Long-term datasets of integrated environmental variables,
co-located together, are relatively rare. The UK Environmental Change
Network (ECN) was launched in 1992 and provides the UK with its only
long-term integrated environmental monitoring and research network for the
assessment of the causes and consequences of environmental change.
Measurements, covering a wide range of physical, chemical, and biological
“driver” and “response” variables are made in close proximity at ECN
terrestrial sites using protocols incorporating standard quality control
procedures. This paper describes the datasets (there are 19 published
ECN datasets) for these co-located measurements, containing over 20
years of data (1993–2015). The data and supporting documentation are freely
available from the NERC Environmental Information Data Centre under the
terms of the Open Government Licence using the following DOIs.
Meteorology
Meteorology:
10.5285/fc9bcd1c-e3fc-4c5a-b569-2fe62d40f2f5 (Rennie et al.,
2017a)
Biogeochemistry
Atmospheric nitrogen chemistry: 10.5285/baf51776-c2d0-4e57-9cd3-30cd6336d9cf (Rennie et al.,
2017b)
Precipitation chemistry: 10.5285/18b7c387-037d-4949-98bc-e8db5ef4264c (Rennie et al.,
2017c)
Soil solution chemistry: 10.5285/b330d395-68f2-47f1-8d59-3291dc02923b (Rennie et al.,
2017d)
Stream water chemistry: 10.5285/fd7ca5ef-460a-463c-ad2b-5ad48bb4e22e (Rennie et al.,
2017e)
Stream water discharge: 10.5285/8b58c86b-0c2a-4d48-b25a-7a0141859004 (Rennie et al.,
2017f)
Invertebrates
Moths: 10.5285/a2a49f47-49b3-46da-a434-bb22e524c5d2 (Rennie et al.,
2017g)
Butterflies: 10.5285/5aeda581-b4f2-4e51-b1a6-890b6b3403a3 (Rennie et al.,
2017h)
Carabid beetle: 10.5285/8385f864-dd41-410f-b248-028f923cb281 (Rennie et al.,
2017i)
Spittle bugs: 10.5285/aff433be-0869-4393-b765-9e6faad2a12b (Rennie et al.,
2018)
Vegetation
Baseline: 10.5285/a7b49ac1-24f5-406e-ac8f-3d05fb583e3b (Rennie et al.,
2016a)
Coarse grain: 10.5285/d349babc-329a-4d6e-9eca-92e630e1be3f (Rennie et al.,
2016b)
Woodland: 10.5285/94aef007-634e-42db-bc52-9aae86adbd33 (Rennie et al.,
2017j)
Fine grain: 10.5285/b98efec8-6de0-4e0c-85dc-fe4cdf01f086 (Rennie et al.,
2017k)
Vertebrates
Frogs: 10.5285/4d8c7dd9-8248-46ca-b988-c1fc38e51581 (Rennie et al.,
2017l)
Birds (Breeding bird survey): 10.5285/5886c3ba-1fa5-49c0-8da8-40e69a10d2b5 (Rennie et al.,
2017m)
Birds (Common bird census): 10.5285/8582a02c-b28c-45d2-afa1-c1e85fba023d (Rennie et al.,
2017n)
Bats: 10.5285/2588ee91-6cbd-4888-86fc-81858d1bf085 (Rennie et al.,
2017o)
Rabbits and deer: 10.5285/0be0aed3-f205-4f1f-a65d-84f8cfd8d50f (Rennie et al.,
2017p)
Introduction
The assessment of environmental change requires an understanding of how
ecosystems function, how they respond to a range of pressures and how
resilient they are to such changes. To make these assessments, precise and
consistent measurements repeated over long periods of time are needed (Sier
and Monteith, 2016a). Ideally, these measurements should also be co-located
to provide opportunities to directly link pressures and responses. This type
of monitoring effort requires sustained funding (longer than usual research
grants) and a clear long-term vision. Consequently, robust long-term
environmental research networks are relatively rare.
The Environmental Change Network (ECN), launched in 1992, is the UK's
long-term integrated environmental monitoring and research network
(Environmental Change Network, 2019). The ECN collects information on a broad
baseline of integrated environmental information. The programme also
provides more immediate information about trends and early warning of
environmental extremes that may directly influence environmental policy. The
ECN programme is sponsored by a consortium of 14 UK Government
departments and agencies (see Acknowledgements), who contribute to the
programme through funding either site monitoring or network co-ordination
activities. Internationally, the ECN is formally recognised as the UK node of a
global system of long-term environmental research networks (LTER-Europe,
Mirtl, 2010 and ILTER, Kim, 2006; Mirtl et al., 2018). For the period
covered by the published datasets, there were 12 terrestrial sites in
the network (see Fig. 1), selected to cover the main range of
environmental conditions present in the UK (see Table 1). Links to site
descriptions on the ECN website and on DEIMS-SDR, an information management
system that allows discovery of long-term ecosystem research sites around
the globe (Wohner, 2019), are included in Table 1. The majority of these
sites have been collecting data since at least 1993, meaning over 20
years of ECN data are now available. However, many of the sites were chosen
because they had a long history of environmental monitoring and thus
additional pre-ECN data available.
Locations of the ECN terrestrial sites.
ECN terrestrial sites.
Site (ECN site code)Site description (links to the ECN websiteand DEIMS-SDR, last access: 8 January 2020)LocationAltitudinal range (m a.s.l.)Area (ha)Site typeAlice Holt (T09)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T09https://deims.org/d47ec839-5d20-4315-9f88-1e9edbab22e851∘9′16.46′′ N, 0∘51′47.58′′ W110–125850WoodlandDrayton (T01)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T01https://deims.org/00eb83ef-c965-462d-8022-7f7ff75ccd1452∘11′37.95′′ N, 1∘45′51.95′′ W320–11101000Lowland grassland/agricultural (data collection ceased at this site at the end of 2013)Cairngorms (T12)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T12https://deims.org/5a04fee1-42aa-47e9-abfc-043a3eda12ac57∘6′58.84′′ N, 43∘49′46.98′′ W40–80190Upland moor/mountainGlensaugh (T02)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T02https://deims.org/1c4d454d-0c00-49f9-a7fe-3a3e596c364856∘54′33.36′′ N, 2∘33′12.14′′ W137–4871125Upland moor/mountain with nativemixed pinewoodHillsborough (T03)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T03https://deims.org/371c5259-6f38-4aa7-9517-c56f608c62cc54∘27′12.24′′ N, 6∘4′41.26′′ W110–170400Lowland grassland/agriculturalMoor House – Upper Teesdale (T04)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T04https://deims.org/bf78c96f-0763-4b31-b1a6-6eccef19edd154∘41′42.15′′ N, 2∘23′16.26′′ W290–8487500Upland moor/mountainNorth Wyke (T05)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T05https://deims.org/4fbe4bf9-e342-4412-8f0c-c75aff08a8ca50∘46′54.96′′ N, 3∘55′4.10′′ W120–180250Lowland grassland/agriculturalPorton Down (T10)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T10https://deims.org/0f05a86f-0f7a-4b81-8268-6818a606442851∘7′37.83′′ N, 1∘38′23.46′′ W100–1721227Lowland grasslandRothamsted (T06)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T06https://deims.org/cb340d4c-e6e5-465a-b0cb-d6c613fa554151∘48′12.33′′ N, 0∘22′21.66′′ W94–134330Lowland grassland/agriculturalSourhope (T07)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T07https://deims.org/125d4667-0fae-418d-88ff-7d9930809d1255∘29′23.47′′ N, 2∘12′43.32′′ W200–6011119Upland moor/mountainWytham (T08)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T08https://deims.org/16dcd0c3-a114-412c-9f01-8c1af292ba6951∘46′52.86′′ N, 1∘20′9.81′′ W60–165770Woodland/ agriculturalYr Wyddfa (Snowdon) (T11)http://data.ecn.ac.uk/sites/ecnsites.asp?site=T11https://deims.org/8b5da977-eed8-459f-b663-f3835aa0b35653∘4′28.38′′ N, 4∘2′0.64′′ W298–1085700Upland moor/mountain
The monitoring programme includes a wide range of physical, chemical and
biological “driver” and “response” variables, identified by experts in the
field as being important for the assessment of environmental change (see
Table 2). A Statistical and Technical Advisory Group met regularly to review
ECN monitoring activities. These measurements are made in close proximity at
each site, using standard protocols incorporating standard quality control
procedures (Sykes and Lane, 1996).
ECN datasets.
