abstract:  This article is about early roots of supersymmetry, as found in the literature from 1940s and early 1950s. There were models where the power of "partners" in alleviating divergences in quantum field theory was recognized. However, other currently known remarkable features of supersymmetry, such as its role in the extension of the Poincaré group, were not known. There were, of course, no supersymmetric non-abelian quantum field theories in those days. This article is organized as follows:

**Supersymmetry - Early Roots That Didn't Grow**

**Cecilia Jarlskog**
Division of Mathematical Physics, Physics Department, LTH,
Lund University, Lund, Sweden

# Introduction

During several years I was collecting material to produce a book which was subsequently published under the title "Portrait of Gunnar Källén: A Physics Shooting Star and Poet of Early Quantum Field Theory" . I found to my great surprise that Källén's very first published paper had a fundamental element of supersymmetry in it - the fact that spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermions and spin-$0$ bosons, taken together in equal numbers of degrees of freedom, give a far better-behaved field theory! Källén's paper was published when he was a 23 year old second year doctoral student in Lund, Sweden. He had been sent to Pauli in Zürich, Switzerland, to attend Pauli's summer course of 1949. The acknowledgement of Källén's paper reads as follows:

> "I want to express my respectful gratitude to professor W. Pauli, Zürich, who has suggested this investigation to me, and to thank him and Dr. R. Jost and Dr. J. Luttinger for many helpful discussions."

# Källén's Work

Källén considers the vacuum polarization in quantum electrodynamics (QED) to orders $e^{2}$ and $e^{4}$, in a model containing not only $n$ Dirac fields but also $N$ spin-$0$ particles, all with charge $e$ and interacting with an external electromagnetic field. He informs the readers that the $e^2$ case has been treated (and in fact published in the same year, 1949) by Jost and Rayski . These authors, who were both in Zürich, in their paper "express their gratitude to Professor W. Pauli for his kind interest in this work as well as for much valuable aid". Källén informs the reader that Jost and Rayski have shown that to the order $e^{2}$ the "non-gauge invariant (and divergent) terms compensate each other if one uses a suitable mixture of spinor and scalar fields." The mixture being $$N= 2n$$ $$\sum_{i=1}^{N} M_{i}^{2} = 2 \sum_{i=1}^{n} m_{i}^{2}$$ where $M_{i}$ ($m_{i}$) denote the masses of the scalars (spinors). The first relation, that there be as many bosonic as fermionic degrees of freedom, is exactly the basic ingredient of supersymmetry. The second relation includes the degeneracy condition of supersymmetry $M_{i} = m_{i}$ but it is more general. Källén studies what happens at the order $e^{4}$, which is, of course, a much more difficult task. After impressive calculations, he finds that the first relation alone is enough for removal of divergences in the fourth order. There are no divergences in higher than the fourth order and an overall charge renormalization is all that is needed.

The paper by Jost and Rayski gives credit to work published in the previous year by Umezawa et al. and by Rayski for having shown that:

> "by coupling the electromagnetic field to several charged fields of spinor and scalar (or pseudoscalar) types the gauge invariance of the vacuum polarization and the vanishing of the ph.s.e. \[meaning photon self-energy\] may be achieved (at least in the second order of approximation $e^{2}$) due to some compensations. It is premature to decide whether such compensations posess any deeper meaning or whether they should be considered merely as accidental".

Jost and Rayski do not discuss the "partners" any further but deal with comparison of charge renormalization of spinors and scalars in this scenario.

It should be emphasized that the self-energy of the photon was a major issue in those days. Indeed a non-zero photon mass could easily emerge from calculations, as was shown in a seminal paper by Wentzel .

To conclude this section, Pauli was very pleased with Källén's work. He expressed his appreciation in several letters (to Rudolf Peierls, Oskar Klein and others). As mentioned before, Källén's work had started when he was attending Pauli's summer course in Zürich. Pauli was a major "pole of attraction" to many distinguished physicists as well as young researchers.

# Regularization and renormalization

An insight into the situation in 1949 is obtained by considering what was going on in Zürich. Indeed the previous two years had been extremely turbulent and exciting in the world of physics, due to two remarkable experimental discoveries crying for theoretical explanations. These were:

>  (1) the discovery in 1947 of the Lamb-shift by Lamb[^1] and Retherford[^2].
>
> (2) the discovery in 1948 of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron by Foley and Kusch[^3]. Note that this anomaly was quickly calculated by Schwinger who announced his famous factor $\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}$ in a one-page letter which appeared in Physical Review, next to the experimental discovery.

These discoveries, which showed departure from predictions of Dirac theory, attracted the attention of some of the greatest theorists of that time, among them H. A. Bethe, R. P. Feynman, N. M. Kroll, J. Schwinger, S-I. Tomonaga and V. F. Weisskopf. Through these efforts, regularization and renormalization took the central stage in relativistic quantum field theory.

Returning to Zürich, Pauli who was keen on writing review-type articles, going through the details in order to understand what is going on, was quick to publish a paper in 1949, together with F. Villars . This paper, published under the title " On the Invariant Regularization in Relativistic Quantum Theory", came to play a major role in the thinking of field theorists for decades to come. The paper begins by noting that

> "In spite of many successes of the new relativistically invariant formalism of quantum electrodynamics, which is based on the idea of "renormalization" of mass and charge, there are still some problems of uniqueness left, which need further clarification."

The authors then point out the inherent ambiguities in calculations in quantum electrodynamics, due to presence of divergent integrals. Actually a number of prescriptions had been put forward on how to deal with these infinities, usually by introducing cut-offs[^4]. Regularization and renormalization were the key concepts and it was essential that the regularization prescription should respect Lorentz as well as gauge invariance.

In their article, Pauli and Villars specify two distinct paths to regularization:

> "In order to overcome these ambiguities we apply in the following the method of regularization ... with the help of an introduction of auxiliary masses. This method has already a long history. Much work has been done to compensate the infinities in the self-energy of the electron with the help of auxiliary fields ... Some authors assumed formally a negative energy of the free auxiliary particles, while others did not need these artificial assumptions and could obtain the necessary compensations by using the different sign of the self-energy of the electron due to its interaction with different kinds of fields (for instance scalar fields *vs.* vector fields)."

Pauli and Villars call the first kind of regularization (involving fictitious particles) "**formalistic**". Some of the hypothetical particles thus introduced are ghosts (with negative probabilities) and their masses are taken to go to infinity at the end of computation in order to remove them from the physical sector. This formalistic prescription amounted to introducing some simple relations which nowadays can be found in many textbooks on field theory, $$\sum_{i} C_{i} =0; ~ \sum_{i} C_{i} M_{i}^{2}= 0, ...$$

Pauli and Villars call the second option "**realistic**". In this case[^5] Nature herself provides the regulators, in the form of what in supersymmetry language is called the partners. In comparing the two approaches they note:

> "It seems very likely that the "formalistic" standpoint used in this paper and by other workers can only be a transitional stage of the theory, and that the auxiliary masses will eventually either be entirely eliminated, or the "realistic" standpoint will be so much improved that the theory will not contain any further accidental compensations."

The first (formalistic) option, is indeed easy to use and the only one which is used in the Pauli-Villars paper. An immediate question which arises is: what happened to the second alternative - the "realistic standpoint" - fermions accompanied by their bosonic partners?

# Yukawa, the intellectual father of scalars

In 1940s and 1950s scalar particles enjoyed a great deal of popularity among theorists in Japan. This can be traced back to the work of H. Yukawa[^6] who proposed that the strong force is mediated by a scalar particle (and its antiparticle), $U^{\pm}$. Using Wigner's estimate of the range of the nuclear force, he found that the mass of $U$ should be about $200$ times the mass of the electron (see Yukawa's Nobel lecture ).

The sequence of event from 1935 to 1949, when Yukawa was awarded the Nobel Prize, as well as what happened afterwards, is truly amazing. Indeed particles with the expected mass and charge were there - the muons, $\mu^{\pm}$ (initially called the mesotrons, later on the mu-mesons). However, these penetrating particles turned out to have no strong interactions! The pions were discovered much later, in 1947 (for a more detailed discussion see below).

At the time of his Nobel Prize Yukawa was well aware that the picture was far more complicated. In his Nobel Lecture he noted :

> "In this way, meson theory has changed a great deal during these fifteen years. Nevertheless, there remain still many questions unanswered. Among other things, we know very little about mesons heavier than $\pi$-mesons. We do not know yet whether some of the heavier mesons are responsible for nuclear forces at very short distances. The present form of meson theory is not free from the divergence difficulties, although recent development of relativistic field theory has succeeded in removing some of them. We do not yet know whether the remaining divergence difficulties are due to our ignorance of the structure of elementary particles themselves. We shall probably have to go through another change of the theory, before we shall be able to arrive at the complete understanding of the nuclear structure and of various phenomena, which will occur in high energy regions."

Little did Yukawa, or anyone else, know about quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and its gluons as mediators of the strong force. In spite of all this, light mesons play an important role in the treatment of strong interactions at very low energies (chiral dynamics).

