• Energy Research
• 2021-2025close
• 7. Clean energy close
• 11. Sustainability close
• 15. Life on land close
• GB close
• DE close
• AU close

{"references": ["UNSD Demographic Statistics, available at http://data.un.org", "The World Bank GDP data, available at https://data.worldbank.org/", "UNFCCC: Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data, available at https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/what-is-greenhouse-gas-data"]} Dataset containing all greenhouse gas emissions data submitted by countries under climate change convention (including CRF data) as published by the UNFCCC secretariat at 2021-12-03. The dataset is also available via datalad. To obtain the dataset with datalad, see the instructions at https://github.com/mikapfl/unfccc_di_data .

Although GPS coordinates for current populations are not included due to the potential threat of poaching, the climate variables for each species are provided. The records for extant gecko and skinks mainly came from the New Zealand's Department of Conervation Herpetofauna Database. After updating the taxonomy and cleaning the data to reflect the taxonomy as at 2019 of 43 geckos speceis recognised across seven genera and 61 species in genus, we then thinned the occurrence records at a 1 km resolution for all species then predicted distributions for those with > 15 records using species distribution models. The climate variables for each species were selected among annual mean temperature (bio1), maximum temperature of the warmest month (bio5), minimum temperature of the coldest month (bio6), mean temperature of driest quarter (bio9), mean temperature of wettest quarter (bio10), and precipitation of the driest quarter (bio17). To reduce multicollinearity in species distribution models for each species, we only retained climate variables with a variable inflation factor < 10. The climate variables were from the CHELSA database (https://chelsa-climate.org/), which can be freely downloaded for current and future scenarios. We also provide MCC tree files for the geckos and skinks. The phylogenetic trees have been constructed for NZ geckos by (Nielsen et al., 2011) and for NZ skinks by (Chapple et al., 2009). For geckos we used a subset of the sequences used by Nielsen et al. (2011) for four genes, two nuclear (RAG 1, PDC) and two mitochondrial (16S, ND2 along with flanking tRNA sequences). For skinks, we used sequences from Chapple et al. (2009) for one nuclear (RAG 1) and five mitochondrial (ND2, ND4, Cyt b, 12S and 16S) genes, and additional ND2 sequences for taxa not included in the original phylogeny (Chapple et al., 2011, p. 201). In total we used sequences for all recognised extant taxa (Hitchmough et al., 2016) as at 2019 except for three species of skink (O. aff. inconspicuum “Okuru”, O. robinsoni, and O. aff. inconspicuum “North Otago”) and two species of gecko (M. “Cupola” and W. “Kaikouras”) for which genetic data were not available. Aim: The primary drivers of species and population extirpations have been habitat loss, overexploitation, and invasive species, but human-mediated climate change is expected to be a major driver in future. To minimise biodiversity loss, conservation managers should identify species vulnerable to climate change and prioritise their protection. Here, we estimate climatic suitability for two speciose taxonomic groups, then use phylogenetic analyses to assess vulnerability to climate change. Location: Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) Taxa: NZ lizards: diplodactylid geckos and eugongylinae skinks Methods: We built correlative species distribution models (SDMs) for NZ geckos and skinks to estimate climatic suitability under current climate and 2070 future-climate scenarios. We then used Bayesian phylogenetic mixed models (BPMMs) to assess vulnerability for both groups with predictor variables for life history traits (body size and activity phase) and current distribution (elevation and latitude). We explored two scenarios: an unlimited dispersal scenario, where projections track climate, and a no-dispersal scenario, where projections are restricted to areas currently identified as suitable. Results: SDMs projected vulnerability to climate change for most modelled lizards. For species’ ranges projected to decline in climatically suitable areas, average decreases were between 42–45% for geckos and 33–91% for skinks, although area did increase or remain stable for a minority of species. For the no-dispersal scenario, the average decrease for geckos was 37–52% and for skinks was 33–52%. Our BPMMs showed phylogenetic signal in climate change vulnerability for both groups, with elevation increasing vulnerability for geckos, and body size reducing vulnerability for skinks. Main conclusions: NZ lizards showed variable vulnerability to climate change, with most species’ ranges predicted to decrease. For species whose suitable climatic space is projected to disappear from within their current range, managed relocation could be considered to establish populations in regions that will be suitable under future climates.

