<p>Standardized processing of eddy covariance data is important for studies combining data from multiple sites, for validating remote sensing measurements as well as runs of ecosystem and climate models, and for applications relying on these flux data to create derived products like upscaled fluxes, among other examples. However, maintaining consistency within the software used for this processing while allowing for evolution of this code across research networks presents novel challenges in software development. The introduction of the ONEFlux (Open Network-Enabled Flux) eddy covariance data processing pipeline, originally developed within a collaboration of the AmeriFlux Management Project, the European Fluxes Database, and the ICOS Ecosystem Thematic Centre, supported the creation of consistently processed global eddy covariance data products. In particular, ONEFlux codes were used to generate the FLUXNET2015 dataset, which is widely adopted by thousands of eddy covariance data users in their work in research, ranging from soil microbiology to large scale drought effects, and also education, from basic plant biology all the way to global climate change. We are now more thoroughly instrumenting the code, and the code development process, to better address these challenges, efforts which we will describe in this presentation. In particular, we are seeking to improve software development practices to allow for more streamlined collaboration on expanding and contributing to the codebase. For instance, we are adopting planned release cycles for code updates, designing more detailed ways to incorporate and evaluate new modules, introducing data-centric testing and continuous integration, improving code performance, and adopting several other software engineering best practices more widely in the development workflows. The main goal of these changes is to lower the barriers for running ONEFlux by regional networks processing their data, while at the same time better supporting contributions from the community into the codebase. This will be critical to continue the current use of ONEFlux to generate updated versions of flux datasets by regional networks, the components of new global products.</p>

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Forest ecosystems play a crucial role in the global carbon cycle by sequestering a considerable fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> thereby contributing to climate change mitigation. However, there is a gap in our understanding about the carbon dynamics of eucalypt (broadleaf evergreen) forests in temperate climates, which might differ from temperate coniferous or deciduous forests given their fundamental differences in physiology, phenology and growth dynamics. To address this gap we undertook a three year study (2010–2012) using eddy covariance measurements in a dry temperate eucalypt forest in south-eastern Australia. We determined the annual net ecosystem carbon exchange (NEE) and investigated the temporal (seasonal and inter-annual) variability and environmental controls of NEE, gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER). The forest was a large and constant carbon sink throughout the study period, even in winter, with an overall mean NEE of −1062 ± 53 g C m<sup>−2</sup> yr<sup>−1</sup>. Gross CO<sub>2</sub> ecosystem fluxes showed no significant inter-annual variability and mean annual estimate of GPP was 2521 ± 35 g C m<sup>−2</sup> yr<sup>−1</sup> and ER was 1458 ± 31 g C m<sup>−2</sup> yr<sup>−1</sup>. GPP and ER had a pronounced seasonality with GPP being greatest during spring and summer and ER during summer whereas peaks of NEE occurred in early spring and again in summer. High NEE in spring was caused by a delayed increase in ER due to low temperatures. A random forest analysis showed that variability in GPP was mostly explained by incoming solar radiation whilst air temperature was the main environmental driver of ER on seasonal and inter-annual time scales. The forest experienced unusual above average annual rainfall during the first two years of this three year period so that soil moisture content remained relatively high and the forest was not water limited. Our results show the potential of temperate eucalypt forests to sequester large amounts of carbon when not water limited. Our observations can provide data on an underrepresented biome to test and parameterise ecosystem models. However, longer monitoring is needed to assess the inter-annual variability of the carbon sink strength particularly during years with drought conditions.</p>

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> In response to a warming climate, temperature extremes are changing in many regions of the world. Therefore, understanding how the fluxes of sensible heat, latent heat and net ecosystem exchange respond and contribute to these changes is important. We examined 216 sites from the open access Tier 1 FLUXNET2015 and Free-Fair-Use La Thuile datasets, focussing only on observed (non-gap filled) data periods. We examined the availability of sensible heat, latent heat and net ecosystem exchange observations coincident in time with measured temperature for all temperatures, and separately for the upper and lower tail of the temperature distribution and expressed this availability as a measurement ratio. We showed that the measurement ratios for both sensible and latent heat fluxes are generally lower (0.79 and 0.73 respectively) than for temperature, and the measurement ratio of net ecosystem exchange measurements are appreciably lower (0.42). However, sites do exist with a high proportion of measured sensible and latent heat fluxes, mostly over the United States, Europe and Australia. Few sites have a high proportion of measured fluxes at the lower tail of the temperature distribution over very cold regions (e.g. Alaska, Russia) and at the upper tail in many warm regions (e.g. Central America and the majority of the Mediterranean region), and many of the world’s coldest and hottest regions are not represented in the freely available FLUXNET data at all (e.g. India, the Gulf States, Greenland and Antarctica). However, some sites do provide measured fluxes at extreme temperatures suggesting an opportunity for the FLUXNET community to share strategies to increase measurement availability at the tails of the temperature distribution. We also highlight a wide discrepancy between the measurement ratios across FLUXNET sites that is not related to the actual temperature or rainfall regimes at the site, which we cannot explain. Our analysis provides guidance to help select eddy covariance sites for researchers interested in exploring responses to temperature extremes.</p>

Readers of Library Review well know the importance of books and, hence, of the book trade. But, just as many libraries now also handle records, CDs, xeroxes, etc., so the "book trade" has always been much wider than is immediately obvious from these two words. Indeed, we are still engaged in defining the boundaries of our catch-all definition. Because of this catholicity it must be recognized that the book trade antedates Gutenberg's development of printing from movable types in the middle of the fifteenth century -there were scribes, parchminers, illuminators, rubricators and even papermakers before then.In the last few decades of the nineteenth century a number of local bibliographers -often librarians stimulated by the development of ratesupported libraries -produced substantial bibliographies of works about their own localities. Generally, these provided information about local printers and publishers only incidentally. Such listings continued until the outbreak of the Second World War restricted time and materials.In the North east of England we were unusually fortunate in our book-trade historians: C.C. Burman (for Alnwick), Richard Welford (for Newcastle and Gateshead) and J.L. Hilson (for Berwick). All three concentrated on works produced in their "town" and on the producers. These were ideal quarries for our work.For more than a century individual scholars have studied provincial printers -and, sometimes, publishers. Their published work is widely scattered, but I suspect that much is still unpublished. In 1981 Professor John Feather put us provincial book-trade dabblers in his debt with his Oxford Bibliographical Society Occasional Publication 16, The English Provincial Book Trade before 1850: A Checklist of Secondary Sources, which greatly needs bringing up to date as the pace of this provincial work builds up. In addition, in the last 30 years several groups have been set up to study the trade in their areas.The study of the English book trade had traditionally concentrated on London and the University towns of Oxford and Cambridge. The classical work of Duff, and Plomer and his colleagues, was extended to bookbinders by Howe and Ramsden -the latter also listing bookbinders outside the metropolis. English papermakers and paper mills up to 1800 were dealt with by Shorter in his magisterial work. But generally the provinces and the other countries of the British Isles were ignored, either as unimportant or too difficult to study, or both.In the 1960s and 1970s displaced Londoners like myself, and others with proper local pride, developed a network among ourselves, which was brought to

for coping with my frequent periods of gritted teeth during the production of this book. My colleague Iain Cubitt is also owed an especial debt of thanks for the encouragement he has given me in this project. Finally, I thank the contributors, whose labor made this book possible.