Measurement (ECN measurement code)Frequency of data collectionVariable/s recordedDOI (citation)Meteorology (MA)Hourly summaries calculated from 5 s samplingsSee Table 310.5285/fc9bcd1c-e3fc-4c5a-b569-2fe62d40f2f5 (Rennie et al., 2017a)Atmospheric nitrogen (AN)FortnightlySee Table 410.5285/baf51776-c2d0-4e57-9cd3-30cd6336d9cf (Rennie et al., 2017b)Precipitation chemistry (PC)WeeklySee Table 510.5285/18b7c387-037d-4949-98bc-e8db5ef4264c (Rennie et al., 2017c)Soil solution(SS)FortnightlySee Table 510.5285/b330d395-68f2-47f1-8d59-3291dc02923b (Rennie et al., 2017d)Surface water chemistry (WC)WeeklySee Table 510.5285/fd7ca5ef-460a-463c-ad2b-5ad48bb4e22e (Rennie et al., 2017e)Surface water discharge (WD)15 min averages calculated from 10 s samplings of stage heightStage (m) Discharge (m3 s-1)10.5285/8b58c86b-0c2a-4d48-b25a-7a0141859004 (Rennie et al., 2017f)Moth (IM)Nightly; weekly at remote sitesCount of each species trapped10.5285/a2a49f47-49b3-46da-a434-bb22e524c5d2 (Rennie et al., 2017g)Butterfly (IB)Weekly between April and September – dependant on weather conditionsCount of each species observed10.5285/5aeda581-b4f2-4e51-b1a6-890b6b3403a3 (Rennie et al., 2017h)Carabid beetles (IG)FortnightlyCount of each species trapped10.5285/8385f864-dd41-410f-b248-028f923cb281 (Rennie et al., 2017i)Spittle bugs (IS)AnnualCount of each species and colourmorph10.5285/aff433be-0869-4393-b765-9e6faad2a12b (Rennie et al., 2018)Baseline vegetation (VB)One-off surveySpecies presence10.5285/a7b49ac1-24f5-406e-ac8f-3d05fb583e3b (Rennie et al., 2016a)Coarse-grain vegetation (VC)Every 9 yearsSpecies presence10.5285/d349babc-329a-4d6e-9eca-92e630e1be3f (Rennie et al., 2016b)Woodland vegetation (VW)Every 9 years – diameter at breast height (dbh) recorded every 3 yearsSee Table 610.5285/94aef007-634e-42db-bc52-9aae86adbd33 (Rennie et al., 2017j)Fine-grain vegetation(VF)Every 3 years – some sites performed this annuallySpecies presence10.5285/b98efec8-6de0-4e0c-85dc-fe4cdf01f086 (Rennie et al., 2017k)Frog (BF)AnnualSee Table 710.5285/4d8c7dd9-8248-46ca-b988-c1fc38e51581 (Rennie et al., 2017l)Breeding Bird Survey (BB)Twice a yearCount of each species observed10.5285/5886c3ba-1fa5-49c0-8da8-40e69a10d2b5 (Rennie et al., 2017m)Common Bird Census(CBC)Annual (variable date ranges for sites)Count of each species observed and/or nests observed10.5285/8582a02c-b28c-45d2-afa1-c1e85fba023d (Rennie et al., 2017n)Bat (BA)Four times a yearCount of each species observed Behaviour10.5285/2588ee91-6cbd-4888-86fc-81858d1bf085 (Rennie et al., 2017o)Rabbit and deer (BU)Twice a yearCount of the dropping of each species10.5285/0be0aed3-f205-4f1f-a65d-84f8cfd8d50f (Rennie et al., 2017p)
Data are managed by the ECN Data Centre, which has an integrated information
system (Rennie, 2016) that stores all data and metadata collected by the
networks which supply data to it. These data are held in standardised
structures in order to support the cross-disciplinary analyses necessary for
environmental change research. An associated summary database consists of
monthly, quarterly and/or annual summaries of these data using summary
statistics appropriate to each measurement, as advised by experts. These
summary data can be explored through data visualisation interfaces available
on the website (ECN Data Centre, 2019). The database uses the Oracle
relational database management system with links to Arc GIS for spatial data
handling. Data were regularly sent in from sites and were quality-assured
before being lodged in the database (information about quality control is in
Sect. 4).
This paper describes the datasets for the high-frequency, co-located ECN
measurements. There are 19 published datasets (Table 2), containing
over 20 years of data (1993–2015), covering biological, meteorological
and biogeochemical measurements (Rennie et al., 2016a, b, 2017a–p, 2018). They are hosted by the NERC Environmental Information Data
Centre and are available to users under the Open Government Licence.
Methods
ECN measurements are co-ordinated and standardised across sites according to
published protocol procedures (Sykes and Lane, 1996). The protocol
documents are included in the supporting documentation provided alongside
every data download. The protocols are designed to ensure consistency in
methods and data handling over time and across the ECN's sites. Sites were
visited on the same day each week, preferably on a Wednesday, to synchronise
sampling, within the site and across the network.
The protocol documents detail quality control procedures, e.g. correct
handling of equipment and samples, maintenance schedules, and calibration
specifications, as well as unambiguous instructions for measurement and data
handling. Data requirements are an integral part of these protocols and
include specifications of variables, units, reporting precisions,
dimensions, resolutions, reference systems and quality assurance procedures.
These specifications, together with as much information as possible about
likely user requirements, were used in the design of the database and the
construction of standard formats for data transfer and standard field forms
for each dataset. Where available, existing data capture methodologies were
used (e.g. the Rothamsted light trap network, part of the Rothamsted Insect Survey,
2019) to maintain compatibility with other sectoral networks.
At each site, an area of 1 ha (10 000 m2) was selected and permanently marked.
This is called the target sampling site (TSS), and destructive sampling
within it was kept to a minimum. Many of the measurements are co-located within
the TSS. Dispersed monitoring protocols (e.g. vegetation) also include plots
within the TSS. The TSS was chosen to be representative of the predominant
vegetation, soil and management of the site.
Some protocols (Sect. 2.15 to 2.19) have not been measured at all sites
or have had varied uptake at sites over time, limiting their use for
cross-site comparison. In addition, some protocols are designed as national-scale surveys, thus they have limited use for assessment of trends at
individual sites. These limitations are discussed with each individual
dataset. The methods for data collection for the 19 published ECN
datasets (1993–2015) are summarised below.
Meteorology
Automatic weather stations (AWSs) were installed at all ECN terrestrial
sites and situated in accordance with British Meteorological Office site
requirements (Meteorological Office, 1982). The AWS was ideally located on,
or within 500 m of, the TSS. The layout of the meteorological enclosure is
provided in Fig. 2. Full details for the procedure for installing an AWS
are provided in the protocol document (Burt and Johnson, 1996), but the
instruments were fixed to two cross-arms – one at 2 m above ground level and
oriented east–west and the other a 1 m a.g.l. and oriented
north–south. The wind vane and anemometer were located on the upper
cross-arm and the air temperature and radiation sensors on the lower cross-arm. A
number of the sites also had either a manual meteorological station
(referred to as MM in Fig. 2) or a second AWS to quality check the data.
In addition, the majority of sites have operated more than one AWS in the
same location, e.g. when kit is replaced (see Sect. 3.1 for details on how
this is recorded in the dataset). All ECN AWS instruments were subject to
regular (normally annual or biannual) professional calibration checks by
external contractors. The data are hourly summaries calculated from 5 s samplings and the variables recorded are listed in Table 3. Full operating
procedures are provided in the protocol document (Burt and Johnson, 1996),
which is included in the supporting documentation provided alongside the
data download (called MA.pdf).
Name in datasetDescriptionUnitsALBGRDAlbedo ground (average)W m-2ALBSKYAlbedo sky (average)W m-2DRYTMPDry bulb temperature (average)∘CDRTYMP_RHDry bulb temperature within the relative humidity sensor (average)∘CNETRADNet radiation (average)W m-2RAINRainfall (total)mmRHRelative humidity (average)%SOLARSolar radiation (average)W m-2STMP10Soil temperature at 10 cm (average)∘CSTMP30Soil temperature at 30 cm (average)∘CSURWETSurface wetness (number of minutes in the hour that surface is wet)minSWATERSoil moisture – gypsum block (average)barSWATER_TSoil moisture – theta probe at 20 cm (average)%SWATER_T10Soil moisture – theta probe at 10 cm (average)%SWATER_VWCSoil moisture – volumetric water content at 20 cm (average)m3 m-3WDIRWind direction (average)degreesWETTMPWet bulb temperature (average)∘CWSPEEDWind speed (average)m s-1Atmospheric nitrogen
Passive diffusion tubes were used to measure the concentration of nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) at all ECN terrestrial sites. They were attached to a
post at a height of 1.5 m a.g.l. in the meteorological enclosure
(Fig. 2). As a control measure, blank tubes were also transported to the
site but were not exposed on arrival. The blank tubes were returned to the
laboratory the same day, stored in a refrigerator and analysed in the lab
alongside the experimental tubes. In the early years of the ECN, the diffusion
tubes were assembled and analysed locally, but these were replaced at some
sites by commercially made tubes manufactured and analysed by Gradko Ltd.
Comparability tests were conducted when this switch was made. The samples
were collected fortnightly and the variables recorded are listed in Table 4.
Full operating procedures are provided in the protocol document (Bojanic,
1996), which is included in the supporting documentation provided alongside
the data download (called AN.pdf).
Atmospheric chemistry variables.
