• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Closed Access close
• Open Source close
• 13. Climate action close
• CN close
• GB close
• UA close

Public acceptance (PA) is nowadays essential for the sustainable development of nuclear energy and becomes animportant issue for research community. Although some studies had investigated the factors influencing PA ofnuclear energy, few researches were founded to verify the impact of cultural values. This research proposed atheoretical model to explore how individualism and collectivism, as an important dimension of culture, moderated the relevance between perceived risk/benefit and PA. A questionnaire survey was conducted nationwidein China whose number of under-construction nuclear power plants ranks first in the world, and received 887valid responses. The analysis of moderating effect showed individualism weakened the relevance betweenperceived benefit and PA, whereas collectivism had no significant moderating role on the relevance betweenperceived benefit and PA. Collectivism strengthened the relevance between perceived risk and PA, whereasindividualism had no significant moderating role on the relevance between perceived risk and PA. Moreover,perceived benefit was confirmed to be a more important predictor for PA than perceived risk. The abovementioned findings could not only provide new insights that help to understand the difference in energy policiesbetween China and the developed countries, but also provide new reference and guidance for the future policymaking. Public acceptance (PA) is nowadays essential for the sustainable development of nuclear energy and becomes animportant issue for research community. Although some studies had investigated the factors influencing PA ofnuclear energy, few researches were founded to verify the impact of cultural values. This research proposed atheoretical model to explore how individualism and collectivism, as an important dimension of culture, moderated the relevance between perceived risk/benefit and PA. A questionnaire survey was conducted nationwidein China whose number of under-construction nuclear power plants ranks first in the world, and received 887valid responses. The analysis of moderating effect showed individualism weakened the relevance betweenperceived benefit and PA, whereas collectivism had no significant moderating role on the relevance betweenperceived benefit and PA. Collectivism strengthened the relevance between perceived risk and PA, whereasindividualism had no significant moderating role on the relevance between perceived risk and PA. Moreover,perceived benefit was confirmed to be a more important predictor for PA than perceived risk. The abovementioned findings could not only provide new insights that help to understand the difference in energy policiesbetween China and the developed countries, but also provide new reference and guidance for the future policymaking.

Description: The eddy covariance technique was used to record continuous, non-invasive measurements of CO2, H2O and energy exchange between the ecosystem and the atmosphere. The measuring system consists of a semi-open path infrared gas analyser LI-7200 (LI-COR, USA), and a CSAT3 Sonic Anemometer (Campbell Scientific, USA) at a measuring height of 52 m over a canopy height of ~25 m. Data were recorded at a frequency of 20 Hz that was treated using the post-processing software EddyPro® (v.7.0.6; www.licor.com/eddypro) to compute fluxes for each 30-minute averaging period. To treat the raw fluxes, primary data processing steps were applied, including spike removal (Vickers, 1997 J Atmos Ocean Technol), coordinate rotation, block averaging detrending of CO2, H2O and sonic temperature, time lag compensation using covariance maximisation detection method, random uncertainty estimation (Finkelstein et al. 2001 Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres), computation of turbulent fluxes and mean fluxes, spectral corrections (Moncrieff et al. 1997 J Hydrol Amst) using correction of low-pass filtering effects, planar fit rotation (Wilczak et al. 2001 Boundary Layer Meteorol) and quality flagging policy (Göckede et al. 2006 Boundary Layer Meteorol). Eddy covariance meteorological data from above and below canopy is available at DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3888374. Cells with -9999 represent not enough data collected, which can be regarded as NA. This data has been collected over a heavily logged landscape between 2012 - 2018, please note 2016 was removed from this dataset. Before 2015, the landscape was ~10 years recovering from it's previous round of logging (four times logged). During 2015 the landscape was salvaged logged, removing 75% of tree stand basal area. The first data sheet, named "Raw_data" contains all raw fluxes that have been treated by EddyPro, which have not been filtered or quality controlled. The second sheet, named "Daily_fluxes" contains daily mean fluxes of net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE), ecosystem respirationn (Reco) and gross primary productivity and their associated standard errors. Net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) was calculated by adding the estimated CO2 storage flux to the observed CO2 flux. Data was subjecto quality control including the removal of quality flags 4 and 5 (Göckede et al. 2006 Boundary Layer Meteorol) and the application of a mean u* threshold of >0.29 m s-1 to the dataset, as established using the package "REddyProc" (v.1.2; (Wultzer et al. 2019 Biogeosciences)) in based on the Moving Point Method (Reichstein et al. 2005, GCB). Data was subsequently gap filled and partitioned, as descripted within the variable methods of this sheet. This data was part of an analysis of carbon fluxes within three periods of data collection: in 2012 – 2013, which captured the four-times logged ecosystem ~10 years after its previous round of logging, in 2015 during a new round of active salvage logging, and in 2017 – 2018 when the ecosystem was recovery 2-3 years after the salvage logging. Days with large standard errors for Reco (> ± 5 µmol m−2 s−1) were deemed as bad quality and removed from the dataset and we used only days that had four or more observed half-hourly values of NEE. Of the final dataset , 29.5% of the half-hourly values are original observed fluxes, and 70.5% gap-filled. Of the 455 days remaining after all filtering processes were applied, 65 days were during the 10-years recovery phase (2012-2013), 100 during the active salvage logging (2015) and 290 during the 2-3 years recovery from active salvage logging phase (2017-2018). Project: This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: Changing carbon dioxide and water budgets from deforestation and habitat modification XML metadata: GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available here Files: This consists of 1 file: SAFE_EC_byYear.xlsx SAFE_EC_byYear.xlsx This file contains dataset metadata and 6 data tables: Raw_data_2012_2013 (described in worksheet Raw_data_2012_2013) Description: EddyPro output of eddy covariance data collected at 52m at the top of the flux tower. Number of fields: 105 Number of data rows: 24213 Fields: Location: SAFE flux tower location name, as in the SAFE Gazetteer (Field type: location) date: Date of the end of the averaging period (Field type: date) time: Time of the end of the averaging period (Field type: time) DOY: decimal day of year (Field type: numeric) daytime: Daytime or nightime, 1 = daytime, 0 = nighttime (Field type: numeric) file_records: Number of valid records found in the raw file (or set of raw files) (Field type: numeric) used_records: Number of valid records used for current the averaging period (Field type: numeric) Tau: Corrected momentum flux (Field type: numeric) qc_Tau: Quality flag for momentum flux, Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_Tau: Random error for momentum flux, if selected (Field type: numeric) H: Corrected sensible heat flux (Field type: numeric) qc_H: Quality flag for sensible heat flux, Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_H: Random error for momentum flux, if selected (Field type: numeric) LE: Corrected latent heat flux (Field type: numeric) qc_LE: Quality flag of latent heat flux based on Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_LE: Random error for latent heat flux, if selected (Field type: numeric) co2_flux: CO2 flux (Field type: numeric) qc_co2_flux: Quality flag for CO2 flux, Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_co2_flux: Random error of CO2 flux (Field type: numeric) h2o_flux: H2O flux (Field type: numeric) qc_h2o_flux: Quality flag of H20 flux, Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_h2o_flux: Random error of CO2 flux (Field type: numeric) H_strg: Estimate of storage sensible heat flux (Field type: numeric) LE_strg: Estimate of storage latent heat flux (Field type: numeric) co2_strg: Estimate of storage CO2 flux (Field type: numeric) h2o_strg: Estimate of storage H20 flux (Field type: numeric) co2_v.adv: Estimate of vertical advection flux of CO2 (Field type: numeric) h2o_v.adv: Estimate of vertical advection flux of H20 (Field type: numeric) co2_molar_density: Measured or estimated molar density of gas (Field type: numeric) co2_mole_fraction: Measured or estimated mole fraction of gas (Field type: numeric) co2_mixing_ratio: Measured or estimated mixing ratio of gas (Field type: numeric) co2_time_lag: Time lag used to synchronize gas time series (Field type: numeric) co2_def_timelag: Flag: whether the reported time lag is the default (1) or calculated (0) (Field type: numeric) h2o_molar_density: Measured or estimated molar density of gas (Field type: numeric) h2o_mole_fraction: Measured or estimated mole fraction of gas (Field type: numeric) h2o_mixing_ratio: Measured or