• Sherri L. Johnson - Principal Investigator
  US Forest Service ;Pacific NW Research Station ;3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA
  Phone: 541-758-7771
  Email: sherri.johnson2@usda.gov, sherri.johnson@oregonstate.edu
  URL: https://www.fs.fed.us/research/people/profile.php?alias=sherrijohnson
• Julia A. Jones - Principal Investigator
  Oregon State University;Department of Geosciences; Wilkinson Hall 104, Corvallis, OR, 97331-5506, USA
  Phone: (541) 737-1224
  Email: Julia.Jones@oregonstate.edu, geojulia@comcast.net
  URL: http://ceoas.oregonstate.edu/profile/jones/
  ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9429-8925
• Matthew G Betts - Principal Investigator
  Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201E Richardson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331
  Phone: (541) 737-3841
  Email: matt.betts@oregonstate.edu
  URL: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/flel/index.htm
• Michael P. Nelson - Principal Investigator
  Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; 201K Richarson Hall; College of Forestry; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331
  Phone: 541-737-9221
  Email: mpnelson@oregonstate.edu
  URL: http://www.michaelpnelson.com
  ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-4752
• David Bell - Principal Investigator
  Email: david.bell@usda.gov, david.bell@oregonstate.edu
  URL: https://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/about/david-bell

• The H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest is a living laboratory that provides unparalleled opportunities for the study of forest and stream ecosystems in the central Cascade Range of Oregon. Since 1980, as a part of the National Science Foundation Long Term Ecological Research (NSF-LTER) program, the Andrews Experimental Forest has become a leader in the analysis of forest and stream ecosystem dynamics.
• Long-term field experiments and measurement programs have focused on climate dynamics, streamflow, water quality, and vegetation succession. Currently researchers are working to develop concepts and tools needed to predict effects of natural disturbance, land use, and climate change on ecosystem structure, function, and species composition.
• The Andrews Experimental Forest is administered cooperatively by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon State University and the Willamette National Forest. Funding for the research program comes from the National Science Foundation (NSF), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon State University, and other sources.

Data were provided by the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest research program, funded by the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Program (DEB 2025755), US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and Oregon State University. National Science Foundation: DEB1440409

• Long-Term Ecological Research
  The Andrews Forest is situated in the western Cascade Range of Oregon, and covers the entire 15,800-acre (6400-ha) drainage basin of Lookout Creek. Elevation ranges from 1350 to 5340 feet (410 to 1630 m). Broadly representative of the rugged mountainous landscape of the Pacific Northwest, the Andrews Forest contains excellent examples of the region's conifer forests and associated wildlife and stream ecosystems. These forests are among the tallest and most productive in the world, with tree heights of often greater than 250 ft (75 m). Streams are steep, cold and clean, providing habitat for numerous aquatic organisms.

• Data are sent to central computing system via a telemetry system maintained by HJ Andrews Forest and Oregon State University. This project is made possible in part due to generous funding from the National Science Foundation. The NSF is a key sponsor of the basic long-term ecological research needed to progress in ecosystem-scale science. This site is hosted on servers maintained by the system administrators at Central Web Services of Oregon State University. The development of the FEEL-DB web application has been made possible with the expertise, generous consulting, and custom web development services of Orion Imagin.

Instrumentation:

• The FEEL website (see above) serves as an access point to data from the telemetry transect.