# Scalars in Japan and "mixed-fields"

In 1940s there were several towering figures in the Japanese theoretical community, among them S. Sakata (1911-1970), S-I. Tomonaga (1906-1979) and H. Yukawa (1907-1981). Following Yukawa, proposing new scalars became popular in Japan. As a token of importance of scalars in Japan we note that the 1965 Nobel Laureate in Physics, Tomonaga[^7], in spite of not having been directly involved, discussed this subject in his Nobel lecture . He wrote:

> "In the meantime, in 1946, Sakata proposed a promising method of eliminating the divergence of the electron mass by introducing the idea of a field of cohesive force. It was the idea that there exists unknown field, of the type of the meson field which interacts with the electron in addition to the electromagnetic field. Sakata named this field the cohesive force field, because the apparent electronic mass due to the interaction of this field and the electron, though infinite, is negative and therefore the existence of this field could stabilize the electron in some sense. Sakata pointed out the possibility that the electromagnetic mass and the negative new mass cancel each other and that the infinity could be eliminated by suitably choosing the coupling constant between this field and the electron. Thus the difficulty which had troubled people for a long time seemed to disappear insofar as the mass was concerned. (It was found later that Pais proposed the same idea in the U.S. independently of Sakata.)
>
> That is to say, according to our result, the Sakata theory led to the cancellation of infinities for the mass but not for the scattering process. It was also known that the infinity of vacuum polarization type was not cancelled by the introduction of the cohesive force field."

Pais had an earlier publication in Physical Review in which he promised a forthcoming article which appeared in Trans. Roy. Acad. Sciences of the Netherlands 19, no. 1 (1947).

Returning to Japan, a key player in proposing "mixed fields" - harmonious existence of fermions and bosons - was H. Umezawa[^8] (1924-1997) and an excellent account of the status of the mixed fields, as of 1950, can be found in an article "On the Applicability of the Method of the Mixed Fields in the Theory of the Elementary Particles" that he wrote together with Sakata . Fortunately, Umezawa produced an excellent book (translated from Japanese) on "Quantum Field Theory" which not only teaches field theory but is also a rich source of historical information. Umezawa considers the case of mixed-fields in a few places in his book. As an example, the equations presented on page 255 must look familiar to researchers in the field of supersymmetry[^9]! Taken altogether, one is impressed by the amount of work done on this subject in Japan.

The mixed fields had in turn their roots. Perhaps the earliest one was the introduction of a "subtractive" vector field, proposed by F. Bopp . This amounted to replacing the $\frac{1}{r}$ Coulomb potential with $\frac{1}{r} (1- exp (-\kappa r))$, or later on, in the relativistic version, introducing a cutoff in the propagator, viz, $\frac{1}{k^{2}} - \dfrac{1}{k^{2} - \kappa^{2}}$, $\kappa$ being the cutoff mass.

The mixed-fields cancellations worked in the case of vacuum polarization because all charged particles are running in the loop. So the divergence created by the singularities in the electron propagators is compensated by those of its scalar partners. However, in the mixed fields models the photon did not have any fermionic partner!

# Interplay theory - experiment

Carl D. Anderson (the discoverer of the positron[^10] and one of the discoverers of the muon) has described the circumstances concerning the discovery of the positron as follows:

> " ... it has often been stated in the literature that the discovery of the positron was a consequence of its theoretical prediction by Dirac, but this is not true. The discovery of positron was wholly accidental.
>
> ... The aim of the experiment that led to the discovery of the positron was simply to measure directly the energy spectrum of the secondary electrons produced in the atmosphere and other materials by the incoming cosmic radiation which at that time (1930) was thought to consist primarily of a beam of photons or gamma rays ... "

Anderson emphasizes the importance of being familiar with theory by noting that if one had known the Dirac theory one

> "could have discovered the positron in a single afternoon. The reason for this is that the Dirac theory could have provided an excellent guide as to just how to proceed to form positron-electron pairs out of a beam of gamma-ray photons. History did not proceed in such a direct and efficient manner, probably because the Dirac theory, in spite of its successes, carried with it so many novel and seemingly unphysical ideas, such as negative mass, negative energy, infinite charge density, etc. Its highly esoteric character was apparently not in tune with most of the scientific thinking of that day. Furthermore, positive electrons apparently were not needed to explain any other observations."

The discovery of the muon involved a long process and it took almost two decades to know its nature. Already in 1929 the so called "penetrating radiation" from outer space was discovered by Walther Bothe[^11] and W. Kolhörster. It took a few years before one could show that the penetrating radiation consisted of new kind of particles which were neither protons nor electrons . Stated briefly, by 1939, in spite of observation of range, curvature, ionization, and penetrating power of the mesotrons one was not quite sure what they were . It was found, however, that the mesotrons didn't interact much with matter . By 1947 it was definitively established that the observed mesotrons were not relevant for transmitting strong interactions - a large fraction of negative mesotrons, instead of being captured by nuclei, decayed - the capture rates were by about 12 orders of magnitude smaller than expected! On the interplay of theory and experiment in this case Anderson says:

> "This novel suggestion of Yukawa was unknown to the workers engaged in the experiments on the muon until after the muon's existence was established. ... It is interesting to speculate on just how much Yukawa's suggestion, had it been known, would have influenced the progress of the experimental work on muon. My own opinion is that this influence would have been considerable even though Dirac's theory, which was much more specific than Yukawa's, did not have an effect on the positron's discovery. My reason for believing this is that for a period of almost two years there was strong and accumulating evidence for the muon's existence and it was only the caution of the experimental workers that prevented an earlier announcement of its existence. I believe that a theoretical idea like Yukawa's would have appealed to the people carrying out the experiments and would have provided them with a belief that maybe after all there is some need for a particle as strange as a muon, especially if it could help explain something as interesting as the enigmatic nuclear force. ..."

The discovery of charged pions was announced in 1947 (and that of neutral pions a couple of years later) by researchers working at Bristol and Cecil F. Powell received the 1950 Nobel Prize in Physics for "his development of the photographic method of studying nuclear processes and his discoveries regarding mesons made with this method".

In his Nobel Lecture , Powell has nothing to say about any theoretical influence. He ends his talk by stating:

> "In the years which have passed, the study of what might, in the early days, have been regarded as a trivial phenomenon has, in fact, led us to the discovery of many new forms on matter and many new processes of fundamental physical importance. It has contributed to the development of a picture of the material universe as a system in a state of perpetual change and flux; a picture which stands in great contrast with that of our predecessors with their fixed and eternal atoms. At the present time a number of widely divergent hypotheses, none of which is generally accepted, have been advanced to account for the origin of the cosmic radiation. It will indeed be of great interest if the contemporary studies of the primary radiation lead us - as the Thomsons suggested, and as present tendencies seem to indicate - to the study of some of the most fundamental problems in the evolution of the cosmos."

Professor Donald Perkins, in Oxford, UK, who was a member of the Bristol group[^12] has confirmed that the discovery of pions had nothing to do with theory but could simply be described by "ignorant experimentalists looking for anything of interest in emulsions exposed to cosmic radiation". The kaons were also discovered in 1947 and that eventually led to a new exciting period in the history of particle physics ($\theta - \tau$-puzzle, parity violation) during which there were fruitful close contacts between theory and experiment.

In the case of supersymmetry, there have been close contacts between theorists and experimentalists. It remains to be seen what the outcome of these joint efforts is going to be.

# The rich heritage of relativistic quantum field theory and its future

Richard Feynman, in a talk given in 1979, made the following statement:

> "We have a theory which is called quantum electrodynamics which is our pride and joy."

Indeed, Relativistic quantum electrodynamics (QED) is one of the crown jewels of human achievements in physics. It emerged at the end of 1920s through efforts to describe the interactions of light quanta with electrons. However, two decades of work by a large number of researchers was required to reformulate it and to be able to make sense out of it. Naturally, there were several earlier milestones on the road that led to QED. It is perhaps appropriate to briefly remind ourselves of a few of them:

  Introduction of the quantum of action $h$ by Max Planck (1900)

  Einstein's theory of special relativity (1905)

  Einstein's introduction of light as a "quantum **particle**", $E= h \nu$ (1905)

  "Creation of quantum mechanics"[^13] by Heisenberg (1925) and Schrödinger's version of it (1926)

  Dirac's introduction of annihilation and creation operators for photons (1927) and his first order relativistic description of the electron (1928)

  Quantization rules for bosons, using commutators, and for fermions, using anticommutators as well as a formal derivation of the Pauli principle (1928)

These theoretical breakthroughs took us to the end of 1920s when it was realized that QED, in spite of all its successes, faced insurmountable-looking difficulties, such as infinite corrections to the energy levels of atoms. The conclusion drawn by some researchers was that QED, of those days, will not be applicable to any problem where relativistic effects are important.

On the status of field theory later on, one of the leading field theorist of our time, Steven Weinberg writes (, p. 281):

> " During 1930s it was widely believed that these infinities signified the breakdown of quantum electrodynamics at energies above a few MeV. ... \[after the war\] ... The great success of calculations in quantum electrodynamics using the renormalization idea generated a new enthusiasm for quantum electrodynamics."

However by the end of 1950s and in 1960s quantum theory came under fierce attack, at least in some theoretical circles. By that time, the number of hadrons had increased so much that it raised the question whether they were all "elementary particles", each with its own field. The pion-nucleon coupling constant was found to be so large that it did not allow physicists to apply their favorite approach - perturbation theory. What was there to be done? Indeed, a group of theorists advocated departure from field theory altogether. It was argued that

> "there is no reason why some particles should be on a different footing from others. The elementary particle concept is unnecessary, at least for baryons and mesons."