Name in datasetDescriptionUnitsWEIGHTNO2Weight of NO2 on the meshµgNO2NO2 concentrationµg m-3NO2PPBNO2 concentrationppbTDIFFExposure timeminQ1-nQuality code (see Sect. 4)integerPrecipitation chemistry
Bulk (open funnel) precipitation collectors were used to measure the
precipitation chemistry at all ECN terrestrial sites. These were situated in
the meteorological enclosure (Fig. 2), in an open location away from local
sources of contamination (e.g. vehicle tracks or animal houses). Warren
Spring Laboratory standard precipitation collectors were used, with the
collecting bottle fixed 1.75 m a.g.l. The collectors were secured
by guy ropes or bolted to a concrete base. The collector had a filter to
prevent debris falling into the bottle and was kept dark and cool by a
jacket. The collecting bottle was changed at the same time each week, and the
funnel was replaced or cleaned with deionised water. The volume collected was
recorded, and analysis of the samples were made by the analytical
laboratories linked to each site. The cost of standardising methods of
analysis across all ECN laboratories was prohibitive. Instead, the analytical
guidelines (available in supporting documentation available with the data
download) list approved techniques for each determinand with their
corresponding limits of detection. The sponsoring organisations were
responsible for maintaining their own continuity in methods for existing
long-term runs of data. Each laboratory practised its own internal quality
control, and most participated in national quality assurance schemes. As a
quality check, a standard quality control solution was sent to the
laboratories that analyse the ECN water samples. This solution was analysed
alongside the samples collected in the field. The samples were collected
weekly, and the variables recorded are listed in Table 5. Full operating
procedures are provided in the protocol document (Adamson and Sykes, 1996),
which is included in the supporting documentation provided alongside the
data download (called PC.pdf). Operating procedures for handling water
samples (Adamson, 1996a) and analytical guidelines (Rowland, 1996) are also
provided in the supporting information (called WH.pdf and WAG.pdf).
Soil solution chemistry
Water was collected from soils via suction lysimeters at the majority of ECN
terrestrial sites. The lysimeters were installed at two depths within a 10 m
by 10 m plot on the edge of (but outside) the TSS. Six samplers were
installed in the A horizon and six others at the base of the B horizon (or
at 10 and 50 cm if these soil horizons did not exist), ideally on a
downslope to avoid debris from soil disturbance. Samplers were emptied and
the water volumes collected on the same day each fortnight. A week after
sample collection, the samplers were evacuated to 0.5 bar (or 0.7 bar for
sites where insufficient soil solution could be collected), thus the water
only accumulated over the second week of the fortnightly period. The
chemistry of the water collected was analysed by the analytical labs
associated with each site. At some sites, particularly in drier months, the
volume of water collected may have been very small; in these cases, the
samples were discarded or, if possible, combined (only samples from the same
horizon were combined) for analysis (see Sect. 3.2 for details on how
this is recorded in the dataset). The samples were collected fortnightly and
the variables recorded are listed in Table 5. Full operating procedures are
provided in the protocol document (Adamson, 1996b), which is included in the
supporting documentation provided alongside the data download (called
SS.pdf). Operating procedures for handling water samples (Adamson, 1996a)
and analytical guidelines (Rowland, 1996) are also provided in the
supporting information (called WH.pdf and WAG.pdf).
Surface water chemistry
Dip samples from rivers and streams were collected. This was only done at
sites where flowing water was present. Samples were taken at a
representative location above a weir; some sites collect samples at multiple
locations on the site (indicated by the location code in the dataset). The
collecting bottle is rinsed in river water, and a 250 mL sample of river water is taken. The samples were collected weekly and the variables recorded are
listed in Table 5. Full operating procedures are provided in the protocol
document (Johnson and Burt, 1996a), which is included in the supporting
documentation provided alongside the data download (called WC.pdf).
Operating procedures for handling water samples (Adamson, 1996a) and
analytical guidelines (Rowland, 1996) are also provided in the supporting
information (called WH.pdf and WAG.pdf)
Chemical and associated variables (precipitation chemistry, soil
solution, surface water chemistry).
Name in datasetDescriptionUnitsALKYAlkalinitymg L-1ALUMINIUMAluminiummg L-1CALCIUMCalciummg L-1CHLORIDEChloridemg L-1COLOURAbsorbance at 436 nMnMCONDYConductivityµS cm-1DOCDissolved organic carbonmg L-1IRONIronmg L-1MAGNESIUMMagnesiummg L-1NH4NAmmoniummg L-1NO3NNitrate nitrogenmg L-1PHpHpH scale 1–14PHAQCSAquacheck system pH stirredpH scale 1–14PHAQCUAquacheck system pH unstirredpH scale 1–14PO4PPhosphate phosphorusmg L-1POTASSIUMPotassiummg L-1SO4SSulfate sulfurmg L-1SODIUMSodiummg L-1TOTALNTotal nitrogenmg L-1TOTALPTotal dissolved phosphorusmg L-1VOLUMEVolume of sample collected (precipitation and soil solution chemistry datasets only)mLVACUUMResidual vacuum at time of sampling (soil solution chemistry dataset only)barSTAGEStage reading of water level (surface water chemistry dataset only)mmSurface water discharge
Hydrological data from rivers and streams were collected by a logger at sites
with a river or stream. Recording of river stage was done by a permanently
installed weir, the design of which was determined by the conditions at the
site. Data were recorded by a logger. The data are 15 min averages
calculated from 10 s samplings of stage height and the variables
recorded are listed in Table 2. Full operating procedures are provided in
the protocol document (Johnson and Burt, 1996b), which is included in the
supporting documentation provided alongside the data download (called
WD.pdf).
Moths
Light traps were used to sample moths (Macrolepidoptera) at the majority of the ECN
terrestrial sites using the Rothamsted Insect Survey method (Rothamsted
Insect Survey, 2019) at the majority of the ECN terrestrial sites. Where
possible, the light trap was sheltered by vegetation and placed away from
artificial light sources, in a location that was convenient for daily
emptying. The traps require a continuous power supply so this often
determined their location. Ideally, the traps were emptied daily throughout
the year, but when this was not possible (e.g. for more remote sites or at
the weekend) samples could accumulate. Samples from the sites were
identified by a single expert contracted by the ECN. The data are stored within
the Rothamsted Insect Survey database, as well as in the ECN database. A
count of each species trapped was recorded. Full operating procedures are
provided in the protocol document (Woiwod, 1996a), which is included
in the supporting documentation provided alongside the data download (called
IM.pdf).
Butterflies
Butterfly species were recorded on a fixed transect (which was divided into
a maximum of 15 sections) at the majority of the ECN terrestrial sites. The
transect was chosen to be broadly representative of the site and include
areas under different management regimes. The length of the transect was
dependant on the local conditions at the site. The national Butterfly
Monitoring Scheme methodology was used (UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme,
2019). The transect was walked at an even pace and the number of butterflies
that were seen flying within or passing through an imaginary box (5 m wide,
5 m high and 5 m in front of the observer) were recorded. Sampling took place
when the temperature was between 13 and 17 ∘C if sunshine was at least
60 %. However, if the temperature was above 17 ∘C (15 ∘C at more
northerly sites), recording could be carried out in any conditions, providing
it was not raining. Transects were walked weekly between 1 April
and 29 September, providing the meteorological conditions were met. A
count of each species observed was recorded. Full operating procedures are
provided in the protocol document (Woiwod, 1996b), which is included in the
supporting documentation provided alongside the data download (called
IB.pdf).
Carabid beetles
Pitfall traps were used to collect carabid beetles (Carabidae) at the
majority of the ECN terrestrial sites. A total of 30 traps were set, divided between
three transects, in or adjacent to the TSS and in areas representing different
habitats where possible. The traps were polypropylene, with a 7.5 cm
diameter and 10 cm depth, and were filled with ethylene glycol preservative.
They were buried with the top of the trap flush with the soil surface. The
traps were set 10 m apart along the transect. A wire netting cage made from
chicken wire was attached to the rim of the trap to reduce the number of
small mammals inadvertently caught. Each trap also had a cover to help
prevent rain flooding the traps and to reduce bird interference. Samples were
analysed by a local taxonomic expert. The samples were collected fortnightly
(between May and the end of October). A count of each species trapped was
recorded. Full operating procedures are provided in the protocol document
(Woiwod and Coulston, 1996), which is included in the supporting
documentation provided alongside the data download (called IG.pdf).
Spittle bugs
Populations of Philaenus spumarius and Neophilaenus lineatus were monitored annually at the majority of the ECN
terrestrial sites. In mid-June, counts of the spittle produced by nymphs
were made in 20 quadrats (0.25 m2) randomly placed near the TSS. Also, in
late August, the proportions of each colour morph of the adult P. spumarius were
estimated using sweep netting on the TSS when the weather conditions were
dry. Colour polymorphism is likely to be environmentally determined
(Whittaker, 1965) and therefore an indicator of environmental change. The
samples were collected annually (nymphs in June and adults in August). A
count of each species and colour morph was recorded. Full operating procedures
are provided in the protocol document (Whittaker, 1996), which is included in
the supporting documentation provided alongside the data download (called
IS.pdf).
Baseline vegetation
This was a one-off survey at the start of ECN monitoring to establish a
vegetation map at all sites. It allowed a vegetation map to be generated and
the plots for continuous monitoring (see Sect. 2.12, 2.13, 2.14) to be selected.
An approximately regular grid, coincident with the UK National Grid, was
superimposed on the site map, scaled so as to provide approximately 400
sample grid positions. This ensured the plot locations were unbiased and
relocatable. Additionally, no more than 100 points (infill points) were
chosen to ensure all vegetation types were represented. A 2m×2m plot was
centred on each grid and infill point, oriented using magnetic bearings.
These plots were permanently marked (the plot corners are marked with buried
metal stakes). Species presence was recorded in the plots. Where the plots
fell in woodland, the trees and shrubs were recorded in a 10m×10m plot
centred on the 2m×2m plot to provide a more representative sample of the
canopy and understory. Full operating procedures are provided in the
protocol document (Rodwell et al., 1996), which is included in the supporting
documentation provided alongside the data download (called V.pdf).