• Custom regression equation used to convert soil moisture output from milliVolts to water content. Calibrations were developed for a capacitance instrument (ECHO), a time domain reflectometry cable tester (CT), and a water content reflectometer (WCR) in soils collected from the Wind River and H.J. Andrews Experimental Forests.d the standard equations predicted soil moisture content 0%–11.5% lower (p less than 0.0001) than new calibrations. Each new calibration equation adequately predicted soil moisture from the output for each instrument regardless of location or soil type. Prediction intervals varied, with errors of 4.5%, 3.5%, and 7.1% for the ECHO, CT, and WCR, respectively. Only the ECHO system was significantly influenced by temperature for the range sampled: as temperature increased by 1°C, the soil moisture estimate decreased by 0.1%. Overall, the ECHO performed nearly as well as the CT, and thanks to its lower cost, small differences in performance might be offset by deployment of a greater number of probes in field sampling. Despite its higher cost, the WCR did not perform as well as the other two systems.
• The instruments that use the capacitance technique or TDR to determine ? rely on the high dielectric constant of water (80) relative to mineral soil (3–5) and air (1), because water in the soil will influence the propagation of an electric signal through the soil medium. Both these techniques use empirical relationships between the soil water content and the change Can. J. For. Res. 35: 1867–1876 (2005) doi: 10.1139/X05-121 © 2005 NRC Canada 1867 Received 2 December 2004. Accepted 29 May 2005. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cjfr.nrc.ca on 3 September 2005.
• N.M. Czarnomski, T.G. Pypker, J.Licata, and B.J. Bond. Department of Forest Science, 321 Richardson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. G.W. Moore. Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management, Rm. 325 Animal Industries Building, 2126 TAMU, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-2126, USA. Corresponding author (e-mail: Nicole.Czarnomski@oregonstate.edu).in an electrical signal to estimate ?. Three common instruments available for the measurement of ? are the ECHO soil moisture probe (hereafter referred to as “ECHO”; Decagon Devices, Pullman, Washington, USA), the TDR cable tester (hereafter referred to as “CT”; we used model 1502C, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon, USA), and the water content reflectometer (hereafter referred to as “WCR”; we used the CS615 from Campbell Scientific, Logan, Utah, USA; since our measurements Campbell Scientific has introduced a new model).
• The ECHO calculates the apparent soil dielectric constant (Ka) of a soil by measuring the charge time of a capacitor in the soil. If the applied voltage is known, the time required to charge the capacitor is related to the output voltage of the instruments.The CT uses TDR to estimate ?. TDR determines Ka by measuring the time required for an electromagnetic pulse to travel up and down a pair of metal transmission lines of a fixed length (e.g., Topp et al. 1980). The high dielectric constant of water relative to soil and air will delay the propagation of the electromagnetic pulse. The WCR also propagates a signal along two parallel rods, but instead of measuring the propagation time of an electromagnetic pulse, the WCR uses the capacitance of the soil to predict Ka.

Instrumentation:

• <para>ECH2O: A Decagon Devices Inc. model EC-20 probe with a 20-cm plate. Signal output ranges between 250 and 1000 mV at 2500-mV excitation. The manufacturer provides an equation that is reported accurate within 3% ? if the soil does not have “high” sand content, clay content, or electrical conductivity. The manufacturer has determined that the instrument is weakly sensitive to changes in temperature and therefore does not suggest the need for a temperature correction (Campbell 2001).</para> <para>CT: A Tektronix model 1502C cable tester with two parallel 33 cm long × 4 mm diameter stainless steel rods that were set 5 cm apart. A commonly used method for interpreting the nanosecond signal was created by Topp et al. (1980); however, we used a slightly different method created by Gray and Spies (1995) because it was calibrated for soils in the Pacific Northwest. Each has a different calibration equation to relate ? to Ka. </para> <para>WCR: A Campbell Scientific, Inc. model CS615 with 30-cm rods (3.2 mm diameter and 3.2-cm spacing) connected to a circuit board. The circuit board is enclosed in epoxy and acts as a bistable multivibrator. Past research indicates that WCR is sensitive to temperature (Seyfried and Murdock 2001).</para>

• Plots are located near transect 1 of the permanent vegetation plots (TP073) in WS01. Plot enumeration follows a slightly different system (see design above). Prefix of "E" is added to plots to indicate association with the TW006 study. Currently in spatial database, plots are denoted as P111___ where ___ is the code as designated in TP073.