Some distinguished physicists declared field theory as dead and buried, as far as hadrons were concerned. Why it worked well for quantum electrodynamics was considered as a puzzle. As we know from later history, field theory retaliated by striking back with stronger force than ever before and gave us the electroweak theory as well as QCD!

What we wish to know now is whether supersymmetry is realized in nature. Viki Weisskopf liked to say "predicting is difficult, especially when it concerns the future", a statement that he attributed to Niels Bohr. Indeed we all have "feelings" and "wishes". We would like to tell Nature how She should behave, but She has already made up Her mind and it is for us to find out what Her feelings and wishes have been. In any case, discovery of supersymmetry need not signify any departure from our current framework: relativistic local quantum field theory.

Concerning the future, I would like to quote Steven Weinberg who writes (, p. 289):

> "My own view is that all of the successful field theories of which we are so proud - electrodynamics, the electroweak theory, quantum chromodynamics and even General Relativity - are in truth effective field theories, only with a much larger characteristic energy, something like the Planck energy, $10^{19}$ GeV."

Let's hope that Mother Nature will soon reveal some of her instructive secrets, for us to be able to proceed further on the "right path".

[^1]: In 1955 there were two Nobel Laureates in Physics, one of them being Willis Lamb who received the Prize for this discovery. In his Nobel lecture, he mentions that this effect had been seen about ten years earlier by other researchers but unfortunately, as he puts it, had not been taken seriously. This was perhaps fortunate for him as he could do a much more accurate measurement, using newly developed microwave techniques.

[^2]: Unfortunately sometimes in the scientific literature one sees Retherford incorrectly spelled as Rutherford, thereby giving the credit to the latter who had passed away about ten years earlier, in 1937. Robert Curtis Retherford (1912 - 1981) was a graduate student of Willis Lamb.

[^3]: Polykarp Kusch was the second Nobel Laureate in Physics in 1955, for "his precision determination of the magnetic moment of the electron".

[^4]: See, for example, Feynman's article "Relativistic Cut-Off for Quantum Electrodynamics" where he mentions several by then existing cut-off procedures, some similar to his own, especially that of F. Bopp .

[^5]: Pauli and Villars, in their paper, give credit to Rayski as an inventor of auxiliary fictitious particles. The authors state: "Rayski made this proposal in the summer of 1948 during his investigations on the photon self-energy of *Bosons* (see reference 6). With his friendly consent we later resumed his work and generalized the method for arbitrary external fields (not necessarily light waves)".

    Note, however, that Pauli and Villars consistently refer to J. Rayski as G. Rayski. This could be due to the fact that he, when he had been in USA, had translated his first name, Jerzy, into English and had published under the name George Rayski. Jerzy Rayski (1917-1993) from Krakow, Poland, had spent one year during the period 1949-1950 in Zürich. He relates some of his recollections in .

[^6]: Yukawa received the 1949 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his prediction of the existence of mesons on the basis of theoretical work on nuclear forces".

[^7]: The 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger and Richard P. Feynman "for their fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles".

[^8]: For information about Umezawa see, for example, G. Vitiello on " Hiroomi Umezawa and Quantum Field Theory" . I wish to thank Professor Vitiello for sending his article to me.

[^9]: These being $$k-2l +3m =0$$ $$\sum_{i}^{k} (\kappa_{i}^{(s)})^{2} - 2 \sum_{i}^{l} (\kappa_{i}^{(f)})^{2} + 3 \sum_{i}^{m} (\kappa_{i}^{(v)})^{2} =0$$

    where $k, l$ and $m$ denote the number of (charged) scalar, spin-$\frac{1}{2}$, and spin-1 fields respectively and $\kappa_{i}$ denotes the appropriate mass.

[^10]: The Sixth General Assembly of IUPAP (the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics) which took place in Amsterdam, in 1948, unanimously recommended the use of the term electron for both $e^{\pm}$ and the terms positon and negaton for denoting $e^{+}$ and $e^{-}$ respectively. In the long run, however, the physics community did not follow this recommendation.

[^11]: In 1954 Walther Bothe received a Nobel Prize in Physics for "the coincidence method and his discoveries made therewith".

[^12]: I wish to thank Professors Don Perkins and Gösta Ekspong, who both were among the young members of the Bristol groups, for inspiring correspondence on their work at Bristol. Powell refers to their work in his Nobel Lecture , however, on his list of references, Ekspong's former last name (Carlson) is misspelled (as Carison).

[^13]: Quoting the Prize motivation that the Nobel Prize in Physics 1932 was awarded to Werner Heisenberg "for the creation of quantum mechanics, ..."


title: **A Review of the Enviro-Net Project$^{*}$**

Gilberto Z. Pastorello$^{1}$
G. Arturo Sanchez-Azofeifa$^{1}$
Mario A. Nascimento$^{2}$

$^{1}$ Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
1-26 Earth Sciences Buiding
University of Alberta
T6G 2E3
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com

$^{2}$ Department of Computing Science
2-32 Athabasca Hall
University of Alberta
T6G 2E8
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
email@example.com

$^{*}$Text published in:
G. Z. Pastorello, G. A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, M. A. Nascimento. *Enviro-Net: From Networks of Ground-Based Sensor Systems to a Web Platform for Sensor Data Management*. **Sensors**. 2011. 11(6):6454-6479. doi: 10.3390/s110606454

# Introduction

Monitoring ecosystems at high spatial and temporal resolutions still is a challenging endeavor. Satellite-embarked sensors that offer regular passes support only coarse resolution monitoring and on-demand high resolution satellite or airborne-based monitoring are still too expensive to be considered viable options for frequent data collections. Furthermore, validation of satellite and airborne measurements against the values observed at ground level is often difficult to obtain. Ground-based, or *in-situ*, sensor systems for environmental monitoring have associated challenges as well , but have undergone a considerable evolution recently. Such systems are now capable of collecting data at very high temporal resolution for very specific ecosystems through long periods of time. In particular, the use of wireless sensor systems has been shown to be very effective in this type of monitoring , from the cost perspective and increasingly in terms of performance and reliability as well.

There are many challenges associated with high resolution (both spatial and temporal) *in-situ* environmental monitoring, many of which already well recognized in the literature. Rundel *et al.* , for instance, discuss how these networks generate more data than can be managed by traditional methods for field research data, with data quality assurance and control surpassing capabilities of single individuals dealing with the data, but still being required to produce high-quality data. The large variety of problems impacting quality can be more easily detected by using adequate cyberinfratructure for automating the detection, which also allows more timely identification of problems in the deployments themselves. They also argue that, although data storage and retrieval is reasonably easy to attain, publishing and sharing data is not as straightforward. Still according to the authors, one of the advantages of this integrated approach for offering data from multiple sensors is the larger world view generated, which is not possible with single sensors—at least not at these spatio-temporal scales. The authors also acknowledge the importance of training scientists in using *in-situ* monitoring tools, the flexibility of power requirements for these systems (especially wireless) and the use of energy harvesting, problems related gaps in the data (from numerous causes), difficulty to assess precision and fidelity in such systems, and the value of commercial availability for decreasing costs and scaling up deployments sizes.

Hart and Martinez discuss power management, large volumes of data and required cyberinfrastructure, beginning of commercial efforts, and data quality control as important issues concerning *in-situ* environmental monitoring. They also raise additional points that require more work, such as assessment of environmental conditions any equipment needs to withstand them (e.g., temperature, pressure, vibration); standardization requirements related to data and metadata representation; security requirements, preventing tampering with both equipment and datasets within the data management systems; and, better means for data interpretation (e.g., by using new methods for data mining). Another relevant effort can be found in the report from Estrin *et al.* , who focus on cyberinfrastructure. Key points include: the need for better prototyping and design of end-to-end test-beds to allow validation across wide ranges of environments, applications and domains; creation of better services regarding time synchronization, *in-situ* calibration, and adaptive duty cycling, among others; seamless use of high performance computing facilities for data processing; tools to improve support for metadata; and, collaboration efforts as a basis for training new scientists (from multiple domains) and as a mechanism for sustaining long term deployments.

This paper distills our experience in deploying and managing *in-situ* sensor systems within the Enviro-Net Project (<http://www.enviro-net.info/>). Currently, Enviro-Net includes 39 deployments spread throughout nine sites in six different countries (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico and Panama), and is coordinated at the University of Alberta, in cooperation with local partner research teams at each site. The initial goal of the deployments was to monitor vegetation phenology, the study of climate effects on periodic biological activity , correlating it with environmental variables, such as availability of light, air temperature, *etc.* These and other variables are monitored by different types of sensing systems, with the collected data being transmitted back to Internet servers in Alberta either through a commercial satellite up-link or being manually retrieved from the data loggers and then sent via email, FTP or Enviro-Net's website. The following gives but one example of the applicability and usefulness of such type of systems. From the data collected by a combination of two types of specialized solar radiation fluxes sensors, it is possible to derive different vegetation indexes, which can be used as proxies to monitoring phenological responses. In order to distinguish vegetation distribution, particularly from perspectives such as species distribution or successional stage, the areas to be monitored are numerous and relatively small. Similarly, short term effects of isolated climatic phenomena (e.g., a rainstorm or sharp changes in temperature) require higher rates of data acquisition. These characteristics require higher spatial and temporal resolutions only achieved through *in-situ* monitoring of each ecosystem.