Coarse-grain vegetation
A random selection was made of 40 of the 2m×2m plots from the regular
grid set-up for baseline survey vegetation recording (Sect. 2.11) at the
majority of the ECN terrestrial sites at the onset of ECN monitoring. Where
infill plots were included in the baseline survey, up to 10 of these plots
were also randomly selected, providing a total of up to 50 of these plots
for coarse-grain monitoring. The plots were permanently marked. Where plots
fell in woodland or scrub, the associated woodland protocol was also
undertaken (see Sect. 2.13). The protocol was undertaken every 9 years. Species
presence was recorded in each of the twenty-five 40cm×40cm cells within
the plots. Full operating procedures are provided in the protocol document
(Rodwell et al., 1996), which is included in the supporting documentation provided
alongside the data download (called V.pdf).
Woodland vegetation
Where grid and infill plots selected for coarse-grain sampling (Sect. 2.12) fall in scrub or woodland, 10m×10m plots (which were centred on the
2m×2m plot used in the coarse-grain survey) were used to record trees and
shrubs. Species dominance was assessed within the plots. A total of 10 cells, each
40cm×40cm, were selected at random within the plot and marked. Seedlings
were counted by species in each cell. Additionally, an individual tree was
chosen nearest the centre point of the cell and monitored for height and
diameter at breast height (dbh). The protocol was undertaken every 9
years, but dbh was measured every 3 years for sites where there was
woodland. The variables recorded are listed in Table 6. Full operating
procedures are provided in the protocol document (Rodwell et al., 1996), which is
included in the supporting documentation provided alongside the data
download (called V.pdf).
Woodland vegetation variables.
Name in datasetDescriptionUnitsASpecies recorded as saplingspecies codeCSpecies recorded as canopy dominantspecies codeDIAMETERDiameter at breast height (dbh)cmDISTANCEDistance of stem from centre of random cellmESpecies recorded as seedlingspecies codeHSpecies recorded as shrub layerspecies codeHEIGHTHeightmISpecies recorded as intermediatespecies codeNUM_STEMSNumber of stemscountSSpecies recorded as subdominantspecies codeSEEDLINGSpecies recorded in seedling survey of cellspecies codeUSpecies recorded as suppressedspecies codeQ1-nQuality code (see Sect. 4)integerFine-grain vegetation
At least two 10m×10m plots from each vegetation type present at the site
were randomly selected (from the plots selected in the baseline survey (see
Sect. 2.11). The plots were chosen to coincide with the original grid and
infill plots where possible but otherwise were selected using randomly
selected pairs of co-ordinates. The plots did not coincide with the
coarse-grain sampling plots (see Sect. 2.12) to avoid repeated disturbance
to the plots. Ten 40cm×40cm cells were selected randomly within these
plots. This survey was undertaken every 3 years, but some sites chose to
do this survey annually to provide a better temporal range. The same plots
were visited on each occasion, but often a smaller number of plots were
chosen to do the annual survey. Species presence was recorded within the
cells. Full operating procedures are provided in the protocol document
(Rodwell et al., 1996), which is included in the supporting documentation provided
alongside the data download (called V.pdf).
Frogs
It is difficult to monitor populations of adult frogs; therefore,
phenological observations were made of selected pools and ditches, and the
number of egg masses were assessed as an indicator of the “health” of frog
populations at sites with standing water present. Additionally, a 250 mL
water sample was taken from the spawning area and analysed. The time at
which frog breeding starts in the UK varies greatly; therefore, observations
of frog behaviour were made at the appropriate time for each site. The
variables recorded are listed in Table 7. Full operating procedures are
provided in the protocol document (Beattie et al., 1996), which is included in the
supporting documentation provided alongside the data download (called
BF.pdf).
Frog variables.
Name in datasetDescriptionUnitsALKYAlkalinitymg L-1ALUMINIUMAluminiummg L-1CALCIUMCalciummg L-1CHLORIDEChloridemg L-1CONDYConductivityµS cm-1COLOURAbsorbance at 436 nMnMCONGDATEDate frogs first seen congregatingdateDEPTHDepth at centre of spawning areacmDOCDissolved organic carbonmg L-1HATCHDATEDate of first hatching observeddateIRONIronmg L-1LEAVEDATEDate frogs first seen leavingdateMAGNESIUMMagnesiummg L-1MAXTMPMaximum temperature∘CMINTMPMinimum temperature∘CNEWMASSNumber of new spawn massescountNH4NAmmoniummg L-1NO3NNitrate nitrogenmg L-1PERCDEADPercentage dead or diseased eggs%PHpH from water sample processed in laboratorypH scale 1–14PH1First pH reading from daily samplepH scale 1–14PH2Second pH reading from daily samplepH scale 1–14PH3Third pH reading from daily samplepH scale 1–14PHAQCSAquacheck system pH stirredpH scale 1–14PHAQCUAquacheck system pH unstirredpH scale 1–14PO4PPhosphate phosphorusmg L-1POTASSIUMPotassiummg L-1SO4SSulfate sulfurmg L-1SODIUMSodiummg L-1SPAWNDATEDate of first spawning observeddateSURFAREATotal surface area covered by spawnm2STAGEStage reading of water levelmmTOTALNTotal nitrogenmg L-1TOTALPTotal dissolved phosphorusmg L-1VACUUMResidual vacuum at time of samplingbarVOLUMEVolume of sample collectedmLQ1-nQuality code (see Sect. 4)integerBirds – breeding bird survey
Bird species were recorded on two transect lines (within a 1 km square) at
the majority of the ECN sites. Counts were made in the morning, ideally no later
than 09:00 UTC. Transects were walked, at a slow and methodical pace, when the
visibility was good and there was no strong wind or heavy rain. All birds
that were seen or heard, as well as their distance (there are four distance
categories) from the transect were recorded. The methodology used was that
of the Breeding Birds Survey (BBS, 2019) organised by the British Trust for
Ornithology (BTO). The transect was walked twice each year (once between
April and mid-May and the second between mid-May to late June). Full
operating procedures are provided in the protocol document (Sykes, 1996a),
which is included in the supporting documentation provided alongside the
data download (called BB.pdf).
This protocol replaced the Common Bird Census (see Sect. 2.17) in 1999. The
methodologies of the two surveys are different, thus it is unfortunately not
possible to create a single time series from both datasets. Please also note
that the Breeding Birds Survey is designed to be a national-scale survey,
therefore the site-based ECN data are limited in the amount of information
that they can provide on the precise relationships between population levels
and environmental change. It is recommended that the ECN data are used in
conjunction with data from more widespread monitoring programmes (i.e. those
of the BTO) so these limitations can be mitigated.
Birds – common bird census
Bird species were recorded in a plot that was, ideally, a minimum of
40 ha in farmland and 10 ha in woodland. The methodology used
was that of the Common Birds Census (CBC, 2019) organised by the BTO. A total of 10
visits were made between mid-March and late June, spaced evenly through the
season. Cold, windy and wet days were avoided. The CBC uses a mapping method
in which a series of visits were made to all parts of a defined plot during
the breeding season and contacts with birds by sight or sound were recorded
on large-scale maps. Information from the series of visits was combined to
estimate the number of territories found. Within the CBC protocol, some
species were also monitored by nest counts on the plot or by a combination
of nest counts and territory estimation. Full operating procedures are
provided in the protocol document (Sykes, 1996b), which is included in the
supporting documentation provided alongside the data download (called
BC.pdf).
The CBC was the standard protocol at lowland ECN sites until 1999 when it
was replaced by the BBS (see Sect. 2.16). The methodologies of the two surveys are
different so it is unfortunately not possible to create a single time series
from both datasets. A few sites continued the CBC alongside the BBS for a
few years to allow for a comparison. Additionally, historical data (pre-ECN) was
obtained for the Wytham site. Therefore, the date ranges for individual sites
in this dataset are not consistent. As with the BBS, the CBC was designed to
be a national-scale survey, thus similar limitations apply to the site-based
ECN data provided in this dataset.
Bats
Bat species were mapped (using a bat detector) and their behaviour recorded
at the majority of the ECN sites. One or more kilometre-sized squares were selected at
the site. This selection did not need to be random as long as the square was
reasonably typical of the site and that fieldwork could be
conducted safely at night. The square was divided into two and a transect selected
through each of these half squares. The methodology was based on that used
in the Bats and Habitats survey organised for the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee (Walsh et al., 1995). The transect was walked four times in each year
(once in each 3-week period between June and September). Bat detectors
were used during the survey and the frequency of the detector was tuned to
could be altered during the survey if that helped ensure all species were
recorded (in particular to distinguish between Pipistrellus species). Surveys
were not carried out when rain was heavy or there were strong winds. A count
of each species observed and their behaviour was recorded. Full operating
procedures are provided in the protocol document (Walsh et al., 1996), which is
included in the supporting documentation provided alongside the data
download (called BA.pdf).
The methodology is somewhat limited in the amount of information that it
can provide about the precise relationships between population levels and
environmental change. Nevertheless, by linking the ECN results to those from more
widespread monitoring programmes, these limitations can be mitigated.
Rabbits and deer
There were no practicable methods of making direct measures of the
population size of the rabbit and deer populations; therefore, an index
method based on dropping counts was used to estimate relative abundance at
the majority of the ECN sites. The butterfly monitoring transect was used. A
second transect that covered habitat types not present on the butterfly
transect was also selected. Dropping counts were recorded on a transect
twice a year (once in late March and again in late September). Droppings on
the transect were cleared 2 weeks before sampling took place. At Moor
House, the same methodology was also used to estimate the relative abundance
of grouse. Full operating procedures are provided in the protocol document
(Coulson, 1996), which is included in the supporting documentation provided
alongside the data download (called BU.pdf).