Instrumentation:

• From the descriptions of TP073. A total of 133 permanent vegetation sampling plots were established. The undisturbed vegetation present on these plots was recorded during the summer of 1962. Herbage cover of shrubs and trees was estimated by species on a milacre (6.6 feet square) plot. Cover of herbs and grasses was estimated on nine 1.1-foot-square plots at each location. Percent cover and frequency were computed for each plant species present. Prior to logging, plots were assigned to one of the six plant communities and one of six soil types, reflecting parent material, depth, and profile development (Rothacher et al. 1967, Dyrness 1969). Watershed was logged and broadcast burned: WS1 over a 4-yr period (1962-1966). (Modified from Lutz 2004): Circular plots of 250 m sq were established in 1979 (WS3) and 1980 (WS1), 16 and 14 yr after broadcast burning. Plot centers coincided with the locations of permanent understory quadrats established in 1962, prior to harvest (Dyrness 1973, Halpern 1988, 1989). In WS1, 133 plots were spaced at 30.5-m intervals along six widely spaced transects oriented perpendicular to the main stream channel. In WS3, 61 plots were similarly spaced along two to four transects per harvest unit. Because the objective was to characterize development of upland forests, plots that fell in perennial stream channels were not established, nor were plots that fell on rock outcrops or on roads in WS3. Sample plots comprise ~4% of the harvested areas of the two watersheds. Circular plots include one central subplot (2 by 2 m) consistently measured from 1962 to present, and 4 square subplots on outer edge of circular plot were measured from 1979-1987. Plot locations were determined in 2004 using a differentially corrected Trimble GPS. Direct readings were made on 91 plots and the remaining locations were interpolated. Elevation, aspect, and slope were determined from GPS locations and a 10-m digital elevation model and later a 1-m LIDAR coverage. (Lienkaemper 2005, Valentine 2009). Mean annual insolation, considering both topographic shading and cloud cover, was extracted from earlier modeling work by Jonathan Smith (2002).

• Installation: (1) Drive down metal rod to desired depth (for 2010/2011 project it was between 70 and 90 cm) at 53 degrees. This angle allows for easy calculation for a 3;4;5 triangle to obtain desired depth (this angle was estimated for 2010/2011) project. (2) Attach lysimeter to nylon tubing at about 1 meter longer than depth of hole to allow slack when sampling. (3) Drop down lysimeter to end of bored hole. Make sure lysimeter reaches the end of the hole or water will pool up beneath the lysimeter and equipment will likely fail to collect water samples. (4) Mix up silica powder at a ratio of about 1:2 with water. Pour silica slurry into hole making sure that entire hole fills up with slurry. If it does not initially fill, then wait a few minutes for silica to plug soil pores and then repeat until hole fills to top. If it does not fill at all, bore a new hole since this means there is a passageway for large quantities of fluid to go in the hole and therefore lysimeter will not be in contact with saturated soil for sampling. D (5) Pack soil over top of bored hole to plug up passageway to disallow water flowing directly to lysimeter (6) Place PVC housing directly above point where lysimeter tubing exits soil (7) Attach tubing from lysimeter to sample bottles and place inside PVC housing. It often helps to wrap the extra tubing around the sample bottle, spinning it while wrapping, this will take up the extra slack. (8) Place PVC caps on PVC housing to completely enclose sample bottles (9) Pack soil around PVC housing to prevent disturbance of sample bottles (10) Place plywood over all PVC housings to ensure that rain and runoff does not preferentially follow the bored hole to the lysimeter, increasing water volume collected and diluting samples.
• Sampling: (1) Priming lysimeters to withdrawal water sample. Usually done at least 3 days before collection. (2) Remove plywood (3) Remove PVC caps (4) Put end of hand pump tube into nylon tube in the cap of the sample bottle. There are two nylon tubes in the sample bottle. One goes into the ground and into the lysimeter, the other has a clip on it and will extrude only about 3 inches from the bottle cap… this short tube is the one to apply the vacuum on. (5) Hand pump sample bottle to 15psi. Make sure to unclip the clip on the nylon tubing to allow air to move through the tube. (6) Re-clip the tube and remove the hand pump tube from sample bottle tube. Make sure the clip is fully in place so vacuum remains. (7) Place PVC cap back on (8)Place plywood back on.
• Collecting samples (1) Remove plywood; (2) Remove PVC cap (3)Pull out sample bottle from PVC housing (4) Unscrew cap of sample bottle (if a hissing sound is heard, make note that the bottle is still under vacuum pressure. This will be important when determine functionality of equipment and installation) (5) Pour contents of sample bottle into separate bottles to be taken back to the lab for analysis.(6) Rinse out sample bottles with Deionized water: rinse 100 ml of DI water 3 times. Make sure all DI water is out of sample bottles before cap is replaced, otherwise following samples will be diluted (7) Screw sample bottle cap back on tight (8) Place sample bottle back in PVC housing, wrapping the nylon tubing around the sample bottle to take up slack (9) Re-apply vacuum to sample bottle (see Priming Lysimeters above) (10) Place PVC cap back on PVC housing (11) Place plywood back on