The atmosphere concentration of CO2 is steadily increasing and causing climate change. To achieve the Paris 1.5 or 2 oC target, negative emissions technologies must be deployed in addition to reducing carbon emissions. The ocean is a large carbon sink but the potential of marine primary producers to contribute to carbon neutrality remains unclear. Here we review the alterations to carbon capture and sequestration of marine primary producers (including traditional ‘blue carbon’ plants, microalgae, and macroalgae) in the Anthropocene, and, for the first time, assess and compare the potential of various marine primary producers to carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation via biogeoengineering approaches. The contributions of marine primary producers to carbon sequestration have been decreasing in the Anthropocene due to the decrease in biomass driven by direct anthropogenic activities and climate change. The potential of blue carbon plants (mangroves, saltmarshes, and seagrasses) is limited by the available areas for their revegetation. Microalgae appear to have a large potential due to their ubiquity but how to enhance their carbon sequestration efficiency is very complex and uncertain. On the other hand, macroalgae can play an essential role in mitigating climate change through extensive offshore cultivation due to higher carbon sequestration capacity and substantial available areas. This approach seems both technically and economically feasible due to the development of offshore aquaculture and a well-established market for macroalgal products. Synthesis and applications: This paper provides new insights and suggests promising directions for utilizing marine primary producers to achieve the Paris temperature target. We propose that macroalgae cultivation can play an essential role in attaining carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation, although its ecological impacts need to be assessed further. To calculate the parameters presented in Table 1, the relevant keywords "mangroves, salt marshes, macroalgae, microalgae, global area, net primary productivity, CO2 sequestration" were searched through the ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar in July 2021. Recent data published after 2010 were collected and used since area and productivity of plants change with decade. For data with limited availability, such as net primary productivity (NPP) of seagrasses and global area and NPP of wild macroalgae, data collection was extended back to 1980. Total NPP and CO2 sequestration for mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses and wild macroalgae were obtained by the multiplication of area and NPP/CO2 sequestration density and subjected to error propagation analysis. Data were expressed as means ± standard error.

