the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Long-term meteorological and carbon, water and energy flux data from the Boreal Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Sites, Saskatchewan, Canada
Abstract. The Boreal Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Sites (BERMS) are a network of flux tower research sites located near the southern boundary of the Boreal Plains Ecozone in Saskatchewan, Canada. This network includes four principal sites that characterize the region’s dominant vegetation types: mature trembling aspen (Old Aspen, OA, 1997–2017), mature black spruce (Old Black Spruce, OBS, 1997–present), mature jack pine (Old Jack Pine, OJP, 1997–present), and a minerotrophic patterned fen (Fen, 2002–present). The dataset reported here include continuous long-term records of site meteorological variables (air temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, precipitation, wind speed and direction), vertical profiles of soil temperature and volumetric water content, surface energy balance components (soil and biomass heat fluxes, photosynthetic heat flux, and eddy covariance-derived latent and sensible heat fluxes), and carbon fluxes (net ecosystem production, gross primary productivity, and ecosystem respiration). The strengths of the data set are its length and completeness, spanning up to 27 years; the care given to the measurement of net radiation and the minor surface energy balance terms; the care given to the measurement of precipitation and other hydrologic variables; and the proximity of the sites, which enables inter-site comparisons of the responses of the carbon and water balances to climatic controls. The data are available at https://doi.org/10.20383/103.01318 (Helgason et al., 2024).
- Preprint
(2206 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Sep 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-492', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-492', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Sep 2025
reply
General comments
This manuscript presents a long-term dataset of meteorological and flux measurements from four sites of the Boreal Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Sites in Saskatchewan, Canada. Long-term datasets spanning multiple sites and ecosystem types are highly valuable for investigating ecosystem responses to environmental drivers, including climate change, and are of great importance for model evaluation and calibration. The description of the study sites, instrumentation, and measurements is thorough, and the discussion of measurement uncertainties and potential issues is well developed.
However, the data overview section is overly descriptive, especially for the energy, carbon, and water fluxes. The manuscript would benefit from a stronger integration of these results with the site-specific characteristics, as outlined in my “Specific comments” below. In addition, I find that the significance of the dataset is not sufficiently highlighted: (i) the introduction should more explicitly state the objectives of the paper, and (ii) the potential applications of the dataset could be further developed, either in the conclusion or in a dedicated section preceding it.
Overall, this manuscript fits well within the scope of the journal, and I recommend publication after addressing the points below.
Specific comments
Figure 1: Add the latitude and longitude ticks. Could you represent the Boreal Plains Ecozone area on the right map?
L93: “27% of which fell as snow (based on the 1981-2010 normals)”: Could you clarify why the 1981-2010 normals are used here instead of the same period as for precipitation (1991-2020)?
L232: "Vertical soil volumetric water content VWC profiles were measured at two or more locations per site, but each site had its own configuration of sensors and depths.” Could you clarify why the same soil depths were not used across sites for VWC measurements?
L424: “An analysis of the stability of the u*TH over time is provided in Appendix C.” Since Appendix C shows that annual u*TH values have an impact on flux estimates and exhibit temporal trends, it may be worth noting here that using fixed u*TH thresholds could limit the interpretation of interannual variability or long-term trends in carbon fluxes.
L460: Why was CF derived annually rather than at shorter timescales? Did you check whether CF shows seasonal variation at each site? This could be relevant, since model evaluation for example usually requires energy balance closure throughout the year rather than only as an annual adjustment.
L499: “likely related to changes in surface energy partitioning with increasing soil water deficits in July and Aug.” Could you provide a figure in the appendix to support this statement?
L501-505: This section could be more analytical rather than purely descriptive. For example, the lower correlation of VPD anomalies with wind speed anomalies, compared to air temperature and shortwave radiation anomalies, could be discussed in terms of the primary drivers of VPD.