Datasets
The ECN datasets are listed in Table 2, together with their citation
information, the frequency of measurement and the variables collected. The
NERC Environmental Information Data Centre (the repository that hosts the
datasets) provides data and supporting information as separate packages –
this allows improvements to be made to the supporting documentation over
time if necessary while maintaining a persistent, citable dataset. The DOI
for each dataset links to a landing page that contains separate links to
download the data and the supporting information.
Each dataset follows the same basic structure:
SITECODE – site code (see Table 1);
SDATE – date of sampling;
FIELDNAME – the variable being measured (these are described below and in
the supporting information);
VALUE – the value of the measured variable.
All the datasets have this structure in common but some of the datasets may
also contain some additional information where necessary for the
measurement. This is fully documented in the supporting information. For the
majority of datasets, the entire time period is included in the data
download; however, two large datasets are split into yearly time slices to
make downloading easier for the user (see Sect. 3.1 and 3.3)
The supporting information, i.e. the protocol document, supplementary data
and quality information, is provided with each dataset. It is important to
refer to this information prior to analysing the data. The supporting
information is provided in a zip file using the “supporting information”
link on the relevant page for each dataset (Rennie et al., 2016a, b,
2017a–p, 2018). All the zip files contain a document called
***_DATA_STRUCTURE.doc (where *** is the ECN
measurement code; see Table 2). This document contains detailed information
about the structure of the dataset, location information for the sites,
information about the variables measured, and documents for any additional
information needed to understand the dataset and provides any coding lists
used.
Some usage notes are included below.
Meteorology
Given the size of this dataset, the data have been split into yearly csv
files. Users are advised to open these files in a text editor or to use a
statistical package to analyse these data as the file sizes remain too large
for a software package like Excel to open.
Over the period of data collection, the majority of the ECN sites have operated
more than one AWS in the same location – e.g. when kit is replaced. In many
cases, these have been run concurrently to enable cross-checking of data.
Replacement AWSs are indicated by the “AWSNO” field in the dataset – these
are ID numbers assigned sequentially. Users should be aware of the AWSNO
when analysing the data – particularly when two AWSs have been run
concurrently – to avoid misleading results by inadvertently combining data
from two AWSs.
Soil solution chemistry
Where samples were combined, this is indicated in the data with the
replicate IDs XXS (combined shallow samplers) and XXD (combined deep
samplers) in the datasets. Occasionally, the suction samplers were replaced,
this is indicated in the data with a new replicate ID.
Surface water discharge
Given the size of this dataset, the data have been split into yearly csv
files. Users are advised to open these files in a text editor or use a
statistical package to analyse these data as the file sizes remain too large
for a software package like Excel to open.
One site (Moor House – Upper Teesdale) uses an Environment Agency logger to
record water discharge. The Environment Agency uses the WISKI format to
record these data (the Hydrolog format was used prior to 2004). Both of these
formats include quality information that is available in this dataset (for
Moor House only). An explanation for these quality codes is provided in the
supporting information.
Carabid beetles
There is an additional data column in this dataset that applies to only one
species (Pterostichus madidus), where additional information was collected on gender (M or F) and
leg colour (red, R, and black, B). The ratio of leg colour is thought to
depend on ecological factors (Terrell-Nield, 1992).
Standards and coding lists
The ECN forms part of a global system of long-term, integrated environmental
research networks; see Sect. 5 for more details. Therefore, it primarily
uses the LTER-Europe controlled vocabulary, EnvThes (EnvThes, 2019), as the
basis for the semantic harmonisation of data with its European and
International partners. The ECN uses a number of coding lists within its
datasets. Where possible, existing coding systems were used to maintain
compatibility with other related data resources. The coding lists used by
the ECN are listed in Table 8. These coding lists are fully documented in the
supporting information.
Species coding lists.
ECN measurementCoding list usedReferenceMoths (IM)Rothamsted Insect SurveyRothamsted Insect Survey (2019)Butterflies (IB)Butterfly Monitoring SchemeUKBMS (2019)Carabid beetles (IG)Biological Records CentreBiological Records Centre (2019)Spittle bugs (IS)Biological Records CentreBiological Records Centre (2019)Vegetation (VB, VC, VW, VF)National Vegetation Classification. A look-up to the Biological Records Centrecodes is also providedRodwell (1991) Biological Records Centre (2019)Birds (CBC)British Trust for OrnithologyBBS (2019)Birds (CBC)British Trust for OrnithologyCBC (2019)Bats (BA)Code list developed in-houseSupporting information with the data downloadRabbit and deer (BU)Code list developed in-houseSupporting information with the data downloadDataset completeness
The majority of the ECN sites have been collecting the full suite of ECN
measurements since 1993 but two sites joined the network later – Yr Wyddfa
(Snowdon) in 1995 and Cairngorms in 1999. However, it should be noted that
many of the sites are in remote locations, which means that site managers
are occasionally unable to attend the sites for health and safety reasons,
causing gaps in the dataset. In particular, there was a foot-and-mouth
disease outbreak in the UK in 2001, which meant a number of the sites could
not be visited for biosecurity reasons and that the data for that year are
patchy. In addition, Rothamsted ceased biological monitoring in 2011 and
Drayton left the network in 2014.
Data quality
Quality control is central to all stages of ECN data collection and
management and is handled through a number of steps.
Standard operating procedures
As described in the Sect. 2, data collection procedures were co-ordinated
and standardised across the sites through published protocols.
Data transfer templates
Data were checked and formatted by data providers prior to being submitted
by email (in standardised, comma-separated files). Detailed data transfer
documentation for each protocol guided the preparation of these files to
ensure comparability of data across sites and over time. This documentation
includes rules for handling missing values and data quality information. To
aid site managers, a bespoke set of data entry templates were developed for
each protocol, using MS Access, to improve data handling efficiency (Rennie,
2016). These templates incorporate quality-checking procedures and help to
ensure that quality-checked, standardised and formatted data were submitted
by site managers. The design of the templates takes into account ease of
use, with the main emphasis being on minimising error. This type of data
entry software is particularly useful where numeric coding systems for
species are in use; numbers are less memorable and mistakes in one digit of
a code can produce serious errors. For example, the software uses drop-down
lists of codes (which are dynamically linked with a list of the species
names) so that the codes can be cross-checked against the species name to
ensure that the correct code is chosen.
Data verification
In addition to the checks made in the templates, standard verification
procedures were applied to all data before import into the database. The
procedures performed numeric range checks (i.e. checking if a value falls
within a specified range), categorical checks (e.g. checking that a species
code appears on the standard code list), formatting (i.e. that the dataset
conforms to the specified data format) and logical integrity checks (i.e.
checking the data make sense, e.g. that the dates in one dataset match those
in a related dataset). Appropriate range settings for ECN variables were
selected following discussion with specialists in each field. These ranges
are held in a table in the database and the data are checked against this
before being committed to the database. Where values fell outside these
ranges, a cautious approach was adopted towards discarding data on the
principle that apparent errors could be valid outliers. Data values
identified by validation software as “out of range” were treated in one of
three ways.
Where values were clearly meaningless due to a known cause (e.g. an
instrumentation fault that could not be back-corrected), the data were
discarded and database fields set to null (no data), and quality flags were added
to the database.
Where values were clearly in error, or out of range due to known calibration
errors and could be back-corrected, the data were corrected (these changes
were flagged in the database).
Where there was no straightforward explanation for outliers, the data were
stored in the database, accompanied by quality flags (see Sect. 4.4).
Quality flagging
The ECN site managers assigned quality codes to indicate factors that may
affect the quality of the data being collected, including deviations from
the protocol, faulty instrumentation and common problems. They picked these
from a standard list of ECN quality codes; these quality codes are
included in the data download, and an explanation for the codes is provided in
the supporting documentation. Site managers could pick as many quality codes
as were applicable. Occasionally, an unusual event took place that was not
covered by these codes. In that case, the site manager attached text
explaining the circumstances. This is indicated by a quality code “999” in
the data download. This quality text is available in a file called
ECN_***_qtext.csv (where *** is the
measurement code; see Table 2), which is provided in the supporting
documentation.
Quality assessment exercises
Samples were kept where possible (e.g. archived invertebrate samples),
meaning the accuracy of identification can be assessed at a later date if
necessary. Occasionally, quality assessment exercises have been run by
appropriate experts to check, for example, consistency in species
identification across sites (Scott and Hallam, 2003). The quality of more
ephemeral measurements such as meteorology or water quality can only be
similarly assessed by running duplicate or parallel systems. Duplicate
systems are expensive, and in practice assessment normally involved regular
checks for instrument drift and recorder error. Where possible, when new
instrumentation or methods needed to be introduced, new and old systems were
run in parallel to assess their relationship. This is assessed by the
individual site manager, who must satisfy themselves that the new systems
compare well before proceeding with the switchover.
