• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Restricted close
• Open Source close
• Embargo close
• US close
• FR close

The Global Yield Gap Atlas project (GYGA - http://yieldgap.org ) has undertaken a yield gap assessment following the protocol recommended by van Ittersum et. al. (van Ittersum et. al., 2013). This datafile holds the results for rainfed rice.

This dataset and codebook correspond to the second round of survey data gathered in Denmark in 2023, within the project FULFILL - Fundamental Decarbonisation Through Sufficiency By Lifestyle Changes. As part of Work Package 3 (WP3) in the FULFILL project, we collected quantitative data from six countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, and India. The first round of the survey, consisted of recruiting a representative sample of approximately 2000 households in each country. In this second survey round, we recruit around 500 respondents from the initial survey round, ensuring representativity is maintained. This survey is very similar to the survey in the first round and includes a lot of identical items, including a quantitative assessment of the carbon footprint in the housing, mobility, and diet sectors, socio-economic factors such as age, gender, income, education, household size, life stage, and political orientation. Furthermore, the survey includes measures of quality of life, encompassing aspects such as health and well-being, environmental quality, financial security, and comfort. New for this second round, we have incorporated questions regarding the measures respondents adopted in response to the 2022 energy crisis.

Survey data used in a perception study of stalked barnacle harvesters on the effectiveness of fisheries management practices in Spain, Portugal and France. Harvesters from the following six regions along the Atlantic Arc participated: Morbihan in Brittany (France), Asturias-East, Asturias-West and Galicia (Spain), the Reserva Natural das Berlengas (RNB; Portugal) and the Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina (PNSACV; Portugal). We administered 184 surveys from October 2019 to September 2020 and each region was treated as an independent population. The data includes: general demographic data (Region, Age, Gender, Level of Education, Main income source, Years of Experience); perception data of the effectiveness of the currently implemented management strategies in each region (coded: e_name_of_strategy – using Likert Scale with scores ranging from 1 = completely ineffective to 5 = very effective); data of the willingness for change of the currently implemented management (Yes, No, NA); and data of harvesters’ perceptions regarding the most important strategy to achieve sustainability in the fishery. Because the surveys were conducted both before and during the Covid-19 pandemic (the column Covid indicates whether the data was collected before or during the pandemic), we had to make adjustments in our data collection methods. We provided the following options for survey completion (see the Recollection_of_data column): by hand in a written format, online, or via an oral interview conducted with the assistance of a scientist per telephone. Our results indicate that the majority of harvesters in the regions in Portugal and France were willing to make changes to current management strategies, reflecting their awareness of the need for improvement. Based on the AIC model selection analysis results, the model with the single variable region explained 83% of the cumulative model weight. The variable region was the best predictor of the trends in management strategy preferences, and presented a highly significant goodness-of-fit result (p<0.001), suggesting that regional differences play a significant role in shaping these preferences. No clear trend emerged regarding a single "optimal" management strategy preferred by harvesters across regions. Harvesters in less developed co-management systems favored general input and output restrictions and expressed a desire for greater involvement in co-management processes. Conversely, harvesters in highly developed co-management systems with Territorial User Rights for Fishers (TURFs) preferred the most restrictive and spatially explicit management strategies, such as implementing harvest bans and establishing marine reserves. Our findings emphasise that management strategies do not only need to be tailored to each region's particular practices, needs, and characteristics, but that resource users’ readiness for specific strategies also needs to be considered.

These data include population fitness measurements collected for Acartia hudsonica during multigenerational exposure to ocean warming (OW), ocean acidification (OA), and combined ocean warming and acidification (OWA) including a benign ambient condition temperature and CO2 control (AM).

This data publication provides two datasets of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rates sampled during the MomarSat 2022 cruise. One dataset was gathered with a deep autonomous Vertical Microstructure Profiler (VMP-6000). The second dataset was gathered with the MicroRiYo mooring as described in the reference paper (Ferron et al. 2024). The two datasets, one for each instrument, are available as tar files. Each tar file contains fourteen NetCDF files. Each NetCDF file contains the dissipation rate profile, the time (UTC) of the profile start, the geographical position (deployment of the VMP or mooring position), and the mean pressure for each dissipation rate estimate (two estimates at each pressure level from the two shear sensors). Each dissipation rate comes with a quality control matrix QC (14 x 4) that characterizes how the associated mean shear spectrum fitted the expected theoretical Nasmyth spectrum: QC( 1:10, 1 ) : Value of the 10 criteria used (see reference paper) for the dissipation rates of shear 1. QC( 1:10, 2 ): Criteria met (=1) or not met (=0) for shear 1 dissipation rates. QC(11,1): Same criteria as QC(10,1) expressed in terms of mean absolute deviation (MAD) instead of variance (see Lueck et al. 2022) (shear 1). QC(11,2): state whether criteria QC(11,1) is met (=1) or not met (=0) (shear 1). QC(12,1): Number of shear spectra averaged to compute one dissipation rate estimate (shear 1). QC(12,2): Number of accelerometer used to remove vibrations (Goodman et al. 2006; Lueck et al. 2022; Ferron et al. 2023) (shear 1) QC(13,1): MAD (shear 1) QC(13,2): unused QC(14,1): index of first used spectral component to compute the shear variance used in the dissipation rate estimate (shear 1). QC(14,2): index of last used spectral component to compute the shear variance used in the dissipation rate estimate (shear 1). QC(:,3): same as QC(:,1) for shear 2. QC(:,4): same as QC(:,2) for shear 2. Shear data were processed following the processing flow chart of the Atomix SCOR Working Group 160 (https://wiki.app.uib.no/atomix/index.php?title=Flow_chart_for_shear_probes). References: Ferron, B., S. Leizour, M. Hamon, O. Peden, 2024: MicroRiYo : An observing system for deep repeated profiles of kinetic energy dissipation rates from shear-microstructure turbulence along a mooring line, submitted to J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. Lueck, R. G., 2022: The Statistics of Oceanic Turbulence Measurements. Part II: Shear Spectra and a New Spectral Model. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 39, 1273–1282, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-21-0050.1.

Monthly and daily summary from the Fortuna Station (Centro de Investigaciones Jorge L. Arauz)Location: 8° 43.340'N, 82° 14.241'WParameters: air temperature, wind speed and direction, precipitation, solar radiation (pyranometer)Located in the highlands of the Chiriqui Province, in western Panama.There are three sensor locations: north clearing, south clearing, and a 15m tower.