estimated mixing ratio of gas (Field type: numeric) h2o_time_lag: Time lag used to synchronize gas time series (Field type: numeric) h2o_def_timelag: Flag: whether the reported time lag is the default (1) or calculated (0) (Field type: numeric) sonic_temperature: Mean temperature of ambient air as measured by the anemometer (Field type: numeric) air_temperature: Mean temperature of ambient air, either calculated from high frequency air temperature readings, or estimated from sonic temperature (Field type: numeric) air_pressure: Mean pressure of ambient air, either calculated from high frequency air pressure readings, or estimated based on site altitude (barometric pressure) (Field type: numeric) air_density: Density of ambient air (Field type: numeric) air_heat_capacity: Specific heat at constant pressure of ambient air (Field type: numeric) air_molar_volume: Molar volume of ambient air (Field type: numeric) ET: Evapotranspiration flux (Field type: numeric) water_vapor_density: Ambient mass density of water vapor (Field type: numeric) e: Ambient water vapor partial pressure (Field type: numeric) es: Ambient water vapor partial pressure at saturation (Field type: numeric) specific_humidity: Ambient specific humidity on a mass basis (Field type: numeric) RH: Ambient relative humidity (Field type: numeric) VPD: Ambient water vapor pressure deficit (Field type: numeric) Tdew: Ambient dew point temperature (Field type: numeric) u_unrot: Wind component along the u anemometer axis (Field type: numeric) v_unrot: Wind component along the v anemometer axis (Field type: numeric) w_unrot: Wind component along the w anemometer axis (Field type: numeric) u_rot: Rotated u wind component (mean wind speed) (Field type: numeric) v_rot: Rotated v wind component (should be zero) (Field type: numeric) w_rot: Rotated w wind component (should be zero) (Field type: numeric) wind_speed: Mean wind speed (Field type: numeric) max_wind_speed: Maximum instantaneous wind speed (Field type: numeric) wind_dir: Direction from which the wind blows, with respect to Geographic or Magnetic north (Field type: numeric) yaw: First rotation angle (Field type: numeric) pitch: Second rotation angle (Field type: numeric) u.: Friction velocity (Field type: numeric) TKE: Turbulent kinetic energy (Field type: numeric) L: Monin-Obukhov length (Field type: numeric) X.z.d..L: Monin-Obukhov stability parameter - (z-d)/L (Field type: numeric) bowen_ratio: Sensible heat flux to latent heat flux ratio (Field type: numeric) T.: Scaling temperature (Field type: numeric) model: Model for footprint estimation, 1- Kljun et al. (2004): A crosswind integrated parameterization of footprint estimations obtained with a 3D Lagrangian model by means of a scaling procedure.2 - Kormann and Meixner (2001): A crosswind integrated model based on the solution of the two dimensional advection-diffusion equation given by van Ulden (1978) and others for power-law profiles in wind velocity and eddy diffusivity, 3 - Hsieh et al. (2000): A crosswind integrated model based on the former model of Gash (1986) and on simulations with a Lagrangian stochastic model. (Field type: numeric) x_peak: Along-wind distance providing <1% contribution to turbulent fluxes (Field type: numeric) x_offset: Along-wind distance providing the highest (peak) contribution to turbulent fluxes (Field type: numeric) x_10.: Along-wind distance providing 10% (cumulative) contribution to turbulent fluxes (Field type: numeric) x_30.: Along-wind distance providing 30% (cumulative) contribution to turbulent fluxes (Field type: numeric) x_50.: Along-wind distance providing 50% (cumulative) contribution to turbulent fluxes (Field type: numeric) x_70.: Along-wind distance providing 70% (cumulative) contribution to turbulent fluxes (Field type: numeric) x_90.: Along-wind distance providing 90% (cumulative) contribution to turbulent fluxes (Field type: numeric) un_Tau: Uncorrected momentum flux (Field type: numeric) Tau_scf: Spectral correction factor for momentum flux (Field type: numeric) un_H: Uncorrected sensible heat flux (Field type: numeric) H_scf: Spectral correction factor for sensible heat flux (Field type: numeric) un_LE: Uncorrected latent heat flux (Field type: numeric) LE_scf: Spectral correction factor for latent heat flux (Field type: numeric) un_co2_flux: Uncorrected gas flux (Field type: numeric) co2_scf: Spectral correction factor for gas flux (Field type: numeric) un_h2o_flux: Uncorrected gas flux (Field type: numeric) h2o_scf: Spectral correction factor for gas flux (Field type: numeric) spikes_hf: Hard flags for individual variables for spike test (Field type: numeric) amplitude_resolution_hf: Hard flags for individual variables for amplitude resolution (Field type: numeric) drop_out_hf: Hard flags for individual variables for drop-out test (Field type: numeric) absolute_limits_hf: Hard flags for individual variables for absolute limits (Field