• Energy Research

List of Ameriflux, AON and FLUXNET sites contained in this dataset and their corresponding siteid's and doi's: CA-SCB (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498754), FI-Lom (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440228), GL-NuF (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440222), GL-ZaF (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440223), GL-ZaH (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440224), RU-Che (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440181), RU-Cok (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440182), RU-Sam (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440185), RU-Tks (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440244), RU-Vrk (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440245), SE-St1 (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440187), SJ-Adv (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440241), SJ-Blv (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440242), US-A03 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498752), US-A10 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498753), US-An1 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246142), US-An2 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246143), US-An3 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246144), US-Atq (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246029), US-Brw (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246041), US-EML (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1418678), US-HVa (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246064), US-ICh (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246133), US-ICs (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246130), US-ICt (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246131), US-Ivo (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246067), US-NGB (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1436326), US-Upa (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246108), US-xHE (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1617729), US-xTL (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1617739). Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models.This dataset contains metadata information about surface energy budget components measured at 64 tundra and glacier sites >60° N across the Arctic. This information was taken from the open-access repositories FLUXNET, Ameriflux, AON, GC-Net and PROMICE. The contained datasets are associated with the publication vegetation type as an important predictor of the Arctic Summer Land Surface Energy Budget by Oehri et al. 2022, and intended to support research of surface energy budgets and their relationship with environmental conditions, in particular vegetation characteristics across the terrestrial Arctic.

These files contain Surface Energy Balance data at the Kettle Ponds (CKP) site as part of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory’s deployment in the Sail-SPLASH Campaign between October 2021 through August 2023.

AbstractDespite the importance of high-latitude surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the rapidly changing Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. Here, we harmonize SEB observations across a network of vegetated and glaciated sites at circumpolar scale (1994–2021). Our variance-partitioning analysis identifies vegetation type as an important predictor for SEB-components during Arctic summer (June-August), compared to other SEB-drivers including climate, latitude and permafrost characteristics. Differences among vegetation types can be of similar magnitude as between vegetation and glacier surfaces and are especially high for summer sensible and latent heat fluxes. The timing of SEB-flux summer-regimes (when daily mean values exceed 0 Wm−2) relative to snow-free and -onset dates varies substantially depending on vegetation type, implying vegetation controls on snow-cover and SEB-flux seasonality. Our results indicate complex shifts in surface energy fluxes with land-cover transitions and a lengthening summer season, and highlight the potential for improving future Earth system models via a refined representation of Arctic vegetation types.