Instrumentation:

• Instrumentation for installation: (1) 3 inch long, 1 inch diameter remote suction lysimeters (new lysimeter models vary slightly, but same installation and sampling procedure can be applied); (2) 1cm Nylon tubing, ~2 meters per lysimeter; (3) Lysimeter sample collection bottle capable of holding 20psi vacuum pressure, 1 per lysimeter; (4) Hand pump (can obtain from auto parts store, higher durability than from a lab equipment source); (5) 4 foot long, 1 inch diameter metal rod capable of being driven into soil with blunt force; (6) Large mallet or sledge hammer (needs to be heavier than you think); (7) Silica powder, about 300 ml per lysimeter; (8) 4 inch diameter PVC tubing at 1.5 ft length for housing of water sample bottles, 1 per lysimeter; (9) 4 inch diameter PVC caps, 1 per lysimeter; (10) 2ft x 2ft plywood, 1 per plot. May need larger dimensions if dispersing lysimeters farther apart. Instrumentation for sampling: (1)Hand pump; (2) Collection bottles (no smaller than 250ml); (3) Deionized (DI) water for rinsing

• We collected litter from sixteen plots on WS1. These particular plots have been intensely subsampled for other analyses (Peterson et al.2012) intensely sampled plots were selected to represent the distribution of cover times height as measured by LiDAR reconnaissance in 2008. This metric was selected because it was believed to be a good proxy for biomass distribution. Litter collections were conducted for the years of 2009-2011, beginning with collection on 12 August 2009 and ending with collection on 11 August 2011. The litter traps were co-located just outside the perimeter of the plots in order to avoid interaction with the current vegetative studies on the plots. Each litter trap was square with edges of 43 cm by 43 cm (1.849 m2). The ground-truthed plot sizes are 250 m2; the aerial plot sizes range down to 125 m2 due to steep slopes. Five collections of the litter traps were made in the 1st year. In the second year, four collections were made.
• Litter was collected wet. Trap status, as well as any anamolies in trap content (bark, logs, etc.) were recorded.
• For most collection periods, fine and coarse litter were brought back to the lab and separated with a 12 inch hardware cloth with 12.5 cm openings. To sieve the materials in this manner, a sample was dumped onto the screen and gently shaken and lightly rubbed to pass the small pieces through the screen. After the separation, twigs which slipped through the screen were returned to the coarse fraction and the needles stuck to the coarse objects were rubbed free and placed in the fine fraction. After the separation wet weight is recorded, the sample was placed in a labeled paper bag and oven-dried. Upon reaching a stable weight in the oven, the dry weight is recorded. A paper bag stapled and labeled like the sample bags is used to tare the bag weight out of the gross weight. Some traps were damaged between collections, namely, traps on plots 419, 518, and 522. Litter mass accumulated for these plots was only recorded for non-damaged traps and a note was taken on the number and extent of damage.
• To calculate dry mass of leaves (in Mg) per hectare per period (interval between collections), three conversion factors were created following the form of:
• Mass per Hectare =1849cm2 x Number of Traps x Dried Mass of Leasves/1000000
• (1) Where Mass represents the dried mass of leaves. The rationale for creating three conversion factors was to account for the set of plots on which only three or four trap samples were valid; on these plots the expansion factor must naturally be greater.
• For the first year, leaf collections were precise to 365 days for almost all plots. Thus, the sum of the collected masses per hectare over the course of that year represented the annual collection. For a few plots, one additional day was included in the final collection period, and the influence of that period on the sum was weighted by a conversion factor of 0.9696.
• For the second year, leaf collections were only calculated through 5 May 2011. Thus, the most recent time period was weighted by a conversion factor (1:4631) to extend its influence on the sum through the summer for a full two-year interval. When the most recent collections have been completed, this factor will be removed or recalculated.
• For one plot (518) this years data was damaged for two collection periods, one in the late summer and one in the fall. Mean values from the other two collection periods (early summer and winter) were weighted to the appropriate amount of days and used as a proxy for the missing measurements. We acknowledge that this greatly decreases the accuracy of this plot. For another plot (419), large chunks of bark and rotted log were found in the sample during one remeasurement.