In this context, detailed discussions of how we dealt with these challenges within the Enviro-Net Project form the main contributions of this paper, particularly considering the scenario under which the project was developed. The monitored sites are mostly tropical dry forests in remote locations, which are challenging environments for both equipment performance and personnel's ability to work. Also, all deployments are based on inexpensive and commercially available technology, essential characteristics to allow scalability and reproducibility of experiments. The heterogeneity of equipment from different manufacturers also introduce difficulties, mainly regarding systems maintenance. Having long term (multiple-year) deployments impose extra management requirements. Integrated data management, a fourth aspect, presents numerous challenges ranging from data quality control to user interface usability. Finally, and maybe the most relevant aspect, is the issue of high spatial and temporal resolutions, considered not only within a single deployment, but also among different deployments both in the same and different sites. Part of these challenges have simple individual solutions, however, from a more holistic perspective, the integration of the solutions for all of them is what actually enables the use of sensors systems for *in-situ* environmental monitoring. After a review of related work on Section , this paper describes our solutions regarding deployments of *in-situ* monitoring systems in Section , pre-processing and treatment of data in Section  and data publication and accessibility using a Web-based system in Section .

# Related Work

This section divides related work discussion into applications (covering the motivation for *in-situ* monitoring), deployments (showing experiences in installing and maintaining sensor systems), and data management (comparing different efforts in dealing with the large amounts of sensor data generated).

## Applications

Environmental monitoring is one of the driving forces behind the adoption of ground-based sensing systems, pushing the need for higher spatial and temporal resolution. Examples of efforts in this direction include: (i) the creation of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) , which aims at studying climate change, land-use change and invasive species on a continental scale using, among other methods and technologies, ground-based deployments of sensor systems; (ii) FLUXNET , which use micrometeorological and flux towers to measure exchanges of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. These initiatives heavily rely on long term ground-based monitoring solutions. FLUXNET has a public data management framework called Fluxdata.org , which also offers flexible metadata support. However, due to the diversity of equipment and protocols for deployment and data pre-processing, data integration within the Fluxdata.org system is limited, mostly offering access to data on the original format provided by the data producers. This limits the possibilities of applying filters and aggregation operations to the data or generating derived data products within the system. Although our system also deals with a variety of equipment, the deployment protocols are largely uniform, and pre-processing protocols are developed using a centralized approach, which allow us to achieve a considerable level of data integration within Enviro-Net.

These and other initiatives, aiming at integration of ground-based monitoring efforts, are leading to an evolution from single site environmental monitoring into networks for environment observation . This evolution culminates with the current vision for a *Sensor Web* , encompassing several types of deployments of sensor systems, interconnecting them globally through a Web-based integration strategy using standards developed by the Sensor Web Enablement (<http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/sensorweb>) Working Group of the Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC) (<http://www.opengeospatial.org/>).

A small clarification on the definition for (wireless) sensor networks may be in order. Mainly within Computing Science (CS) research and in earlier Sensor Web related efforts , this definition is narrower than what is used in this paper. In this more restrictive definition, a (wireless) sensor network is based on nodes (also known as "motes") that have sensing, data storage/processing, and communication components plus a power source. These nodes are usually autonomous and operate cooperatively—by communicating amongst themselves—to collect and process data, also being programmable, *i.e.*, able to behave differently according to, for instance, the type of application, power supply conditions, environmental conditions, *etc.* Although we have used this type of wireless nodes in our deployments, we do not require the capability of offering communication amongst network's components. Instead, we adopt the centralized type of processing architecture as classified by , being more in line with the current Sensor Web approach to networks . It is sufficient for us, for instance, that the connection of sensing elements be done at the level of integrated data products.

Applications of *in-situ* monitoring systems are also the topic of other research efforts. Porter *et al.* present a good review of the capabilities of wireless sensor networks (WSN) to be applied within the ecological domain. Hamilton *et al.* , while covering capabilities of networks of sensors applied to ecology as well, also highlight the idea of ecological observatories, adopted within NEON. An extensive review of *in-situ* monitoring efforts is presented by Rundel *et al.* , classified according to their area of focus: above ground, under-ground, and aquatic environments. Porter *et al.*  discuss the state of the sensing technology, what can already be accomplished and a few areas that require more development (e.g., data management software and new types of sensors). Precision agriculture is a particularly relevant application area for pervasive sensing technology. For instance, Lee *et al.* evaluate monitoring applied to specialty crop, while Matese *et al.* use wireless sensor network in vineyard monitoring, and Aquino-Santos *et al.* evaluate data transmission protocols in small scale deployments in watermelon fields. In this paper, we discuss aspects that apply to many of these scenarios, particularly if considering them in a long term monitoring perspective. However, our focus is on practical and logistics aspects of deploying and maintaining equipment, retrieving and managing the data, and supporting analysis of data products.

## Deployments

Other research groups have discussed their efforts with ground-based deployments of sensor systems, mostly focusing on the use of wireless equipment. A pioneering effort in applying wireless sensor networks was the habitat monitoring experiment in the Great Duck Island in the coast of Maine in the United States, deployed to offer a less intrusive way to study behavior and nesting of seabird colonies. The SensorScope project is another example, taking place mainly in Switzerland. They have described their experience with developing the hardware and software for their wireless system, performing tests, and going on deployment expeditions, along with their architecture and communication protocols. With a focus on solar energy availability, AdaptSens adopts system-wide levels of operation to cope with different amounts of available energy. GreenOrbs (<http://www.greenorbs.org/>)  is a long term effort for monitoring an university campus urban forest close to Hangzhou in China, using a large number of nodes. LUSTER is a system for monitoring ecological variables that implements fault-tolerant distributed storage over a delay-tolerant network using an hierarchical architecture; the system also covers user interaction both in the field expeditions and a web interface for data retrieval. Another effort , aiming at monitoring the UNESCO World Heritage site Mogao Grottoes in Dunhuang, China, implemented a low power wireless monitoring system inside the site's caves with a tailored long distance connection to transmit the data back to an on-line server. Another World Heritage site, a rainforest ecosystem in Queensland, Australia, was monitored by a wireless sensor network project , which served as a prototype for future long term deployments using similar configurations. Another interesting application, monitoring the activities of volcanoes in Ecuador , entails addressing issues such as higher sampling rates (100 Hz or more), need for higher accuracy and more expensive sensors. Changing the spatial scale a little, monitoring a single redwood tree in California in the United States, offered new insight in understanding the microclimate surrounding this type of tree. Reports on deployment experiences also focus on the diversity of problems faced when using wireless sensing equipment, such as the LOFAR-agro project  that experienced problems ranging from hardware failures to network protocols errors and software problems. While deployment related efforts in our work focus on issues related to managing the life cycle of ground-based sensor data, other works bring evaluations of technology for wireless sensor network equipment, including communication protocols, power consumption and data transmission issues.

To the best of our knowledge, none of the deployment efforts reviewed here address the same scenario as ours: having (multi-year) long term deployments, based on cooperative efforts of several (heterogeneous) teams, using commercially available equipment from multiple manufacturers, with an integrated effort of data retrieval, quality control and data availability through an easy to use Web-based platform. We believe this is a more realistic scenario for ground-based environmental monitoring efforts. The current efforts within the Life Under Your Feet project (<http://lifeunderyourfeet.org/>) are the closest to our own, also having long term, spatially distributed deployments with a Web-based data visualization interface integrated with geolocation information. However, they do not seem to deal with heterogeneous equipment and data formats, nor offer filtering/aggregation options, derived datasets or quality information in their data management solution.

## Data Management

Many of the challenges related to sensor data management have been known for a while . However, several technical and non-technical questions still remain unaddressed. Broad scope projects for management of earth observation data try to present a top-down approach to data management. One such project is DataOne (<http://www.dataone.org/>), an effort towards distributed cyberinfrastructure for Earth observation data, bringing together a multitude of data providers and consumers. Another effort is our partner project GeoChronos (<http://www.geochronos.org/>), which implements means for sharing (and interacting with) tools, datasets and libraries of records within the Earth observation domain. Enviro-Net, however, uses more of a bottom-up approach, offering specialized solutions for the types of data supported, expanding these types as needed. This allows data management solutions that are geared towards specific needs to answer specific science questions.

Although it is common to think about sensor data management as stream data management, with the associated challenges (on-line aggregation, classification, *etc.*) , at least within environmental research, particularly in ground-based monitoring, this is not a frequent scenario. Most of the current applications based on sensor data use the perspective of historical (or an archive of) time series data. Applications using the stream data perspective are only beginning to appear, and the current applications that do require that perspective—e.g., volcano monitoring —are still the exception. Data manipulation for most of the current applications is done after having the data collected and stored, applying a variety of analytical operations in an offline fashion .

Middleware software for automating control of deployments is also the focus of current research efforts, in form of architectures for integrating different network deployments , or Web-based interfaces for interaction with and control of wireless deployments . Our focus, on the other hand, is on managing the data products rather than controlling the equipment from within our system.