type: numeric) skewness_kurtosis_hf: Hard flags for individual variables for skewness and kurtosis (Field type: numeric) skewness_kurtosis_sf: Soft flags for individual variables for skewness and kurtosis test (Field type: numeric) discontinuities_hf: Hard flags for individual variables for discontinuities test (Field type: numeric) discontinuities_sf: Soft flags for individual variables for discontinuities test (Field type: numeric) timelag_hf: Hard flags for gas concentration for time lag test (Field type: numeric) timelag_sf: Soft flags for gas concentration for time lag test (Field type: numeric) attack_angle_hf: Hard flags for gas concentration for time lag test (Field type: numeric) non_steady_wind_hf: Soft flags for gas concentration for time lag test (Field type: numeric) u_spikes: Number of spikes detected and eliminated for rotated u wind component (Field type: numeric) v_spikes: Number of spikes detected and eliminated forrotated v wind component (Field type: numeric) w_spikes: Number of spikes detected and eliminated for rotated w wind component (Field type: numeric) ts_spikes: Number of spikes detected and eliminated for ts variable (Field type: numeric) co2_spikes: Number of spikes detected and eliminated for co2 variable (Field type: numeric) h2o_spikes: Number of spikes detected and eliminated for h2o variable (Field type: numeric) Raw_data_2014 (described in worksheet Raw_data_2014) Description: EddyPro output of eddy covariance data collected at 52m at the top of the flux tower. There is a significant data gap, with some intermittent records available during the daytime, between 17/2/2014-17/06/2014 due to the problems in the power supply. Number of fields: 105 Number of data rows: 17520 Fields: Location: SAFE flux tower location name, as in the SAFE Gazetteer (Field type: location) date: Date of the end of the averaging period (Field type: date) time: Time of the end of the averaging period (Field type: time) DOY: decimal day of year (Field type: numeric) daytime: Daytime or nightime, 1 = daytime, 0 = nighttime (Field type: numeric) file_records: Number of valid records found in the raw file (or set of raw files) (Field type: numeric) used_records: Number of valid records used for current the averaging period (Field type: numeric) Tau: Corrected momentum flux (Field type: numeric) qc_Tau: Quality flag for momentum flux, Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_Tau: Random error for momentum flux, if selected (Field type: numeric) H: Corrected sensible heat flux (Field type: numeric) qc_H: Quality flag for sensible heat flux, Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_H: Random error for momentum flux, if selected (Field type: numeric) LE: Corrected latent heat flux (Field type: numeric) qc_LE: Quality flag of latent heat flux based on Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_LE: Random error for latent heat flux, if selected (Field type: numeric) co2_flux: CO2 flux (Field type: numeric) qc_co2_flux: Quality flag for CO2 flux, Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best, "5" is worst (Field type: numeric) rand_err_co2_flux: Random error of CO2 flux (Field type: numeric) h2o_flux: H2O flux (Field type: numeric) qc_h2o_flux: Quality flag of H20 flux, Göckede et al., 2006: A system based on 5 quality grades. "0" is best,

Studies have shown that food chain length is governed by interactions between species richness, ecosystem size, and resource availability. While redundant trophic links may buffer impacts of species loss on food chain length, higher extinction risks associated with predators may result in bottom-heavy food webs with shorter food chains. The lack of consensus in earlier empirical studies relating species richness and food chain length reflects the need to account robustly for the factors described above. In response to this, we conducted an empirical study to elucidate impacts of land-use change on food chain length in tropical forest streams of Southeast Asia. Despite species losses associated with forest loss at our study areas, results from amino acid isotope analyses showed that food chain length was not linked to land use, ecosystem size or resource availability. Correspondingly, species losses did not have a significant effect on occurrence likelihoods of all trophic guilds except herbivores. Impacts of species losses were likely buffered by high levels of initial trophic redundancy, which declined with canopy cover. Declines in trophic redundancy were most drastic amongst invertivorous fishes. Declines in redundancy across trophic guilds were also more pronounced in wider and more resource-rich streams. While our study found limited evidence for immediate land-use impacts on stream food chains, the potential loss of trophic redundancy in the longer term implies increasing vulnerability of streams to future perturbations, as long as land conversion continues unabated.