ECN datasets in context
The ECN is nationally unique with its focus on high-frequency and co-located
measurements. It provides a rare opportunity to link pressures and responses
to investigate relationships between environmental variables and explore
environmental change over significant timescales. The data included within
these datasets have been the focus of a number of peer-reviewed scientific
publications over the past 20 years. For example, linking meteorological data
with invertebrate species data for exploring the impact of drought (Morecroft
et al., 2002), exploring trends in the physical and biological environment
(Morecroft et al., 2009), determining that hydrochloric acid deposition was a
driver of UK soil acidification (Evans et al., 2011), and investigating
declines in carabid beetle biodiversity (Brooks et al., 2012). Many of the
datasets were incorporated in papers forming a journal special issue marking
the first 20 years of the ECN (Sier and Monteith, 2016b). This special issue
demonstrates how effective the datasets are in assessing and interpreting
environmental change, covering a breadth of topics, such as trends in weather
and atmospheric deposition (Monteith et al., 2016); trends in dissolved organic
carbon (Sawicka et al., 2016; Moody et al., 2016); various aspects of change in UK plant
communities (Rose et al., 2016; Morecroft et al., 2016; Pallett et al., 2016; Milligan et al.,
2016), ecosystem services (Dick et al., 2016), and carabid beetle communities (Eyre
et al., 2016; Pozsgai et al., 2016); the use of digital imaging to assess vegetation
cover (Baxendale et al., 2016); and the response of Lepidoptera communities to
warming (Martay et al., 2016). A full catalogue of the peer-reviewed papers that
have used ECN data are available on the website (ECN Publications Catalogue,
2019).
ECN sites cover a wide range of UK habitats but, given their focus on high-frequency data, are costly to run and are relatively few in number. The
representativeness of ECN sites was compared to data obtained by the UK
Countryside Survey (CS – Countryside Survey, 2019). The survey is based on a
stratified random sample of 1 km squares from the intersections of a regular
15 km grid superimposed on the rural areas of Great Britain. Analysis
revealed that the British ECN sites effectively span the range of values for both
temperature and rainfall and cover a similar range of vegetation types to
the CS, with the exception of arable, a land use category not assessed at ECN
sites but present on several sites (Dick et al., 2011).
ECN sites contribute to a number of national monitoring programmes, e.g.
Rothamsted Insect Survey (Rothamsted Insect Survey, 2019), Countryside
Survey (Countryside Survey, 2019), the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme
(UKBMS, 2019), the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS, 2019), the United Kingdom
Eutrophying and Acidifying Network (UKEAP, 2019), and the Cosmic-ray Soil
Moisture Monitoring Network (COSMOS-UK, 2019). The ECN's focus on
multidisciplinary, co-located measurements can help integrate these networks
and provides temporal-scale context for observations made by these networks,
for example by providing information on year to year variation in vegetation
communities to help inform how CS data can be influenced by weather
variability (Scott et al., 2010).
The ECN is formally recognised as the UK's contribution to a global system of
long-term, integrated environmental research networks and is a member of
LTER-Europe (the European Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network – Mirtl,
2010) and ILTER (International Long-Term Ecological Research – Kim, 2006).
Individual ECN sites are also involved in other international networks,
including INTERACT (International Network for Terrestrial Research and
Monitoring in the Arctic – INTERACT, 2019), GLORIA (Global Observation
Research Initiative in Alpine Environments – GLORIA, 2019), ICP Forest Level
II (ICP Forests, 2019) and FLUXNET (FLUXNET, 2019).
Data availability
Provision of easy access to data has always been central to the ECN's strategy
to provide a resource for environmental research, policy purposes and public
information. The ECN datasets are hosted by the NERC Environmental
Information Data Centre (EIDC, 2019) managed by the UK Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology (UKCEH). The EIDC manages nationally important terrestrial and
freshwater science datasets and is a CoreTrustSeal accredited data
repository. EIDC has a registration system – users need a free account to
download data. The ECN datasets can be discovered and downloaded through the
EIDC's data catalogue (the Environmental Information Platform, EIP). The
datasets are listed in Table 2, together with their citation information.
They should be cited for every use using the information provided (Rennie
et al., 2016a, b, 2017a–p, 2018).
The ECN datasets are available under the Open Government Licence (Open
Government Licence, 2019), and they are available as comma-separated files.
Temporal extensions, provided as additional time slices, to the datasets
will be created as further data become available.
Conclusions
The datasets collected by the UK Environmental Change Network are an
invaluable and nationally unique resource, which, over the years, has proved
useful to a range of users, including the scientific community and national
policy makers. The co-location of high-frequency meteorological, biological
and biogeochemical measurements means the ECN datasets are ideally placed
for the development of clearer process understanding and assessing the
impact of shorter-term events, such as droughts, on ecosystems. This 2-decade ECN data record provides a long-term baseline of environmental
variability across a wide range of UK habitats against which environmental
changes can be assessed.
Author contributions
SR was responsible for the management of the ECN Data Centre, publication
of the datasets and led the writing of this paper. CA, SA, DB, SB,
VB, JD, BD, CM, DP, RR, SMS, TS, CT and HW are the current
site managers and are responsible for site management, data collection and
quality checking. All co-authors contributed to the writing, discussion and
review of this paper.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The ECN programme is sponsored by a consortium of UK government departments and agencies who contribute to the programme through funding either site monitoring or network co-ordination activities: Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru – Natural Resources Wales, Defence Science & Technology Laboratory, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Llywodraeth Cymru – Welsh Government, Natural England, Natural Environment Research Council, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Scottish Government, and Scottish Natural Heritage.
The following people were ECN site managers during the period of data collection of these datasets: John Adamson, Roy Anderson, Chris Andrews, Sarah Atkinson, John Bater, Neil Bayfield, Clive Bealey, Katy Beaton, Deb Beaumont, Sue Benham, Vic Bowmaker, Chris Britt, Rob Brooker, David Brooks, Andrew Brunt, Jacqui Brunt, Sam Clawson, Gordon Common, Richard Cooper, Stuart Corbett, Nigel Critchley, Peter Dennis, Jan Dick, Bev Dodd, Nikki Dodd, Neil Donovan, Jonathan Easter, Edward Eaton, Mel Flexen, Andy Gardiner, Dave Hamilton, Paul Hargreaves, Maggie Hatton-Ellis, Mark Howe, Olly Howells, Jana Kahl, Simon Langan, Dylan Lloyd, Mathieu Lundy, Briege McCarney, Yvonne McElarney, Colm McKenna, Simon McMillan, Frank Milne, Linda Milne, Mike Morecroft, Matt Murphy, Allison Nelson, Harry Nicholson, Denise Pallett, Dafydd Parry, Imogen Pearce, Gabor Pozsgai, Adrian Riley, Rob Rose, Stefanie Schäfer, Tony Scott, Chris Shortall, Phil Smith, Roger Smith, Richard Tait, Carol Taylor, Michele Taylor, Maddie Thurlow, Christine Tilbury, Alex Turner, Ken Tyson, Helen Watson, Mike Whittaker, Matthew Wilkinson, Ian Woiwod and Christopher Wood.
ECN and its Data Centre are co-ordinated by the Central Co-ordination Unit at UKCEH Lancaster. The following people have been involved in this during the period of data collection of these datasets: John Adamson, Chris Benefield, Deirdre Caffrey, Bill Heal, Pete Henrys, Lynne Irvine, Mandy Lane, Don Monteith, Mike Morecroft, Terry Parr, Susannah Rennie, Rob Rose, Andy Scott, Lorna Sherrin, Andy Sier, Ian Simpson and Mike Sykes.
Financial support
ECN co-ordination was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council, through UKCEH (grant no. NEC06397). Site work at Rothamsted and North Wyke was funded by Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/E/C/000J0300).
Review statement
This paper was edited by Kirsten Elger and reviewed by Øystein Godoy and Johannes Peterseil.
References
Adamson, J. K.: Initial water handling, in: The United Kingdom Environmental
Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites,
edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London),
145–148, 1996a.
Adamson, J. K.: Soil solution chemistry, in: The United Kingdom Environmental
Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites,
edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London),
75–86, 1996b.Adamson, J. K. and Sykes, J. M.: Precipitation chemistry, in: The United
Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at
terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery
Office (London), 53–59, 1996.Baxendale, C., Ostle, N. J., Wood, C. M., Oakley, S., and Ward, S. E.: Can digital
image classification be used as a standardised method for surveying peatland
vegetation cover?, Ecol. Indic., 68, 150–156, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.035, 2016.BBS (Breeding Bird Survey): available at: https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/bbs, last access: 15 April 2019.Beattie, B. C., Adamson, J. K., and Sykes, J. M.: Frog spawn, in: The United
Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at
terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery
Office (London), 141–144, 1996.Biological Records Centre: available at: https://www.brc.ac.uk/, last access:
15 November 2019.Bojanic, D., Adamson, J. K., Rowland, A. P., and Sykes, J. M.: Atmospheric
chemistry, in: The United Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols
for standard measurements at terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and
Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London), 47–52, 1996.Brooks, D. R., Bater, J. E., Clark, S. J., Monteith, D. T., Andrews, C.,
Corbett, S. J., Beaumont, D. A., and Chapman, J. W.: Large carabid beetle
declines in a United Kingdom monitoring network increases evidence for a
widespread loss in insect biodiversity, J. Appl. Ecol., 49, 1009–1019,
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02194.x, 2012.Burt, T. P. and Johnson, R. C.: Meteorology – automatic weather station and
standard meteorological observations, in: The United Kingdom Environmental
Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites,
edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London),
37–46, 1996.CBC (Common Bird Census): available at: https://www.bto.org/about-birds/birdtrends/2011/methods/common-birds-census,
last access: 15 April 2019.COSMOS-UK (Cosmic-ray Soil Moisture Monitoring Network): available at: https://cosmos.ceh.ac.uk/, last access: 15 April 2019.Coulson, J. C.: Rabbits and deer, in: The United Kingdom Environmental
Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites,
edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London),
139–140, 1996.Countryside Survey: available at: https://countrysidesurvey.org.uk/, last
access: 15 April 2019.Dick, J., Andrews, C., Beaumont, D. A., Benham, S., Brooks, D. R., Corbett,
S., Lloyd, D., McMillan, S., Monteith, D. T., Pilgrim, E. S., Rose, R.,
Scott, A., Scott, T., Smith, R. I., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Turner, A., and
Watson, H.: A comparison of ecosystem services delivered by 11 long-term
monitoring sites in the UK environmental change network, Environmetrics, 22,
639–648, 10.1002/env.1069, 2011.Dick, J., Andrews, C., Beaumont, D. A., Benham, S., Dodd, N., Pallett, D.,
Rose, R., Scott, T., Smith, R. I., Schäfer, S. M., Turner, A., and Watson, H.:
Analysis of temporal change in delivery of ecosystem services over 20 years
at long term monitoring sites of the UK Environmental Change Network, Ecol.
