016/ArtMID/5022/ArticleID/286/Sea-Ice, 2016).

9          Romanovsky, V. E. et al. [The Arctic] Terrestrial Permafrost. In: State of the Climate in 2015. S149-S152 (2015).

10        Overland, J. E., Wang, M., Walsh, J. E. & Stroeve, J. C. Future Arctic climate changes: Adaptation and mitigation time scales. Earth's Future 2, 68-74, doi:10.1002/2013EF000162 (2014).

11        Belshe, E. F., Schuur, E. A. G. & Bolker, B. M. Tundra ecosystems observed to be CO2 sources due to differential amplification of the carbon cycle. Ecology Letters 16, 1307-1315, doi: 10.1111/ele.12164 (2013).

12        McGuire, A. et al. An assessment of the carbon balance of Arctic tundra: comparisons among observations, process models, and atmospheric inversions. Biogeosciences 9, 3185-3204, doi:10.5194/bg-9-3185-2012 (2012).

13        Natali, S. M. et al. in 2017 Joint North American Carbon Program and Ameriflux PI Meeting    (North Bethesda, MD, USA, 2017).

14        Virkkala, A.-M., Virtanen, T., Lehtonen, A., Rinne, J., & Luoto, M. (2018). The current state of CO2 flux chamber studies in the Arctic tundra: A review. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 42(2), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133317745784


Funding


Authors