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.CMIP.BCC.BCC-ESM1.amip' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The BCC-ESM 1 climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: atmos: BCC_AGCM3_LR (T42; 128 x 64 longitude/latitude; 26 levels; top level 2.19 hPa), atmosChem: BCC-AGCM3-Chem, land: BCC_AVIM2, ocean: MOM4 (1/3 deg 10S-10N, 1/3-1 deg 10-30 N/S, and 1 deg in high latitudes; 360 x 232 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-10 m), seaIce: SIS2. The model was run by the Beijing Climate Center, Beijing 100081, China (BCC) in native nominal resolutions: atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 50 km, seaIce: 50 km.

Dataset associated with the publication "Environmental and economic potential of decentralised electrocatalytic ammonia synthesis powered by solar energy" by Sebastiano C. D'Angelo, Antonio J. Martín, Selene Cobo, Diego Freire-Ordóñez, Gonzalo Guillén-Gosálbez, and Javier Pérez-Ramírez, available at https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EE02683J. The dataset includes the numeric data required to plot all the figures embedded in the main manuscript and in the Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI). The structure of the dataset is here elucidated sheet by sheet: GeneralParameters: numerical values for the scaled functional unit used in the study, the world population value adopted, and the three voltage efficiencies assumed in different parts of the study. AL_BaseCase_SensECE: numerical values associated with the results for the ammonia leaf scenarios adopting a voltage efficiency of 63% (base case) and a Faradaic efficiency varying from 1% to 100%; highest, average, and lowest capacity factors for the solar power production were here used. The ammonia leaf configuration here assessed is the one including solar panels, electrolyzer, and fuel cell as key components. The results report all the ReCiPe 2016 (hierarchical approach) midpoints and endpoints and the values for the assessed planetary boundaries; the levelised cost of ammonia (LCOA) is reported, as well. AL_EtaV75_SensECE: this sheet has the structure as the previous one, but includes the results for the ammonia leaf scenario using 75% voltage efficiency, instead of 63%. The remaining assumptions do not deviate from the base case. AL_Eta100_SensECE: this sheet has the structure as the previous one, but includes the results for the ammonia leaf scenario using 100% voltage efficiency, instead of 63%. The remaining assumptions do not deviate from the base case. AL_NoFC_H2Vented_SensECE: this sheet has the same structure as the sheet "AL_BaseCase_SensECE", but includes the ammonia leaf scenario using a configuration with no fuel cell. The hydrogen by-product was here considered vented to the air. The remaining assumptions do not deviate from the base case. AL_NoFC_H2Subst_SensECE: this sheet has the same structure as the sheet "AL_BaseCase_SensECE", but includes the ammonia leaf scenario using a configuration with no fuel cell. The hydrogen by-product was here considered substituting the production of an equivalent quantity from a water electrolyzer deployed in the same location as the ammonia leaf. The remaining assumptions do not deviate from the base case. AL_BaseCase_SpatAnal_BreakFEff: numerical results for the ammonia leaf base case scenario stemming from the spatial analysis performed on a global grid of 1140 points. The yearly average capacity factors for the solar panels at each location are included, and the results portraying the breakeven Faradaic efficiency for the indicators climate change - CO2 concentration, global warming, human health, and levelised cost of ammonia were included. The assumptions for the voltage efficiency and the other parameters correspond to the base case. AL_BaseCase_SpatAnal_AbsValues: numerical results for the ammonia leaf scenarios using the base case state-of-the-art (34%) and 100% Faradaic efficiency, as well as the base case voltage efficiency of 63%. The same metrics as the previous sheet are reported. The structure of the sheet is the same as the previous one. AL_BaseCase_Breakdowns: breakdown of the same four indicators as the previous sheet for the best and worst combination of Faradaic efficiency and solar panels capacity factors, i.e., 34% Faradaic efficiency and 6% capacity factor on one side and 100% Faradaic efficiency and 26% capacity factor on the other side. The breakdown is divided into solar panels, electrolyser, fuel cell, and other elements. A further breakdown of the levelised cost of ammonia (LCOA) into capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) is provided, as well. The voltage efficiency is the same as the base case, as well as the other parameters. AL_BaseCase_CAPEXSens: numerical results for the levelised cost of ammonia (LCOA) in dependence of the sensitivity on the capital expenditure (CAPEX) for the ammonia leaf configuration assessed in the base case. Two cases assuming state-of-the-art (34%) and 100% Faradaic