Indic., 68, 115–125, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.021, 2016.Environmental Change Network: available at: http://www.ecn.ac.uk, last
access: 15 April 2019.ECN Data Centre: available at: http://data.ecn.ac.uk, last access: 15 April 2019.ECN Publications Catalogue: available at: http://data.ecn.ac.uk/PRU/pru.asp,
last access: 15 April 2019.EIDC: available at: http://eidc.ceh.ac.uk/, last access: 15 April 2019.EnvThes: available at: http://vocabs.lter-europe.net/edg/tbl/EnvThes.editor,
last access: 29 July 2019.Evans, C. D., Monteith, D. T., Fowler, D., Cape,
J. N., and Brayshaw, S.: Hydrochloric acid: an overlooked driver of environmental
change Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 1887–1894, 10.1021/es103574u, 2011.Eyre, M. D., McMillan, S. D., Critchley, C. N. R.: Ground beetles (Coleoptera,
Carabidae) as indicators of change and pattern in the agroecosystem: longer
surveys improve understanding, Ecol. Indic., 68, 82–88, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.009, 2016.FLUXNET: available at: https://fluxnet.fluxdata.org/, last access: 15 April 2019.GLORIA (Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments): available at:
https://gloria.ac.at/, last access: 15 April 2019.ICP Forest: available at: http://icp-forests.net/, last access: 15 April 2019.INTERACT (International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in
the Arctic): available at: https://eu-interact.org/, last access: 15 April 2019.Johnson, R. C. and Burt, T. P.: Surface water chemistry and quality, in: The
United Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard
measurements at terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J.,
The Stationery Office (London), 64–65, 1996a.Johnson, R. C. and Burt, T. P.: Surface water discharge, in: The United
Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at
terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery
Office (London), 60–62, 1996b.Kim, E. S.: Development, potentials, and challenges of the International
Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) Network, Ecol. Res., 21, 788–793,
10.1007/s11284-006-0049-1, 2006.Martay, B., Monteith, D. T., Brewer, M. J., Brereton, T., Shortall, C. R., and
Pearce-Higgins, J. W.: An indicator highlights seasonal variation in the
response of Lepidoptera communities to warming, Ecol. Indic., 6, 126–133,
10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.057, 2016.Meteorological Office: Observer's handbook, 4th Edn., HMSO (London),
1982.Milligan, G., Rose, R., and Marrs, R. H.: Winners and losers in a long-term study
of vegetation change at Moor House NNR: effects of sheep-grazing and its
removal on British upland vegetation, Ecol. Indic., 68, 89–101, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.053, 2016.Mirtl, M.: Introducing the next generation of ecosystem research in Europe:
LTER-Europe's multi-functional and multi-scale approach, edited by: Müller, F.,
Baessler, C., Schubert, H., and Klotz, S., Long-Term Ecological Research,
Springer, Netherlands, 75–93, 10.1007%2F978-90-481-8782-9_6, 2010.Mirtl, M., Borer, E. T., Djukic, I., Forsius, M., Haubold, H., Hugo, W.,
Jourdan, J., Lindenmayer, D., McDowell, W. H., Muraoka, H., Orenstein, D. E.,
Pauw, J. C., Peterseil, J., Shibata, H., Wohner, C., Yu, X., and Haase, P.:
Genesis, goals and achievements of long-term ecological research at the
global scale: a critical review of ILTER and future directions, Sci. Total
Environ., 626, 1439–1462, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.001, 2018.Monteith, D. T., Henrys, P. A., Banin, L., Smith, R. I., Morecroft, M. D.,
Scott, T., Andrews, C., Beaumont, D. A., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Corbett,
S., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., McKenna, C., McMillan, S. D., Pallett, D.,
Pereira, G., Rennie, S. C., Rose, R., Schäfer, S. M., Sherrin, L., Turner
A., Watson, H., Poskitt, J., and Tang, S. Y.: Trends and variability in weather
and atmospheric deposition at UK Environmental Change Network sites
(1993–2012), Ecol. Indic., 68, 21–35, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.061, 2016.Moody, C. S., Worrall, F., and Burt, T. P.: Identifying DOC gains and losses
during a 20-year record in the Trout Beck catchment, Moor House, UK, Ecol.
Indic., 68, 102–114, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.033, 2016.Morecroft, M. D., Bealey, C. E., Howells, O., Rennie, S., and Woiwod, I.:
Effects of drought on contrasting insect and plant species in the UK in the
mid-1990s, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 11, 7–22, 10.1046/j.1466-822X.2002.00174.x, 2002.Morecroft, M. D., Bealey, C. E., Beaumont, D. A., Benham, S., Brooks, D. R.,
Burt, T. P., Critchley, C. N. R., Dick, J., Littlewood, N. A., Monteith, D. T.,
Scott, W. A., Smith, R. I., Walmsley, C., and Watson, H.: The UK Environmental
Change Network: Emerging trends in the composition of plant and animal
communities and the physical environment, Biol. Conserv., 142,
2814–2832, 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.004, 2009.Morecroft, M. D., Bealey, C. E., Taylor, M. E., and Scott, W. A.: Interannual
variability, stability and resilience in UK plant communities, Ecol. Indic.,
68, 63–72, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.040, 2016.Open Government Licence: available at: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/,
last access: 15 April 2019.Pallett, D., Pescott, O. L., and Schäfer, S. M.: Changes in plant species
richness and productivity in response to decreased nitrogen inputs in
grassland in southern England, Ecol. Indic., 68, 73–81, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.024, 2016.Pozsgai, G., Baird, J., Littlewood, N. A., Pakeman, R. J., and Young, M. R.:
Interspecific networks in ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages,
Ecol. Indic., 68, 134–141, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.031, 2016.Rennie, S.: Providing information on environmental change: Data management,
discovery and access in the UK Environmental Change Network Data Centre,
Ecol. Indic., 68, 13–20, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.060, 2016.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Eaton,
E., Flexen, M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis,
M., Howe, M., Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., and Whittaker, M.: UK Environmental Change Network (ECN)
baseline vegetation data: 1991–2000, NERC Environmental Information Data
Centre, 10.5285/a7b49ac1-24f5-406e-ac8f-3d05fb583e3b, 2016a.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Eaton,
E., Flexen, M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis,
M., Howe, M., Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., and Whittaker, M.: UK Environmental Change Network (ECN) coarse
grain vegetation data: 1993–2012, NERC Environmental Information Data
Centre, 10.5285/d349babc-329a-4d6e-9eca-92e630e1be3f, 2016b.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Eaton,
E., Flexen, M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis,
M., Howe, M., Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B.,
McElarney, Y., McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft,
M., Murphy, M., Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce,
I., Pozsgai, G., Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall,
C., Smith, R., Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M.,
Turner, A., Tyson, K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., Wilkinson, M., and Wood, C.:
UK Environmental Change Network (ECN) meteorology data: 1991–2015, NERC
Environmental Information Data Centre, 10.5285/fc9bcd1c-e3fc-4c5a-b569-2fe62d40f2f5, 2017a.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network
(ECN) atmospheric nitrogen chemistry data: 1993–2015, NERC Environmental
Information Data Centre, 10.5285/baf51776-c2d0-4e57-9cd3-30cd6336d9cf, 2017b. Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network
(ECN) precipitation chemistry data: 1992–2015, NERC Environmental
Information Data Centre, 10.5285/18b7c387-037d-4949-98bc-e8db5ef4264c, 2017c.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network
(ECN) soil solution chemistry data: 1992–2015, NERC Environmental
Information Data Centre, 10.5285/b330d395-68f2-47f1-8d59-3291dc02923b, 2017d.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network
(ECN) stream water chemistry data: 1992–2015, NERC Environmental Information
Data Centre, 10.5285/fd7ca5ef-460a-463c-ad2b-5ad48bb4e22e, 2017e.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McElarney, Y., McKenna, C.,
McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M., Nelson, A.,
Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G., Rose, R.,
Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R., Smith, P.,
Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson, K.,
Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network (ECN)
stream water discharge data: 1993–2015, NERC Environmental Information Data
Centre, 10.5285/8b58c86b-0c2a-4d48-b25a-7a0141859004, 2017f.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Riley, A., Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C.,
Smith, R., Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner,
A., Tyson, K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., Woiwod, I., and Wood, C.: UK
Environmental Change Network (ECN) moth data: 1992–2015, NERC Environmental
Information Data Centre, 10.5285/a2a49f47-49b3-46da-a434-bb22e524c5d2, 2017g.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Tilbury, C.,
Turner, A., Tyson, K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental
Change Network (ECN) butterfly data: 1993–2015, NERC Environmental
Information Data Centre, 10.5285/5aeda581-b4f2-4e51-b1a6-890b6b3403a3, 2017h.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McElarney, Y., McKenna, C.,
McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M., Nelson, A.,
Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G., Rose, R.,
Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R., Smith, P.,
Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Tilbury, C., Turner, A.,
Tyson, K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change