The data archival aspect of data management involves not only storage of data, but also retrieval, documentation, access control, among other issues. Furthermore, data curation of long-term repositories involves not only handling the data but also helping scientists answering research questions and also maintaining the underlying computational infrastructure . Within Enviro-Net, although we are only beginning to to devise our long term plans for infrastructure maintenance, our system already offers data access with a number of flexibility aspects to foster efficient use of the data. Efforts on applying digital library practices in support of sensor data management are also gaining acceptance . Issues of data quality and integrity, as well as the elements of data collection that affect them, need to be an integral part of such efforts , particularly from the perspective of making data documentation available along with the datasets. In this scenario, metadata becomes as valuable as the datasets themselves, from quality metadata about deployments , to offering search and annotation options and enriching visualization . Finally, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) allow data to be accessed in a programmatic way, which can be achieved, for instance, using Web services interfaces (using Sensor Web Enablement standards) or using specialized solutions such as a wrapper-based middlewares or REST-based APIs . Data quality aspects are an integral part of Enviro-Net, and are being improved, particularly regarding documentation and metadata coverage. Although data ingestion is largely automated and data access is possible through the Web user interface within Enviro-Net, data access using a programmatic interface is still under development.

# Sensor Systems Deployments

Apart from a few test installations, all of our deployments are intended to be long term, collecting data for a minimum of two to three years. The earliest deployments were installed in mid 2007, with the first wireless deployments installed in mid 2008. All deployments suffered from interruption in data collection on some scale, usually from a few days up to a couple of months, depending on how early the problem was detected. Earlier deployments suffered 100% failure rate due to equipment design being incompatible with tropical environments. Many problems were related to unexpected interactions of environmental conditions with the equipment. However, most of the deployments are still operational today, with secured funding for maintaining them operational until at least 2013.

Currently, Enviro-Net has 39 permanent deployments, plus temporary deployments in Edmonton, Canada for equipment testing and calibration. The *Biosphere Reserve of Chamela-Cuixmala* in the state of Jalisco, Mexico has a tower (overlooking the top of the canopy) and a wireless understory sensor system. The number of nodes in a wireless deployment is usually 12, but there are deployments with as few as five and as many as 20 nodes, each node having between three to six sensors each. The *Santa Rosa National Park* in Costa Rica hosts two more towers. The *Parque Natural Metropolitano* in Panama has the most recent deployment with 24 thermocouples monitoring leaf temperatures. In Brazil, three sites have deployments: the *Mata Seca State Park*, the *Serra do Cipó National Park*, and the *Environmental Protection Area of the Pandeiros River*, all located in the Minas Gerais state. The Mata Seca park hosts five towers and eight understory deployments (including four wireless deployments), all in the *cerrado* ecosystem, which is similar to a savanna; three understory deployments are active close to the Pandeiros river, also a *cerrado* ecosystem; and, Serra do Cipó park has five towers plus seven understory deployments, two of which using wireless systems, covering natural grasslands and forest vegetation in the *cerrado*. Finally, three deployments are operational in the province of San Luis in Argentina, a phenology tower monitoring a grassland ecosystem, and one tower and one wireless understory deployment installed in a adjacent *chaco* ecosystem. Two more wireless towers are operational *chaco* and grassland ecosystems in the province of Córdoba, Argentina. Three more deployments are expected to start data collection in 2011 in the province of San Luis. Although the ideal spatial scales for many applications requires higher numbers of nodes deployed to be considered high spatial density—more in line with our plans for future sensor networks—the intermediary step with 5–20 nodes per deployment was necessary to prove this kind of scale is feasible in remote locations with long term deployments. These are, however, dense enough to characterize many ecosystem level behavior (such as response to climatic events), and even differences between neighboring ecosystems. The experience acquired in these smaller deployments, which is the fundamental contribution of this text, serves as a basis for these larger scales expeditions.

The main challenge of having deployments across an entire continent is without question maintaining them. Partnerships with research groups based closer to the deployment sites proved essential, with the added issue of offering training to the people performing basic maintenance. The small amounts of time available for training leads to the choice of equipment that is simple to use and maintain. Hands on experience has proven to be the most efficient method to train new users, specially when focusing on how to deal with common problems. Special attention needs to be given to data retrieval and manipulation methods in order to allow tracking of data problems later in the processing chain. Documentation of our own group's deployment protocols and data handling procedures complemented and helped with equipment manuals and specifications.

Regularity in systems maintenance is key in keeping them running within long term deployments. Life expectancy and calibration deviation for sensors are usually a parameter specified by the manufacturer. Enviro-Net deployments usually have two maintenance cycles: one for basic overall system check (and data retrieval for off-line deployments) and another for complete verification of the equipment. The basic cycle has intervals ranging from two weeks to two months, depending on the accessibility of the site and regularity of visits for other purposes. This task is usually performed by a member of the local research teams and involves cleaning the sensors if needed—mostly from dust build-up or obstructions such as leaves, insect or bird nests, etc–verification of the general health of the system, and data retrieval, usually the most relevant part in a basic maintenance cycle. The complete cycle intervals ranges from 6 to 12 months, and allows detection of a broader range of problems—e.g., battery charge retention capacity. This task is usually performed with one more experienced technician.

## Sensors and Loggers

Tables  and list the equipment used in our deployments. For datalogger systems, shown in Table , wired and wireless systems are available. In wired systems all the sensors are connected directly to the data logger and the communications with it are done mostly through a physical connection using a cable (serial or USB, for instance) to connect to a laptop. For wired deployments, we mostly used *Onset Computer Corp.* (<http://www.onsetcomp.com/>) data loggers; specifically the *HOBO Micro Station*, the *HOBO U12 Series* and the *HOBO U30 Series* models were employed.

Wireless systems, on the other hand offer different strategies to eliminate the need for cabled connections. As an example, the equipment manufactured by *Olsonet Communications Corporation* (<http://www.olsonet.com/>) offers two types of nodes: a collector and an aggregator. The former is connected to the sensors and is responsible for wirelessly transmitting the readings to the aggregator, which works as a centralization point for the data collection also dubbing as a short term data logger. The aggregator, however, requires a cable connection for setup or data recovery. A different strategy is used by the equipment manufactured by *MicroStrain, Inc.* (<http://www.microstrain.com/>), where each *ENV-Link^^* node works as an individual data logger, but the connection to these nodes for setup and data retrieval is done through a wireless connection.

The storage capacity for samples in both types of loggers usually match the power consumption characteristics to achieve similar longevity in field deployments. As discussed later in this section a satellite up-link and a continuous battery recharging capability (e.g., using solar panels), would allow even longer time spans. However, since in practice maintenance is necessary long before these limits are reached, battery and storage lifetimes are not a limitation for most of these types of equipment.

```latex
\makebox[\textwidth]{%
  \begin{tabular}{l l l l l}
  \hline
{\bf Logger Model} & {\bf Connectivity} & {\bf Storage Memory} & {\bf Power (Battery Type)} & {\bf Est. Longevity\textsuperscript{(a)}} \\
\hline
Onset U30 & wired data and setup & 512 KB & Int.~(4.5 or 10 Ah, 4 V) + Solar & solar panel\textsuperscript{(b)}\\
Onset U12 & wired data and setup & 43,000 samples (64 KB) & Int.~(CR-2032 lithium 3 V) & 10--12 months\\
Onset Micro Station & wired data and setup & 512 KB & Int.~(4 x AA 1.5 V) & 10--14 months\\
Olsonet Collector & wireless data / no setup & 256 KB & Int.~(2 x AA 1.5 V) & 4--5 months\\
Olsonet Aggregator & wireless data / wired setup & 2 GB (remov. SD card) & Ext.~(7--12 Ah) + Solar & solar panel\textsuperscript{(b)}\\
Microstrain ENV-Link & wireless data and setup & 360,000 samples & Int. (650 mAh) + Ext. (9 Ah) & 10--14 months\\
\hline
  \end{tabular}
}
```

\(a\) Estimated longevity with 15 minutes sampling; (b) Dependent on sun light availability.

`\makebox[\textwidth]{%
  \begin{tabular}{l l l l l}
  \hline
{\bf Sensor Model} & {\bf Variable (Unit)} & {\bf Sensor Type} & {\bf Range} & {\bf Accuracy}\\
\hline
Sensirion SHT-75 & Temp.~(\degree C) & silicon bandgap & $-$40.0--123.8 \degree C & 0.3--1.5 \degree C\\
~ & Rel.~Hum.~(\%) & capacitive humidity & 0--100\% RH & 1.8--4.0\% RH\\
Onset S-THB-M00x & Temp.~(\degree C) & silicon bandgap & $-$40.0--75.0 \degree C & 0.2--0.7 \degree C\\
~ & Rel.~Hum.~(\%) & capacitive humidity & 0--100\% RH & 2.5--4.5\% RH\\
Onset RG3-M & Rainfall (mm/h) & tipping bucket & max 1,270 mm/h & 1.00\%\\
Onset S-LIA-M003 & PAR ($\mu$mol/m2/sec)\textsuperscript{(a)} & photons detector & 0--2,500 $\mu$mol/m2/sec\textsuperscript{(c)} & 5.0\% or 5 $\mu$mol/m2/sec\\
Onset S-LIB-M003 & Solar Radiation (W/m2) & silicon photovoltaic detector & 0--1,280 W/m2\textsuperscript{(d)} & 5.0\% or 10 W/m2\\
Apogee SQ-110 & PAR ($\mu$mol/m2/sec)\textsuperscript{(a)} & photons detector & 0--2,000 $\mu$mol/m2/sec\textsuperscript{(c)} & 5.00\% \\
Apogee SP-110 & Solar Radiation (W/m2) & silicon photovoltaic detector & 0--1,100 W/m2\textsuperscript{(d)} & 5.00\%\\
Decagon ECH2O EC-5 & Soil Moisture (VWC\textsuperscript{(b)}) & 70 MHz capacitance/frequency & 0--100 \% VWC & 1.0--3.0 \% VWC\\
\hline
  \end{tabular}
}`{=latex}

\(a\) Photosynthetically Active Radiation; (b) Volumetric Water Content; (c) For wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm; (d) For wavelengths between 300 and 1,100 nm.