This data publication offers updated data about low-carbon energy technology (LCET) patents and citations links to the scientific literature. Compared to a [previous version](https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2941555), it also contains data on biofuels and fuels from waste technologies. The updated version also contains the code (R-scripts) that have been used to (1) compile the data and (2) to reproduce the statistical analysis including figures and tables presented in the final paper Hötte, Pichler, Lafond (2021): "The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies", RSER. DOI: [10.1016/j.rser.2020.110654](10.1016/j.rser.2020.110654). This data publication contains different data sets (in .RData and (long-term archivable) .tsv format). Further information about each data set is provided in more detail below. - "all_papers.RData" : Data on scientific papers from Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), 3 columns: Paper ID, Paper year, cited (binary 0-1, indicates whether the paper is cited by a patent). - "all_patents.RData" : Data on USPTO utility patents, 6 columns: Patent number, Patent year (grant year), CPC class, Patent date, Patent title, citing_to_science (binary 0-1, indicates whether the patent is citing to science). - "LCET_patents.RData" : Subset of LCET patents, 6 columns: Patent number, Patent year (grant year), Technology type, CPC class, Patent date, Patent title. - "LCET_patent_citations.RData" : Citations from LCET patents to other patents, 2 columns: citing, cited (Patent numbers). - "LCET_subset_with_metainfo_final.RData" : Citations from LCET patents to scientific papers from MAG, complemented by meta-information on patents and papers, 18 columns: Patent number, Paper ID, Patent year, Paper year, Technology type, WoS field, Patent title, Paper title, DOI, Confidence Score, Citation type, Reference type, Journal/ Conf. name, Journal ID, Conference ID, CPC class, Patent date, US patent. - "patent:citations.RData": Patent citations among all patents (not only LCET), 2 columns: citing, cited (Patent numbers). Moreover, this data publication contains a folder "code" with 2 subfolders: - "R_code_create_data" contains the R-scripts used to create the data sample. - "R_code_plots_and_figures" contains all R-scripts used to make the statistical analyses presented in the text (including figures and tables). Please check the read-me documents in the code folder for further detail. ### License and terms of use ### This data is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode Please find the full license text below. If you want to use the data, do not forget to give appropriate credit by citing this article: Kerstin Hötte, Anton Pichler, François Lafond, The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 139, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110654 ### LCET definition and concepts ### LCET are defined by Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes. CPC offers "tags" that are assigned to patents that are useful for the adaptation and mitigation of climate chagen. LCET are identified by YO2E codes, i.e. that are assigned to technologies that contribute to the "REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS [GHG] EMISSIONS, RELATED TO ENERGY GENERATION, TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION". Only the subset of Y02E01 ("Energy generation through renewable energy sources"), Y02E03 ("Energy generation of nuclear origin") and Y02E5 ("Technologies for the production of fuel of non-fossil origin") technologies are used. 10 different LCET are distinguished: Solar PV, Wind, Solar thermal, Ocean power, Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Biofuels, Fuels from waste, Nuclear fission and Nuclear fusion. More information about the Y02-tags can be found in: Veefkind, Victor, et al. "A new EPO classification scheme for climate change mitigation technologies." World Patent Information 34.2 (2012): 106-111. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2011.12.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2011.12.004) ### Data sources and compilation ### The data was generated by the merge of different data sets. 1.) Patent data from USPTO was downloaded here: https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/ 2.) Complementary data on grant year and patent title was taken from: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data 3.) Citations to science come from the Reliance on Science (RoS) data set https://zenodo.org/record/3685972 (v23, Feb. 24, 2020) DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3685972 The directory ("code") offers the R-scripts that were used to process MAG data and to link it to patent data. The header of the R-scripts offer additional technical information about the subsetting procedures and data retrieval. For more information about the patent data, see: Pichler, A., Lafond, F. & J, F. D. (2020), Technological interdependencies predict innovation dynamics, Working paper pp. 1–33. URL: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.00580](https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.00580) For more information about MAG data, see: Marx, Matt, and Aaron Fuegi. "Reliance on science: Worldwide front‐page patent citations to scientific articles." Strategic Management Journal 41.9 (2020): 1572-1594. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3145](https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3145) Marx, Matt and Fuegi, Aaron, Reliance on Science: Worldwide Front-Page Patent Citations to Scientific Articles. Boston University Questrom School of Business Research Paper No. 3331686. DOI: [http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331686 ](http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331686 ) ### Detailed information about the data ### - "all_papers.RData" : Data on scientific papers from Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), 3 columns: Paper ID: Unique paper-identifier used by MAG Paper year: Year of publication cited: binary 0-1, indicates whether the paper is cited by a patent, citation links are made in the text body and front-page of the patent, and added by examiners and applicants. - "all_patents.RData" : Data on USPTO utility patents, 6 columns: Patent number: Number given by USPTO. Can be used for manual patent search in http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm (numeric) Patent year: Year when the patent was granted (numeric) CPC class: Detailed 8-digit CPC code (numeric) Patent date: Exact date of patent granting (numeric) Patent title: Short title (character) citing_to_science: binary 0-1, indicates whether the patent is citing to science as identified by citation links in RoS. (numeric) - "LCET_patents.RData" : Subset of LCET patents, 6 columns: Patent number: (numeric) Patent year: (numeric) Technology type: Short code used to tag 10 different types of LCET (pv, (nuclear) fission, (solar) thermal, (nuclear) fusion, wind, geo(termal), sea (ocean power), hydro, biofuels, (fuels from) waste) (character) CPC class: Detailed 8-digit CPC code (character) Patent date: (numeric) Patent title: (numeric) - "LCET_patent_citations.RData" : Citations from LCET patents to other patents, 2 columns: citing: Number of citing patent (numeric) cited: Number of cited patent (numeric) - "LCET_subset_with_metainfo_final.RData" : Citations from LCET patents to scientific papers from MAG, complemented by meta-information on patents and papers, 18 columns: Patent number: see above (numeric) Paper ID: see above (numeric) Patent year: see above (numeric) Paper year: see above (numeric) Technology type: see above (character) WoS field: Web of Science field of research, WoS fields were probabilistically assigned to papers and are used as given by RoS (character) Patent title: see above (character) Paper title: Title of scientific article (character) DOI: Paper DOI if available (character) Confidence Score: Reliability score of citation link (numeric). Links were probabilistically assigned. See Marx and Fuegi 2019 for further detail. Citation type: Indicates whether citation made in text body of patent document or its front page (character) Reference type: Examiner or applicant added citation link (or unknown). (character) Journal/ Conf. name: Name of journal or conference proceeding where the cited paper was published (character) Journal ID: Journal identifier in MAG (numeric) Conference ID: Conference identifier in MAG (numeric) CPC class: see above (character) Patent date: see above (numeric) US patent: binary US-patent indicator as provided by RoS (numeric) - "patent:citations.RData": Patent citations among all patents (not only LCET), 2 columns: citing: Number of citing patent (numeric) cited: Number of cited patent (numeric) **Note:** The citation links were probabilistically retrieved. During the analysis, we identified manually some false-positives are removed them from the "LCET_subset_with_metainfo_final.RData" data set. The list is available, too: "list_of_false_positives.tsv" We do not claim to have a perfect coverage, but expect a precision of >98% as described by Marx and Fuegi 2019. ### Statistics about the data ### Full data set: - #papers in MAG: 179,083,029 - #all patents: 10,160,667 - #citing patents: 2,058,233 - #cited papers: 4,404,088 - #citation links from patents to papers: 34,959,193 LCET subset: - #LCET patents: 65,305 - #citing LCET patents: 22,017 - #cited papers: 103,645 - #citation links from LCET patents to papers: 396,504 Meta-information: Papers: - Publication year, 251 Web-of-Science (WoS) categories, Journal/ conference proceedings name, DOI, Paper title Patents: - Grant year, >240,000 hierarchical CPC classes, 10 LCET types Citation links: - Reference type, citation type, reliability score If you have further questions about the data or suggestions, please contact: **kerstin.hotte@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk** ### Acknowledgements ### The authors want to thank the Center for Research Data Management of Bielefeld University and in particular Cord Wiljes for excellent support. ### License issues ### Terms of use of the source data: - Reliance on Science data [https://zenodo.org/record/3685972](https://zenodo.org/record/3685972), Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By) v1.0, https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ - "Google Patents Public Data” by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services and Google (https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data), Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), https://console.cloud.google.com/marketplace/details/google_patents_public_datasets/google-patents-public-data - USPTO patent data (https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/), see: https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/data/2020TermsConditions.docx