Network (ECN) carabid beetle data: 1992–2015, NERC Environmental Information
Data Centre, 10.5285/8385f864-dd41-410f-b248-028f923cb281, 2017i.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McElarney, Y., McKenna, C.,
McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M., Nelson, A.,
Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G., Rose, R.,
Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R., Smith, P.,
Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson, K.,
Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network (ECN)
woodland vegetation data: 1993–2014, NERC Environmental Information Data
Centre, 10.5285/94aef007-634e-42db-bc52-9aae86adbd33, 2017j.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McElarney, Y., McKenna, C.,
McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M., Nelson, A.,
Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G., Rose, R.,
Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R., Smith, P.,
Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson, K.,
Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network (ECN)
fine grain vegetation data: 1994–2015, NERC Environmental Information Data
Centre, 10.5285/b98efec8-6de0-4e0c-85dc-fe4cdf01f086, 2017k.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network
(ECN) frog data: 1994–2015, NERC Environmental Information Data Centre,
10.5285/4d8c7dd9-8248-46ca-b988-c1fc38e51581,
2017l.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, A., Brunt, J., Clawson, S., Common, G., Cooper, R.,
Corbett, S., Critchley, N., Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N.,
Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen, M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves,
P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M., Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D.,
McElarney, Y., McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft,
M., Murphy, M., Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce,
I., Pozsgai, G., Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall,
C., Smith, R., Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M.,
Turner, A., Tyson, K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental
Change Network (ECN) bird data: 1995–2015, NERC Environmental Information
Data Centre, 10.5285/5886c3ba-1fa5-49c0-8da8-40e69a10d2b5, 2017m.Rennie, S., Bater, J., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Britt, C., Brooks, D., Brunt, A., Brunt, J., Corbett, S., Critchley, N., Donovan, N.,
Hargreaves, P., Howe, M., Lane, M., McMillan, S., Morecroft, M., Onley,
D., Overall, R., Pallett, D., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L.,
Shortall, C., Smith, R., Smith, P., Taylor, M., and Tyson, K.: UK
Environmental Change Network (ECN) common breeding birds data 1971–2007,
NERC Environmental Information Data Centre, 10.5285/8582a02c-b28c-45d2-afa1-c1e85fba023d, 2017n.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., Lundy, M., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network
(ECN) bat data: 1993–2015, NERC Environmental Information Data Centre,
10.5285/2588ee91-6cbd-4888-86fc-81858d1bf085,
2017o.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McCarney, B., McElarney, Y.,
McKenna, C., McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M.,
Nelson, A., Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G.,
Rose, R., Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R.,
Smith, P., Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Turner, A., Tyson,
K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change Network
(ECN) rabbit and deer data: 1993–2015, NERC Environmental Information Data
Centre, 10.5285/0be0aed3-f205-4f1f-a65d-84f8cfd8d50f, 2017p.Rennie, S., Adamson, J., Anderson, R., Andrews, C., Bater, J., Bayfield, N.,
Beaton, K., Beaumont, D., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Britt, C., Brooker, R.,
Brooks, D., Brunt, J., Common, G., Cooper, R., Corbett, S., Critchley, N.,
Dennis, P., Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Donovan, N., Easter, J., Flexen,
M., Gardiner, A., Hamilton, D., Hargreaves, P., Hatton-Ellis, M., Howe, M.,
Kahl, J., Lane, M., Langan, S., Lloyd, D., McElarney, Y., McKenna, C.,
McMillan, S., Milne, F., Milne, L., Morecroft, M., Murphy, M., Nelson, A.,
Nicholson, H., Pallett, D., Parry, D., Pearce, I., Pozsgai, G., Rose, R.,
Schafer, S., Scott, T., Sherrin, L., Shortall, C., Smith, R., Smith, P.,
Tait, R., Taylor, C., Taylor, M., Thurlow, M., Tilbury, C., Turner, A.,
Tyson, K., Watson, H., Whittaker, M., and Wood, C.: UK Environmental Change
Network (ECN) spittle bug data: 1993–2015, NERC Environmental Information
Data Centre, 10.5285/aff433be-0869-4393-b765-9e6faad2a12b, 2018.Rodwell, J. S.: British plant communities, Cambridge University Press, 1991.Rodwell, J. S., Sykes, J. M., and Helps, M. B: Vegetation, in: The United
Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at
terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery
Office (London), 87–100, 1996.Rose, R., Monteith, D. T., Henrys, P. A., Smart, S. M., Wood, C. M., Morecroft,
M., Andrews, C., Beaumont, D. A., Benham, S., Bowmaker, V., Corbett, S.,
Dick, J., Dodd, B., Dodd, N., Flexen, M., McKenna, C., McMillan, S. D.,
Pallett, D., Rennie, S. C., Schäfer, S. M., Scott, T., Sherrin, L.,
Turner, A., and Watson, H.: Evidence for increases in vegetation species
richness across UK Environmental Change Network sites linked to changes in
air pollution and weather patterns, Ecol. Indic., 68, 52–62, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.005, 2016.Rothamsted Insect Survey: available at: http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/insect-survey, last access: 15 April 2019.Rowland, A. P.: Analytical guidelines for water samples, in: The United
Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at
terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery
Office (London), 149–153, 1996.Sawicka, K., Monteith, D. T., Vanguelova, E. I., Wade, A. J., and Clark, J. M.:
Fine-scale temporal characterization of trends in soil water dissolved
organic carbon and potential drivers, Ecol. Indic., 68, 36-51, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.028, 2016.Scott, W. A. and Hallam, C. J.: Assessing species misidentification rates
through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring, Plant Ecol., 165,
101–115, 10.1023/A:1021441331839, 2003.Scott, W. A., Morecroft, M. D., Taylor, M. E., and Smart, S. M.: Countryside Survey
– Environmental Change Network Link, CS Technical Report, No. 6/07, available at:
http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/sites/default/files/CS_UK_2007_TR6%20-%20ECN%20report.pdf
(last access: 11/04/2019), 2010.Sier, A. and Monteith, D.: The UK Environmental Change Network after twenty
years of integrated ecosystem assessment: Key findings and future
perspectives, Ecol. Indic., 68, 1–12, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.008, 2016a.Sier, A. and Monteith, D. (Eds.): Assessing ecosystem resilience through
Long Term Ecosystem Research: observations from the first twenty years of
the UK Environmental Change Network, Ecol. Indic, 68, 1–156, available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/ecological-indicators/vol/68/suppl/C
(last access: 11 April 2019), 2016b.Sykes, J. M.: Breeding birds, in: The United Kingdom Environmental Change
Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites, edited
by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London), 131–133,
1996a.Sykes, J. M.: Common breeding birds, in: The United Kingdom Environmental
Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites,
edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London),
125–127, 1996b.Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J. (Eds.): The UK Environmental Change Network:
Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites, The Stationery
Office (London), 1996.Terrell-Nield, C. E.: Distribution of leg-colour morphs of Pterostichus
madidus (F.) in relation to climate, in: The role of ground beetles in
ecological and environmental studies, edited by: Stork, N., Intercept Ltd,
Andover, Hampshire, 39–51, 1992.UKBMS (United Kingdom Butterfly Monitoring
Scheme): available at: http://www.ukbms.org/, last access: 15 April 2019.UKEAP (United Kingdom Eutrophying and Acidifying Network): available at: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/network-info?view=ukeap, last access: 15 April 2019.Walsh, A. L., Harris, S., and Hutson, A. M.: Abundance and habitat selection
of foraging vespertilionid bats in Britain: a landscape-scale approach,
Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond, 67, 325–344, 1995.Walsh, A. L., Harris, S., and Hutson, A. H.: Bats, in: The United Kingdom
Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at
terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery
Office (London), 134–138, 1996.Whittaker, J. B.: The distribution and population dynamics of Neophilaenus lineatus (L.) and N. exclamationis
(Thun.) (Homoptera: Cercopidae) on Pennine moorland, J. Anim. Ecol., 34,
277–297, 1965.Whittaker, J. B.: Spittle bugs, in: The United Kingdom Environmental Change
Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites, edited
by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London), 111–117,
1996.Wohner, C., Peterseil, J., Poursanidis, D., Kliment, T., Wilson, M., Mirtl,
M., and Chrysoulakis, N.: DEIMS-SDR – A web portal to document research
sites and their associated data, Ecol. Inform., 51, 15–24, 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.01.005, 2019.
Woiwod, I. P.: Moths, in: The United Kingdom Environmental Change Network:
Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes,
J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London), 104–108, 1996a.Woiwod, I. P.: Butterflies, in: The United Kingdom Environmental Change
Network: Protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites, edited
by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery Office (London), 109–110,
1996b.Woiwod, I. P. and Coulson, J. C.: Ground predators, in: The United Kingdom
Environmental Change Network: Protocols for standard measurements at
terrestrial sites, edited by: Sykes, J. M. and Lane, A. M. J., The Stationery
Office (London), 118–121, 1996.