The biggest advantage of wired equipment is reliability, being in use longer, and tested under many combinations of conditions. Besides limited spatial coverage, when compared to wireless systems, the most problematic aspect of this technology is accessibility. Everything requiring a physical connection between the logger and the laptop with the control software, having to climb up a tower to perform tasks as routine as retrieving data is a somewhat serious limitation. Even using longer cables for the sensors, which still have a limited maximum length on account attenuation of the electric signal, towers for higher canopies require climbing to access the logger.

For environmental monitoring, the major advantage of wireless sensor systems is the possibility of covering larger areas, without giving up high spatial and temporal resolution, and at a reasonably low cost. One low point of the technology is that it is still fairly new as a commercial product, and still needs some adaptation. Errors in communication protocols, radio range limitations, power management related issues, lack of features in the control software packages, and breaches in weather proofing cases weight in at the cons for wireless systems. However, our experience shows the technology has already reached the tipping point to becoming viable for use in long term, harsh environment deployments.

Commercial availability of *wireless sensor networks* (WSN), as a technology, is still limited. Although the original ideas for WSN—*i.e.*, large number of general purpose nodes distributed in very dense deployments, randomly placed, almost weightless, and disposable—have yet to materialize , wireless technology used in conjunction with sensory equipment is proving to be invaluable in monitoring larger areas at the scale of a single ecosystem.

Table  lists the main sensors use in our deployments, which are are well known, commercially available, inexpensive, and based on established technologies. With the variables listed, it is possible to extract plenty of derived information from them, such as vegetation indexes and light absorption patterns for photosynthesis. In our deployments, we used solar radiation sensors provided by Onset and *Apogee Instruments, Inc.* (<http://www.apogeeinstruments.com/>); air temperature and relative humidity sensors by *Sensirion Inc.* (<http://www.sensirion.com/>) and Onset (The Onset temperature and relative humidity sensors used are repackaged Sensirion sensors); and, soil moisture sensors by *Decagon Devices, Inc.* (<http://www.decagon.com/>) Lower cost sensors systems usually do not offer calibration options for the user; they have their calibration adjusted at the manufacturer (who usually offer recalibration services).

## Deployment Configurations

Within the Enviro-Net Project there are currently two main types of deployments: phenology towers and understory installations. A phenology tower uses two solar radiation flux sensors (also called pyranometers), measuring wavelengths between approximately 300 to 1,100 nm, and two Photosynthetically Active Radiation flux sensors (or PAR sensors), which measure wavelengths between approximately 400 to 700 nm. Ratios of these measurements can be used to derive vegetation indexes such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) or Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI)–see, for instance . Such indexes can be used as proxies to monitor vegetation phenology. Understory deployments are used to monitor the conditions below the canopy level, and usually cover a larger area.

Figure  shows the schematics of a phenology tower on the left, with two PAR sensors and two pyranometers, one of each measuring incoming solar radiation and one of each measuring reflected solar radiation. The right side of the figure is a photo of one phenology tower installed in Brazil, which raises the sensors eight meters from the ground, six meters above the canopy.

Most radiation flux sensors have view angles of up to 85$^{\circ}$ from zenith (when oriented up, *i.e.*, measuring incoming radiation) or nadir (when oriented down), with a uniform 360$^{\circ}$ rotation. With that, the radius that affects the readings is up to around ten times the distance ($h$) between the sensor position and the surface being monitored (*i.e.*, $radius = \tan(85^{\circ}) \times h$). For our deployment, we usually have at least five meters between the top of the canopy and the sensor measuring the reflected radiation (8 to 15 m in total), leading to a coverage radius of at least 50 m in the monitored area.

Obstructions within the range of a sensor interfere with the reading and might not be easy to identify from the data only—e.g., higher canopy of adjacent ecosystems or a nearby tower with other instruments may interfere with sensor measuring incoming radiation. A sensor measuring radiation reflected from the canopy is more susceptible to interference—e.g., the positioning of solar panels, whose reflectiveness greatly affect readings. Large panels should be positioned outside of the interference radius, while smaller panels can be positioned at the same height as the sensor for no interference. Note that it is difficult to position radiation sensors and solar panels at different orientations, since both should use the optimal exposure angle to the sun, roughly North, in southern latitudes, or South, in northern latitudes.

Monitoring the conditions under the canopy level, *i.e.*, understory deployments, allows assessing a different range of micro-climatic conditions and also soil condition—e.g., temperature and moisture levels. Understory deployments are usually easier to access, and with that, they are useful for validating the readings observed in a tower and also as a backup for certain variables in case of sensor malfunction in a tower. Using wireless systems substantially increases the spatial coverage of understory deployments with a fraction of the increase in cost and efforts to retrieve data and maintain the system.

Figure  depicts an example of such a wireless deployment on its left side. On the right side, it shows a node deployed in the *chaco* ecosystem in Argentina. The height at which the sensors are installed in this case is also determined by the canopy's height, usually ranging from right on the ground (e.g., for grasslands) to 1.5 m for taller canopies. One example of application that relies on the spatial coverage and resolution of understory wireless deployments is deriving Leaf Area Index (LAI)—see , for instance. LAI, along with Plant (PAI) and Wood (WAI) Area Indexes , are important indicators of vegetation productivity, being also used as a reference for crop growth rates. Combining readings from a phenology tower with understory readings of absorbed solar radiation fluxes, it is possible to derive NDVI for the location of each node. Using NDVI and knowing an appropriate conversion factor, characteristic to each ecosystem, it is possible to calculate LAI for each node . This allows the creation of maps of very high spatial and temporal resolutions for both NDVI and LAI.

Having the option of deploying a large number of sensors in a given area also raises the question of how to distribute these sensors. We have adopted three different strategies to spatially distribute nodes and their sensors. Figure  illustrates these strategies. The first approach, shown in the left, is intended to monitor a linear region along a transect. This is particularly useful for monitoring transitions between ecosystems or exposition to different conditions within the same ecosystem. The center of the figure shows distribution of nodes in concentric circles, which is sometimes called a "star" deployment. This type of deployment is used mostly to monitor conditions around a point of interest, usually corresponding to the footprint of phenology or carbon flux towers, allowing combination of measurements from both deployments. A third strategy is to deploy nodes in a grid, covering a potentially larger area of interest. Regularly spaced grids are useful for uniform monitoring throughout an area. However, irregular grids can also be useful when special conditions occur within a region of interest. Examples include part of an area that is also being monitored by other experiments (e.g., leaf collection for chlorophyll measurements); or patches affected by fire and monitoring their recovery is of interest.

## Deploying Sensors Systems

From a logistics perspective, installing tower and understory systems have fairly different characteristics. Phenology towers reached up to 15 m in one of our deployments, with 9 m being the most common height. Selecting the location for installing a tower that high must take into account the representativeness of the ecosystem, the impact of building it, and the accessibility to bring its parts to the site. Another important issue is the uniformity in the height of the canopy. Too much variation in the tree heights will lead to scaling problems in the data, an area with taller vegetation will be contributing significantly less to the readings. When installing a phenology tower intended to be used in a long term data collection, the growth of the vegetation should also be taken into account. Younger ecosystems might grow considerably at intervals as short as one year, forcing height upgrades to a tower.

The height of the canopy is also a concern for understory deployments. Ecosystems with lower canopies, such as grasslands, require that solar radiation flux sensors be positioned almost adjacent to the ground, while taller canopies allow sensors in a higher position (0.60 to 0.10 m are common heights). For wireless deployments, the node is usually installed in a higher position to improve radio signal range, while the sensors are deployed at the appropriate heights.

Although it might seem like a trivial task at first, correctly positioning the sensors should take into consideration a number of factors. One issue is the creation of unnatural sources of shade (e.g., from the pole where the node sits) into the sensor. For deployments in the northern (southern) hemisphere, positioning radiation flux sensors South (North) of obstructions avoids this issue. Air temperature and relative humidity sensors are also affected by their positioning. Besides being hosted at solar radiation shields and being positioned as to allow for air circulation, they should also keep some distance from radiation absorbing materials. Most of the weatherproofing cases, for instance, absorb non-negligible quantities of solar radiation. We had cases of temperature deviations of up to 20 $^{\circ}$C because of a dark weatherproof case.

One crucial aspect to sensor systems deployments in tropical ecosystems is the exposure to constantly high relative humidity. Values between 90%–100% are common in these environments. Combined with high temperatures, this condition transformed many weatherproof casings into humidity traps. The main problem was actually the difference of internal and external pressure in the cases. That made previously air tight cases absorb humidity while balancing the pressure, exposing the internal circuits and connectors. Both for loggers and sensors, even cases designed and tested to work underwater were susceptible to this problem. Adopting pressure relief valves significantly attenuated the problem, even though sometimes they can get clogged with dirt and stop working. Another adopted practice that also helped reduce this problem was to use silicone-based adhesives to seal borders and openings, around sensor cables and also around the sensors themselves.