efficiency were assumed, and lowest, average, and highest capacity factor are included. The remaining parameters do not deviate from the base case configuration. AL_gHB_BestMap: numerical results to produce the map showing the best technology between ammonia leaf (AL) and green Haber-Bosch (gHB) in the category climate change - CO2 concentration for all the assessed locations. column D shows the share of safe operating space (%SOS) for each location, while column E shows which technology was selected, where 1 is ammonia leaf and 2 is green HB. AL_BaseCase_Sensitivity: percentual variation of the results obtained assuming the base configuration ammonia leaf for a state-of-the-art Faradaic efficiency and an average capacity factor for the solar panels. The varied parameters include the voltage efficiency (columns C-D-E), the levelised cost of electricity (columns G-H-I), the electrolyser cost (columns K-L-M), the fuel cell cost (columns O-P-Q), the electrolyser environmental impact (columns S-T-U), and the fuel cell environmental impact (columns W-X-Y). CompTech_BaseCase: environmental and economic metrics characterizing the assessed Haber-Bosch scenarios (business as usual, BAU; blue Haber-Bosch; green Haber-Bosch for lowest, average, and highest solar panels capacity factor; BAU assuming natural gas spot prices in Europe in August 2022). The reported metrics are the ReCiPe 2016 (hierarchical approach) midpoints and endpoints, the planetary boundaries, and the levelised cost of ammonia (LCOA). CompTech_EtaV75: this sheet has the same structure as the previous one, but the hydrogen electrolyser used for the green Haber-Bosch scenarios was assumed to have a 10% stack efficiency improvement. The remaining parameters are the same. CompTech_EtaV100: this sheet has the same structure as the previous one, but the hydrogen electrolyser used for the green Haber-Bosch scenarios was assumed to have a 100% stack efficiency. The remaining parameters are the same. CompValues_Fig1: numerical values for yearly global warming impacts of a selection of countries, as well as for the yearly human health impacts of selected diseases and catastrophic events.

This dataset supports the findings of the article "Nature-based solutions are critical for putting Brazil on track towards net-zero emissions by 2050" from Soterroni et al. (2023) accepted in Global Change Biology.

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.ScenarioMIP.CAS.FGOALS-g3' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The FGOALS-g3 climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: atmos: GAMIL3 (180 x 80 longitude/latitude; 26 levels; top level 2.19hPa), land: CAS-LSM, ocean: LICOM3.0 (LICOM3.0, tripolar primarily 1deg; 360 x 218 longitude/latitude; 30 levels; top grid cell 0-10 m), seaIce: CICE4.0. The model was run by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China (CAS) in native nominal resolutions: atmos: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 100 km, seaIce: 100 km.

Aim: Environmental drivers and host richness play key roles in affecting herbivore diversity. However, the relative effects of these factors and their effects on lineages characterized by high host specificity are not well known. In this study, we explored the extent to which contemporary climate, Quaternary climate change, habitat heterogeneity, and host plants determine the species richness and endemism patterns of herbivorous eriophyoid mites. Location: Global. Taxon: Eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea). Methods: We compiled a dataset comprising 4,278 eriophyoid mite species from 22,973 occurrence sites based on a comprehensive search of the published literature and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) as a basis for predicting their global distribution patterns. We measured the association of environmental variables and host plant richness with species richness and endemism of eriophyoid mites through multiple regression analyses using a simultaneous autoregressive (SAR) model, an ordinary least squares (OLS) model, and a random forest model. We examined the direct and indirect effects of these environmental variables and the host plant richness on eriophyoid mite diversity using structural equation models (SEMs). Results: The species richness and endemism patterns of eriophyoid mites are concentrated in temperate regions. Contemporary climate, Quaternary climate change, habitat heterogeneity, and host plants all significantly affected eriophyoid mite richness, while Quaternary climate change, habitat heterogeneity, and host plants contributed to the eriophyoid mite endemism. Abiotic factors indirectly influenced the species richness and endemism of eriophyoid mites, via biotic factors—host plants. Main conclusions: The species richness and endemism of eriophyoid mites peak in temperate regions, opposite to the patterns of plants and some other organisms. Complex interactions among biotic and abiotic factors shape the current eriophyoid mite species diversity.