L551-554: Could you mention the implications of the Q/Rn ratios in terms of site-specific characteristics, such as vegetation structure or soil properties? Also, expressing these ratios as percentages could improve readability.
L561-568: Similar to previous comments, this section is mostly descriptive. It would be helpful to discuss the observed differences in H and λE among sites in terms of vegetation functioning, canopy structure, or site-specific hydrological conditions.
Table 4 could be moved to the appendix.
L645: Have you looked at the correlation between FC and MDS NEP at daily or weekly timescales? This could provide additional insight into how the two gap-filling methods compare for shorter-term variability.
L730-735: Why not provide a quality flag for these questionable winter periods (snow, hoar frost, freeze-thaw), so that users can easily identify and handle them?
Figure C1: At OJP, the drop in CF coincides with the instrument change from UBC to LCR, but at OBS the drop occurs earlier (around 2004), before the instrument change. Could you comment on what might explain this earlier decline? In light of this, are the comparison periods (1997–2010 vs 2011–2022) still appropriate for OBS?
Technical corrections
L37: Provide a reference or a link for these data: “The BOREAS data from 1994-1996 are available at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center (ORNL DAAC)”
L41: Provide references or links for these networks: “BERMS played a leading role in the Fluxnet-Canada Research Network (FCRN, 2002-2007) and the Canadian Carbon Program (2007-2011), and has contributed to the Changing Cold Regions Network (2012-2017), Global Water Futures (2017-2023), the Global Water Futures Observatories (starting 2023), the North American Carbon Program, AmeriFlux, and FLUXNET”
L34: Remove “of” in “The primary BOREAS objectives were to better understand of the role…”
L36: “ecosystem C-cycle models”. Define “C” as carbon before using the abbreviation.
Table 1: Replace “in error” with “an error”: “In particular, the earlier value of 579 m at OJP was found to be an error”.
Table 2: Please specify that the soil depth values are given relative to the mineral soil surface, to clarify the meaning of negative and positive values.
L222: Define “WMO”.
L233: Please precise: “OA used time-domain-reflectometer TDR probes installed to measure VWC integrated over the soil layers 0-15, 15-30, 30-60, 60-90, and 90-120 cm”
L299: Replace (1) by (4) in “All terms in (4)…”
L305: Replace (2) by (5) in “Typical units for the variables in (5)...”
L392: Add “on” in “based on the measured air temperature”.
L421: Remove the parenthesis at the end of this sentence: “One value was applied across all years: 0.35 m s-1 at OA, 0.30 m s-1 at OBS, 0.25 m s-1 at OJP, and 0.12 m s-1 at Fen).”
Figure 4 caption: Change the description of the upper panel “green - positive anomalies; red – negative anomalies” with the correct colors.
L497: Correct “earlier in autumn”.
L538: Specify “Prince Albert Airport” instead of “Prince Albert A”.
L646: Define “r”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-492-RC2
Data sets
Long-term meteorological and carbon, water and energy flux data from the Boreal Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Sites, Saskatchewan, Canada Warren Helgason et al. https://doi.org/10.20383/103.01318
Model code and software
Matlab scripts for processing BERMS data Alan Barr https://doi.org/10.20383/103.01318
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
807 | 87 | 33 | 927 | 26 | 33 |
- HTML: 807
- PDF: 87
- XML: 33
- Total: 927
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript provides a substantial documentation of long-term dataset from the Boreal Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Sites in Saskatchewan, Canada. It includes site-level flux measurements of carbon, water, and energy from four vegetation types over nearly three decades. The data are intended to support ecological modeling, inter-site comparisons, and Earth system analyses. While this manuscript provides a significant dataset for future research, it can benefit from substantial improvements as follows:
The dataset is highly valuable and aligns well with the mission of Earth System Science Data. However, to reach publishable quality, the manuscript requires clearer articulation of aims, stronger integration with existing flux networks, and more comprehensive data documentation, quality control, and usability guidance.
Major points
Minor points