For wireless sensor systems, testing the range of the radio system at the actual deployment site is essential. Vegetation distribution and terrain contours are difficult to predict beforehand and have a significant impact in the radio range. Two major aspects have shown to be of particular relevance when conducting this kind of test. Firstly, if the type of batteries used decrease the voltage offered to the system with time, the tests should not be conducted with new batteries. A more accurate test of radio range is achieved using more realistic battery levels—e.g., levels of battery similar to when a deployment running for more than half of the expected battery life. In case of rechargeable batteries, the charge level used should be the average level the batteries would have when going without charge for the maximum foreseeable period. For tropical dry forests the maximum period without non-negligible sun light exposure for charging batteries through solar panels is around two days. It is worth of note that regular alkaline (zinc and manganese dioxide) batteries, widely adopted to power nodes in sensor networks, do change their voltages depending on their level of charge.

The second aspect interfering with radio range is related to the vegetation density, particularly to changes in density throughout the seasons. Radio range is greatly affected by branches and leaves in the line of sight of the signal. Ranges of up to 300 m in a level and open field can be reduced to as little as 15 m (a factor of 20 reduction) simply by having a somewhat closed vegetation. In particular, radio frequencies at 2.4 GHz are severely attenuated by trees and leafs. This frequency is adopted by several wireless sensor systems, including the ZigBee Alliance (<http://www.zigbee.org/>) communications protocols (based on the IEEE 802.15.4 Wireless Personal Area Network standard), widely used in these systems. Furthermore, it is very usual for deployment campaigns to take place in the dry season, when rainfall is less of a concern for the schedule in deployment plans. However, foliage of deciduous vegetation can be at much lower levels than it will be in the wet season, which can significantly affect the range of radio signal. There is no definite solution to address the vegetation changes, since simulating the conditions of a different season is difficult. Monitoring the overall network health, which can be done in its simplest form by detecting gaps in the data, and repositioning nodes when necessary has been the best measure to address this issue in new ecosystems. These, in turn, serve as a reference for future deployments in similar ecosystems.

Seasonal change also can have an unexpected impact in the visibility of nodes and sensors. When installing sensors in the dry season, there are few obstructions and less color variability on the landscape. This makes visibility reasonably good. However, areas that significantly change their vegetation coverage or areas that have dense vegetation can become quite challenging from the point of view of visibility in the wet season. Using colorful markers—red or yellow ribbons or paint are effective for this—can save a lot of time when trying to find nodes and sensor that have been deployed for a while. Not relying solely on the GPS to locate small pieces of equipment such as individual nodes and sensors can be the difference between returning to base camp before or after sunset. One aspect of using such markers that was not taken into account in this work is the increased attractiveness color makers might exert on animals (particularly insects).

## Retrieving Data

Data from ground-based sensor systems can be retrieved either *in-situ* or remotely. The former involves expeditions to the deployment sites, which can be very expensive. However, if the site is already being visited in a regular basis for other reasons (collecting leaf samples, for instance), this might become more feasible. Most of our current deployments are working in this scenario. This has proven to be quite an advantage from the perspective of maintenance of untested systems, allowing early detection of problems with equipment. With equipment proven to work well, using a remote solution is probably more cost and time effective.

Collecting data remotely might be achieved in a number of ways. One possibility is using a dedicated long range wireless communication system—e.g., by using a WiFi connection with repeaters—to transmit data at regular intervals to a computer installed in a location with permanent power supply. If there is also Internet connectivity, the data can be forwarded to on-line permanent archival systems. This alternative usually has a significant overhead of maintaining the local computer and the long range communications system running.

Another alternative is to use cellular networks with data capabilities. Although cellular coverage is not good in more remote areas, some regions have enough connectivity to allow data transmission in a fairly regular fashion. Using higher gain antennas improves signal reception, but the system must be prepared to go through reasonably long periods with no connectivity, preserving all data for delayed transmission. Since an actual Internet connection is provided with a cellular connection, the data can be transmitted directly to on-line archival servers.

A third type of remote data retrieval solution involves using a satellite up-link. This approach is also subject to communications failure (e.g., if there is too much cloud coverage). The connectivity provided here usually is not to the Internet, but connectivity to a service provider that receive the data from the satellite. This provider in turn makes the data accessible, often offering automated ways of retrieving the data from their on-line servers. In our case, systems that have proven to work consistently well have been equipped with a satellite transmitter.

Remote connectivity allows not only automated data retrieval, but also some level remote operation of the equipment. Options of stopping and starting the logger, setting sampling and storage rates are often available. In a few cases, it might be interesting to be able to set other parameters remotely, particularly with wireless systems. Research projects have explored configuring deployments remotely , even reprogramming loggers and collection nodes in some cases . This level of flexibility in remote deployment configuration, however, is not yet commercially available.

# Data Pre-Processing and Cleaning

When considering the volume of data generated by current sensor systems, automation of data management related tasks within a proper computational infrastructure is of paramount importance . However, actual datasets generated by sensor systems might present a variety of problems and exceptions, which are often difficult to foresee. This is a severe drawback in attempts to automate the first data management phase: ingestion of data into any computational data management system. This sort of problems are often dismissed as being "implementation details", but their implications can actually affect data quality parameters and models to store and distribute the data. In higher end (expensive) and/or homogeneous equipment this sort of problems are usually easier to tackle. However, in a setting like ours, using equipment from different manufactures, in a highly distributed effort, with an aim at low limits for equipment and maintenance costs, these issues are fairly commonplace.

The implementation of solutions for problems with raw datasets are usually carried out within a *data pre-processing* (or *data cleaning*) phase. Although these terms usually encompass explicit data quality verification or removal of erroneous readings (e.g., values outside the scale measured by a sensor), this section only considers problems that actually prevent (or are difficult to trace after) the ingestion of the data into a data management system. When compared to classification scales usually adopted in describing Earth observation data products, after the corrections in this section, the dataset should treated as "raw" data, or, as being at Data Processing Level 2 in the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Data Management and Computation (CODMAC) classification, or to Data Processing Level 0 used by NASA (<http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/earth-science-data/data-processing-levels-for-eosdis-data-products/>). The next paragraph discuss the problems we had to handle when preparing our datasets.

## Synchronization

Keeping correct temporal information for timestamping readings from distributed sensors can be really challenging, not to mention correcting time deviations after recording the data . Time synchronization is an issue both at single deployment, with multiple collectors and/or loggers, and across deployments. Within a deployment, hardware imprecision and heterogeneous initial synchronization methods are the two main causes of synchronization problems. Time keeping in electronic equipment is based on crystal oscillators, which can deviate from their standard frequency with environmental conditions, especially temperature. This causes the time measurements to deviate as well, and affects almost all types of data logging equipments. In this case, the error is proportional to the sampling rate, which for applications such as seismology, with high sampling rates are, these errors are quite significant. For long term environmental monitoring, this can also be a problem. One solution is to have an accurate reference time keeping and a mechanism to keep the synchronicity among loggers. Possible solutions include having more precise equipment kept at a less exposed location or using GPS time as references. A few wireless communication protocols have time synchronization features embedded within their message exchanging mechanism .

When dynamic time synchronization against a reliable reference is not feasible, the initial synchronization method is the basis for all time information within a deployment. This is the most common scenario for our current deployments, with the usual mechanism for synchronization being based on the time information from the computer with the control software used to start a deployment. Therefore, the time information in that computer should be synchronized (e.g., by using Network Time Protocol, IETF RFC 5905 (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5905>)).

Data comparison from different deployments at small temporal resolutions must take into account potential synchronization errors. However, since sampling rates are commonly higher than desired temporal resolution, most data analysis is done with aggregated data instead of the entire dataset, which attenuates the effects of the time synchronization related errors, particularly when looking at hourly or even daily averages.

Similar to other reports , we also experienced power source related synchronization problems. Time measurement in some logging equipments can be affected by power outages or low voltages from the power source. Some types of equipment use the main power to keep time measurement running and, although time measurement usually requires very little power, if the supply is interrupted, the equipment's clock gets reset.

Current data logging equipment and control software offer poor support to address time synchronization problems. Many of them don't even let the user see what is the current time in logging system to manually check for time drifts. But this is evolving in control software for wireless systems, since these suffer more noticeably from time related problems.

## Time Zones

When dealing with deployments that are geographically distributed throughout various timezones, establishing the correct local time can become an issue. Once again, relying on a computer's time as a reference to timestamp the readings is a major cause of errors. Different versions of operating systems have different levels of automation regarding time zones and daylight saving time configurations, often allowing users to change these manually. Therefore, besides having the correct time on the computer, as already discussed, wrong configurations of time zone and changing configurations for daylight saving times can also lead to inconsistencies such as: having data for a single deployment timestamped with different daylight saving times, or difficulties determining which is the correct local time when comparing data for deployments in different time zones.

For our deployments, when issuing field laptops, time configurations always adopt the local standard time for the site, disabling automatic changes to daylight saving time. However, even rugged field laptops fail, and temporary misconfigured replacements can be used. Or, an even less elaborate problem, which happens often, new users get confused by seemingly "wrong" time settings and change the time configurations.