Instrumentation:

• 5 x 17 cm x 17 cm litter trap per plot for 16 plots. Litter recollected on multiple but spontaneous occassions. Sieved mesh used in laboratory as well as laboratory balance. Extrapolations, when conducted, use ArcMap ordinary kriging tool.

• WS01 is located in the southwestern corner of the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. The site has wet, mild winters and warm, dry summers with a mean annual precipitation of 2300 mm. It is considered to be a low-elevation watershed relative to the rest of the HJA with a range of 410 - 1030 m. Slopes on the watershed are steep, in many locations greater than 100%. The watershed has a distinct north-south alignment, often facilitating comparisons between aspects in the "down-basin" regions. Multiple soil surveys have been conducted to various ends, but the soil is typically described as gravelly clay loam. Large protrusive cap-rocks and talus slopes are evident, although the cause for their exposure is debatable. South facing slopes have significantly less soil depth and development than north facing slopes, and are prone to failures; north-facing slopes have a deep, rich, slumping organic layer. Harvest occurred between 1962 and 1966, predominantly using skyline logging, although one corner was harvested with the high-lead method. Burning was conducted in 1967 despite the presence of "advanced regeneration" on the north-facing slope. Several shrub species, including Rhododendron macrophyllum and Gaultheria shallon established almost immediately post-burning. Forest regeneration was attempted through 4 replantings, 1 aerial and three manual, with progressively reduced extent, older saplings, and intensive care. Some areas were deemed unplantable due to the presence of rocks. Today, the canopy consists of a relatively young, closed-canopied forest (19 m on SF slope, 24 m on NF slope) that consists primarily of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco) with a smaller component of maples (Acer macrophyllum Pursh. and Acer circinatum at higher elevations), red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) particularly in the riparian zone, and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla).
• Sampling frequency: 15 minutes or hourly

• Eight plots located across a cross-sectional transect of WS01. Plots correspond with (co-located) the TP073 (veg studies) data from Halpern and the ecohydrology plots (E101, etc.) from Bond. More information on the plot descriptions is at: http://feel.oregonstate.edu