Aim: We propose that forest trees create a vertical dimension for ecological niche variation that generates different regimes of climatic exposure, which in turn drives species elevation distributions. We test this hypothesis by statistically modelling the vertical and elevation distributions and microclimate exposure of rainforest ants. Location: Wet Tropics Bioregion, Australia Methods: We conducted 60 ground-to-canopy surveys to determine the vertical (tree) and elevation distributions, and microclimate exposure of ants (101 species) at 15 sites along four mountain ranges. We statistically modelled elevation range size as a function of ant species’ vertical niche breadth and exposure to temperature variance for 55 species found at two or more trees. Results: We found a positive association between vertical niche and elevation range of ant species: for every 3 m increase in vertical niche breadth our models predict a ~150% increase in mean elevation range size. Temperature variance increased with vertical height along the arboreal gradient and ant species exposure to temperature variance explained some of the variation in elevation range size. Main Conclusions: We demonstrate that arboreal ants have broader elevation ranges than ground-dwelling ants and are likely to have increased resilience to climatic variance. The capacity of species to expand their niche by climbing trees could influence their ability to persist over broader elevation ranges. We propose that wherever vertical layering exists - from oceans to forest ecosystems - vertical niche breadth is a potential mechanism driving macrogeographic distribution patterns and resilience to climate change. Data_collections.csv Main survey collections data in a site by species matrix showing all data for all sites surveyed. Tuna baited vials were placed every three metres from ground to canopy in trees at elevation sites at four subregion mountain ranges of the Australian Wet Tropics Bioregion. Note data file includes empty vials that lacked ants. Microclimate_AthertonTemp.csv This file contains Atherton Uplands temperature data from ibuttons deployed at one tree per elevation (200, 400, 600, 800, 1000) at every three metres in height in Dec-Jan 2017- 2018 set to record every half hour. See file Metadata for details of column names and data values.

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.MOHC.HadGEM3-GC31-MM.historical' 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 HadGEM3-GC3.1-N216ORCA025 climate model, released in 2016, includes the following components: aerosol: UKCA-GLOMAP-mode, atmos: MetUM-HadGEM3-GA7.1 (N216; 432 x 324 longitude/latitude; 85 levels; top level 85 km), land: JULES-HadGEM3-GL7.1, ocean: NEMO-HadGEM3-GO6.0 (eORCA025 tripolar primarily 0.25 deg; 1440 x 1205 longitude/latitude; 75 levels; top grid cell 0-1 m), seaIce: CICE-HadGEM3-GSI8 (eORCA025 tripolar primarily 0.25 deg; 1440 x 1205 longitude/latitude). The model was run by the Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, UK (MOHC) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 100 km, atmos: 100 km, land: 100 km, ocean: 25 km, seaIce: 25 km.