It is possible, however, to check time zone and daylight saving times against sun time. This is done by comparing several days of sunrise time from data collected by solar radiation sensors to expected sunrise times for the location. This method is not accurate enough for correcting for hardware time drift, for instance, but is good enough to correct for one or more hours shift in the timestamps. This verification is performed on all of our datasets before ingesting them into our data management system.

## Data Format Variation

One burdensome problem of dealing with data from different types of equipment is handling changing data formats or a variety of possible formatting errors.

The first of such types of problems to be addressed are changes in the data format made by the equipment manufacturer. A considerable amount of format changes from manufacturers are not documented adequately with new versions or software updates. Unfortunately, this type of problem needs to be addressed case-by-case.

One problem that was surprising to us is that some types of failures in the sensors themselves can generate errors in the data format by, for instance, changing the number of data columns in a record. As an example, this could make a record that should have three data columns (e.g., readings on temperature, humidity and solar radiation) actually have extra or missing columns. Similar effects can be caused by connector designed to be generic and support different sensors: a sensor behaving in some unexpected way may cause the data collection node or the logger to perform incorrect conversions or even generate software errors that will affect the data format. In wireless equipment, we have also seen the data format being drastically changed by problems in the transmission of the data. In the presence of radio interference, usually created by the operation of higher powered wireless equipment in proximity of the deployment, the data transmission gets compromised, generating errors in both the values of the readings and the structure of a record.

All these types of errors can cause failures in the ingestion software or, worse, have errors introduced in the data ingestion process without any warnings. Our solution to this was to make ingestion software monitor for format changes and generate informative error messages, allowing identifying problems before ingestion.

## Provenance

Given the tailored nature of data pre-processing steps described in this section, it is difficult to keep standardized provenance information and even harder to automate collection of this type of information, as also made evident in . In our current data management solution, simple free text description fields are used to keep track of pre-processing steps and choices. Nonetheless, with a flexible metadata specification tool, such as the one created for our partner project GeoChronos (<http://www.geochronos.org/>) , it would be possible to add specific fields to document evolving aspects of the pre-processing steps.

Although difficult to obtain and maintain, documentation of the pre-processing steps are important to identify not only errors in the pre-processing itself, but also problems with the deployments. For instance, the appearance of too many erroneous records from a wireless data collection node are potential evidence of problems with the sensors, the sensor connections, the node hardware or radio interference sources in the surroundings. The latter problem might even indicate affected readings from other nodes that would otherwise go unnoticed.

# Web-Based Data Analysis

A resourceful and easy to use data management system is the last piece of our solution for large scale *in-situ* monitoring. The pre-processing step presented in the previous section allows the data to be ingested into the system, being stored in an integrated representation. Then users can interact with the system having access to data filtering, aggregation and other more specialized processing operations. Data visualization and retrieval are offered for data at all processing levels after pre-processing, providing a flexible mechanism for analyzing the data within the system or using other tools with the data already narrowed down to the parts of interest. This section discusses these issues, also considering data quality and user interaction aspects.

## Uploading Data

The task of data ingestion can be automated for datasets that require pre-processing steps known beforehand. Automated data ingestion methods are particularly useful with deployments that have automated data retrieval, as is the case for data retrieval using a satellite up-link and an the respective Internet service for getting the data. However, new datasets or datasets that needed specialized pre-processing before getting ready to be ingested need a flexible mechanism to map available data to the integrated representation of the data in the system. Properly handling errors and exceptions in the data ingestion processing is necessary from both user experience and data quality perspectives. Automated data ingestion needs timely error generation so the user responsible for the deployment is kept informed and and can take corrective action. Informative descriptions of errors helps the user identify and diagnose the error causes, which is particularly important for manual ingestion of data that was pre-processed in any non-standard way.

Another aspect to be considered is the documentation of the process for every dataset upload. Metadata regarding date and time, data source, user, pre-processing options, among others, help identify sources of error such as faulty time related correction or application of outdated pre-processing methods. Most of these metadata can be collected automatically by the system, which unburdens the user and prevents missing information from less thorough users.

Only with an integrated data representation model it is possible to offer a common user interface, types of filters, aggregation options and any other operation for manipulation of data. Data from different instruments, deployment configurations, retrieval strategies, *etc.*, need to be stored uniformly so all the system's features are available for all datasets.

## Interactive Filters and Operators

Having the data uniformly stored in a repository, the users can start tailoring datasets to their needs. The most basic functionality to allow this tailoring is being able to apply filters (e.g., only data within a range of values or with low error rates) and aggregation operators (e.g., showing daily or monthly values) to the datasets. Without adequate computational support, many researchers spend days to weeks in this trivial task. Figure  shows our interface for a few of these filters to achieve the target data, from the top: which sensors to include, which time span to consider, and which times of the day are of interest. The screen shown is to extract and download a dataset to be used with other tools. Several other options are also available, including filtering out errors, showing raw values (e.g., of voltages, electrical current, or unconverted pulse counts), file and content formats, including data derived from the sensor readings, among others.

Offering quick and easy access to the (corrected and quality checked) sensor readings from a deployment is one of the most essential features of our solution. However, also having data that can be derived from from these readings as easily accessible is what shows the actual potential for data management systems like ours. Our current implementation offers the automatic calculation of vegetation indexes, NDVI and EVI, from solar radiation flux sensors using different methodologies . Other products are currently being integrated into Enviro-Net, including LAI, *Vapour Pressure Deficit* (VPD), spatial distribution for *Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation* (fAPAR).

## Visualization

After tailoring a dataset to specific goals, adequate visualization tools allow easier understanding of events and trends within the monitored areas. The most basic visual tool is graphing the sensor readings of different variables, allowing visual comparison and insight on the measurements in one deployment. However, two features in our web system proved to be invaluable: graphing of datasets that went trough transformations (filtering, aggregation and derived data) and graphing across deployments. These graphing options are depicted on the left side of Figure , which shows derived NDVI (using the methodology in ) for two different deployments in the Mata Seca State Park, in Brazil, within a specific time span, using only readings close to midday (between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM local time), filtering out seemingly cloudy days (*i.e.*, including only data records when the measured incoming PAR is more than 900 microeinsteins per second per square meter—$\mu$E/m$^2$/s), and aggregating the data in daily averages.

The right side of Figure  shows another type of visualization strategy based on the spatial distribution of the readings. The graph on the left site uses a color scale to represent variation temperature across an area covered by 12 temperature sensors in the *Chamela Reserve* in Mexico. The graph on the right shows the coverage of the installed sensors (indicating the reliability of the scale), highlighting sensor failures when these occur. Within the specified time span, the system generated a sequence of images which are animated using the controls at the bottom to show the evolution of the temperature and reliability distributions through time. This is a useful tool to observe cyclic (e.g., diurnal or seasonal) changes in the monitored areas.

# Concluding Remarks

This paper presented the Enviro-Net Project, which addresses a variety of issues related to *in-situ* (or ground-based) monitoring of ecosystems, from the deployment of sensors to the delivery of processed data products. A combination of factors make this project unique: (i) acquisition of data at ecosystem level with high spatial and temporal resolutions; (ii) long term, ground-based monitoring; (iii) use of heterogeneous, commercially available, and inexpensive equipment, including wireless sensing technologies; and (iv) integrated data management solution, with a Web-based user interaction with data products.

This scenario, which is increasingly being adopted by other research projects, is described in detail in the paper, discussing lessons learned and pointing out aspects that require attention and could go unnoticed before deployment efforts are well underway. The paper examines not only technical issues of deploying ground-based sensor systems, but also the logistics behind execution and maintenance of deployments, issues related to data retrieval, verification and quality, and publication of data products. The paper discussed evidence that this kind of research was needed, integrating solution to from a number of research efforts and offering a real solution in-situ long term environmental monitoring at high resolution temporal and spatial.

Current efforts include: improving our deployment protocols to deal with arising problems and simplifying the maintenance related tasks; extending our data management system in order to handle larger amounts of data; and adding new data manipulation operations to offer more derived data products. As future work, we intend to focus on data provenance visualization issues, to improve understanding of how data products were generated and allowing automation of reproducibility. Another aspect to be explored in future releases of our data management system is the integration of remote sensing data (from satellite and airborne instruments) into our common interface , allowing analysis and comparison of these types of data with ground-based data. We also plan to work on implementing programmatic interfaces to allow software-based access to our data by, for instance, using Open Geospatial Consortium protocols. Lastly, we have plans to include monitoring of equipment life expectancy, particularly of sensors and wireless collector node equipment, in order to create better models for maintenance of long term deployments—by, for instance, increasing the precision of required replacement rates for equipment.

# Acknowledgements

The Enviro-Net Project is funded by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) CRN II \# 021 which is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant GEO-0452325). It is also partially supported by Cybera and Canarie (through the GeoChronos Project), as well as the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant Program. The authors acknowledge and appreciate the contributions to the Enviro-Net Project, received in various forms, by numerous members of the local and remote research groups, in particular the students and staff at the University of Alberta, and our research partners at Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), State University of Montes Claros (UNIMONTES), and State University of São Paulo (UNESP), in Brazil; Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM), in Mexico; Technology Institute of Costa Rica (ITCR), in Costa Rica; University of Buenos Aires (UBA), and National University of San Luis (UNSL), in Argentina.