• Andrews Watershed 1
  W -122.25683100, E -122.23581300, N 44.20851700, S 44.19901700
  Altitude: 1027 to 1027 meter
• Andrews Experimental Forest (HJA)
  W -122.26172200, E -122.10084700, N 44.28196400, S 44.19770400
  Altitude: 1631 to 1631 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 01
  W -122.25530100, E -122.25530100, N 44.20743599, S 44.20743599
  Altitude: 555 to 555 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 02
  W -122.25542900, E -122.25542900, N 44.20719374, S 44.20719374
  Altitude: 536 to 536 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 03
  W -122.25554500, E -122.25554500, N 44.20691539, S 44.20691539
  Altitude: 521 to 521 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 04
  W -122.25566100, E -122.25566100, N 44.20666405, S 44.20666405
  Altitude: 504 to 504 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 05
  W -122.25581400, E -122.25581400, N 44.20643096, S 44.20643096
  Altitude: 485 to 485 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 07
  W -122.25597100, E -122.25597100, N 44.20590979, S 44.20590979
  Altitude: 497 to 497 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 08
  W -122.25604800, E -122.25604800, N 44.20570322, S 44.20570322
  Altitude: 515 to 515 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 09
  W -122.25625200, E -122.25625200, N 44.20546145, S 44.20546145
  Altitude: 535 to 535 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 10
  W -122.25638000, E -122.25638000, N 44.20521019, S 44.20521019
  Altitude: 555 to 555 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 1, Plot 12
  W -122.25662400, E -122.25662400, N 44.20472560, S 44.20472560
  Altitude: 589 to 589 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 2, Plot 11
  W -122.25322400, E -122.25322400, N 44.20534261, S 44.20534261
  Altitude: 530 to 530 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 3, Plot 16
  W -122.25030200, E -122.25030200, N 44.20379283, S 44.20379283
  Altitude: 638 to 638 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 3, Plot 18
  W -122.25057200, E -122.25057200, N 44.20328142, S 44.20328142
  Altitude: 671 to 671 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 3, Plot 21
  W -122.25090700, E -122.25090700, N 44.20247332, S 44.20247332
  Altitude: 689 to 689 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 4, Plot 19
  W -122.24523400, E -122.24523400, N 44.20476767, S 44.20476767
  Altitude: 765 to 765 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 4, Plot 22
  W -122.24489800, E -122.24489800, N 44.20553074, S 44.20553074
  Altitude: 798 to 798 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 4, Plot 25
  W -122.24455100, E -122.24455100, N 44.20629372, S 44.20629372
  Altitude: 827 to 827 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 5, Plot 18
  W -122.24319600, E -122.24319600, N 44.20157592, S 44.20157592
  Altitude: 845 to 845 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 5, Plot 21
  W -122.24353200, E -122.24353200, N 44.20078586, S 44.20078586
  Altitude: 834 to 834 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 5, Plot 26
  W -122.24412400, E -122.24412400, N 44.19950230, S 44.19950230
  Altitude: 902 to 902 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 6, Plot 03
  W -122.23895000, E -122.23895000, N 44.20577018, S 44.20577018
  Altitude: 946 to 946 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 6, Plot 05
  W -122.23902000, E -122.23902000, N 44.20521243, S 44.20521243
  Altitude: 929 to 929 meter
• Veg Study Plot (TP073) - WS01, Unit 1, Transect 6, Plot 07
  W -122.23908900, E -122.23908900, N 44.20467269, S 44.20467269
  Altitude: 914 to 914 meter

Object name: TW00601.txt

Records: 1116585

Attributes: 9

Temporal coverage: 2005-09-30 to 2011-03-22

Checksum (MD5): 5b32eb73abb3a361e7084af09bc4a568

Format: headers=1, recordDelimiter=\r\n, fieldDelimiter=,, quoteCharacter=", orientation=column

Object name: TW00603.txt

Records: 1515807

Attributes: 9

Temporal coverage: 2005-08-01 to 2011-03-22

Checksum (MD5): 396ba968c44d19f2a1391a1534c900a6

Format: headers=1, recordDelimiter=\r\n, fieldDelimiter=,, quoteCharacter=", orientation=column

Object name: TW00604.txt

Records: 1466114

Attributes: 9

Temporal coverage: 2005-08-01 to 2011-03-22

Checksum (MD5): 9f0c88eb353c5f626723871e01c37d88

Format: headers=1, recordDelimiter=\r\n, fieldDelimiter=,, quoteCharacter=", orientation=column

Object name: TW00605.csv

Records: 156146

Attributes: 9

Temporal coverage: 2008-09-08 to 2011-03-21

File size: 9993520 byte

Checksum (MD5): 936a339341d5d98d82e4a3b8f24e41c0

Format: headers=1, recordDelimiter=\r\n, fieldDelimiter=,, quoteCharacter=", orientation=column

Object name: TW00606.csv

Records: 126

Attributes: 15

Temporal coverage: 2009-10-07 to 2011-05-05

File size: 10952 byte

Checksum (MD5): d725bd99961ed44d143896c8761c3ca7

Format: headers=1, recordDelimiter=\r\n, fieldDelimiter=,, quoteCharacter=", orientation=column

Object name: TW00607.csv

Records: 444

Attributes: 7

Temporal coverage: 2010-11-13 to 2011-04-22

File size: 15566 byte

Checksum (MD5): cce70a2ecb8ebaadeb637dad3b4ea5a4

Format: headers=1, recordDelimiter=\r\n, fieldDelimiter=,, quoteCharacter=", orientation=column