Patterns of movement of marine species can reflect strategies of reproduction and dispersal, species’ interactions, trophodynamics, and susceptibility to change, and thus critically inform how we manage populations and ecosystems. On coral reefs, the density and diversity of metazoan taxa is greatest in dead coral and rubble, which is suggested to fuel food webs from the bottom-up. Yet, biomass and secondary productivity in rubble is predominantly available in some of the smallest individuals, limiting how accessible this energy is to higher trophic levels. We address the bioavailability of motile coral reef cryptofauna based on small-scale patterns of emigration in rubble. We deployed modified RUbble Biodiversity Samplers (RUBS) and emergence traps in a shallow rubble patch at Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef, to detect community-level differences in the directional influx of motile cryptofauna under five habitat accessibility regimes. The mean density (0.13–4.5 ind.cm-3) and biomass (0.14–5.2 mg.cm-3) of cryptofauna were high and varied depending on microhabitat accessibility. Emergent zooplankton represented a distinct community (dominated by the Appendicularia and Calanoida) with the lowest density and biomass, indicating constraints on nocturnal resource availability. Mean cryptofauna density and biomass were greatest when interstitial access within rubble was blocked, driven by the rapid proliferation of small harpacticoid copepods from the rubble surface, leading to trophic simplification. Individuals with high biomass (e.g., decapods, gobies, and echinoderms) were greatest when interstitial access within rubble was unrestricted. Treatments with a closed rubble surface did not differ from those completely open, suggesting that top-down predation does not diminish rubble-derived resources. Our results show that conspecific cues and species’ interactions (e.g., competition and predation) within rubble are most critical in shaping ecological outcomes within the cryptobiome. These findings have implications for prey accessibility through trophic and community size structuring in rubble, which may become increasingly relevant as benthic reef complexity shifts in the Anthropocene. We address the bioavailability of coral reef cryptofauna in rubble based on small-scale patterns of emigration. We adapted the accessibility of Rubble Biodiversity Samplers (RUBS), models used to standardise biodiversity sampling in rubble (Wolfe and Mumby 2020), to explore the local movement patterns of rubble-dwelling fauna, with inference to predation processes within and beyond the cryptobenthos. Five treatments were developed to detect community-level differences in the directional influx of motile cryptofauna under various habitat accessibility regimes. Four of these treatments were developed by modifying accessibility into RUBS (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4176644/files) to understand limitations on the directional influx and movement of cryptofauna within coral rubble patches using four treatments; (1) open (completely accessible), (2) interstitial access (top closed), (3) surficial access (sides and bottom closed), and (4) raised (above rubble substratum). The fifth treatment involved a series of emergence plankton traps, designed to target demersal cryptofauna that vertically migrate from within the rubble benthos at night, given emergent zooplankton biomass and diversity are greatest at night. Fieldwork was conducted over several weeks (11th September to 5th October 2021) in a shallow (~3–5 m depth) reef slope site on the southern margin of Heron Island (-23˚26.845’ S, 151˚54.732’ E), Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Fig. 1). All collections were conducted under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority permit G20/44613.1.

Tree cores were sampled using increment borers. At each site three trees were chosen for coring, with two or three cores taken per tree. Cores were sanded and ring widths measured based on high-resolution images of the sanded cores. Cores were cross-dated and summary statistics used to compare cross-dating accuracy. The dataset contains the resulting dated ring width series. This dataset includes tree ring width data, derived from tree cores, that were sampled from sites across the Rhön Biosphere Reserve (Germany). At each chosen site three trees were cored, with two or three cores taken per cored tree. Data was collected in August 2021.

Herbivory assessments were made at the plant community and species levels. We focused on three plant species with a widespread occurrence across the temperature gradient: cuckooflower (Cardamine pratensis, Linnaeus), common mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum, Baumgerten), and marsh violet (Viola palustris, Linnaeus). For assessments of invertebrate herbivory at the species level, thirty individuals per species of C. pratensis, C. fontanum, and V. palustris were marked in each of ten plots, using a stratified random sampling method where individuals were randomly selected, but the full range of within-plot soil temperatures was represented. For assessments of invertebrate herbivory at the community level, five 50 × 50 cm quadrats were marked at random points in eight of the plots that best captured the full temperature gradient. The community-level herbivory assessment was conducted on 19th June. The number of damaged plants was recorded out of 100 random individuals, selected using a 10 × 10 grid within each 50 × 50 cm quadrat. For the species-level herbivory assessment, individual marked plants were surveyed for signs of invertebrate herbivory every two weeks from 30th May to 2nd July, generating three time-points per species. At each survey, all marked individuals for each species were assessed within a 48-hour period. Plants were recorded as damaged or not damaged by invertebrate herbivores at each time-point. Further details of how phenological stage of development, vegetation community composition, soil temperature, moisture, pH, nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate were recorded are provided in the supporting documentation. This is a dataset of environmental data, vegetation cover, and community- and species-level invertebrate herbivory, sampled at 14 experimental soil plots in the Hengill geothermal valley, Iceland, from May to July 2017. The plots span a temperature gradient of 5-35 °C on average over the sampling period, yet they occur within 1 km of each other and have similar soil moisture, pH, nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate.