dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Present day model performance: Vegetation properties Fire spread and hence burnt area is strongly influenced by fuel availability, which in turn is affected by vegetation primary production and biomass. Simulated spatial patterns of GPP compare well with estimates of 285 GPP upscaled from Fluxnet data  (Jung et al. , 2017) , with scores (0. 39-0. 67) considerably better than both null models. However, performance against site-based estimates of GPP  (Luyssaert et al. , 2007)  are considerably poorer (1. 09-1. 49) and worse than the mean null model. Only LPJ-GUESS-SPITFIRE, LPJ-GUESS-SIMFIRE-BLAZE and ORCHIDEE-SPITFIRE perform better than the random null model. There is no clear relationship between model scores for the two datasets: models performing better when compared to the Jung dataset do not necessarily 290 show a higher score when compared to the Luyssaert GPP dataset.
The two GPP datasets are very different: The upscaled FLUXNET dataset is a modelled product but has global coverage (see Supplementary Information S1) while the Luyssaert dataset has local measurements but only at a limited number of sites, largely concentrated across the northern extratropics. Thus, the better match between the FireMIP models and the upscaled FLUXNET dataset may reflect the broader spatial coverage or the fact that climate and landcover data are used for upscaling. 295 Only the upscaled Fluxnet data provides monthly data and can thus be used to asses GPP seasonality. The FireMIP models are able to represent the seasonal peak timing in GPP, with all models performing better than the mean and random null models. However, models have difficulty in representing the length of the growing season, with the scores for seasonal concentration in GPP (1.
08-1. 23) above the mean null model but below the random null model for all FireMIP models. 300 Model performance is better for site-level NPP than site-level GPP. All of the FireMIP models perform better than the mean null model, independent of the choice of reference data set (Table  3 ), except for CLASS-CTEM against the Luyssaert data set. JULES-INFERNO, JSBACH-SPITFIRE and MC2 are the best-performing models. The FireMIP models generally capture the spatial pattern in LAI, with all models performing better than the mean null model (0. 44-0. 81), independent of the reference dataset considered. JULES-INFERNO has the best 305 score for both reference datasets. Although the overall global pattern in LAI is well represented in all the FireMIP models, they have more trouble representing LAI in agricultural areas such as central USA or areas with low LAI such as drylands and mountain areas (Figure  1 ).
Overall assessment There is no model that outperforms other models across the full range of fire and vegetation benchmarks examined here. Model structure does not explain the large differences in model performance. Process-based fire 320 models (see table 1) appear to be slightly better able to represent the spatial pattern in burnt area than empirical models (mean score 0. 87 and 0. 94 respectively), but this difference is largely the result of including GlobFIRM in the empirical model ensemble; removing this model results in a mean score of 0. 87 for these models. The intermodel spread in scores within each group is much larger than the difference between the two types of model. Only one empirical model simulates fire seasonality, but this model performs worse than each of the process-based 325 models, independent of reference dataset considered.
There is no difference in the performance of process-based and empirical models with respect to IAV in burnt area, seasonal phase in burnt area or fire emissions. The FireMIP simulations include three models in which versions of the same process-based fire module (SPITFIRE) are coupled to different vegetation models. These three models produce a wide range of benchmarking scores for burnt area, with mean benchmarking scores of 0. 79, 0. 85 and 0. 72 for JSBACH, LPJ-GUESS and 330 ORCHIDEE respectively. There are also large differences between these models in terms of other aspects of the fire regime (Table  3 ). As there are only moderate differences between the different SPITFIRE implementations  (Rabin et al. , 2017) , this suggests that the overall difference between the models reflect feedbacks between the fire and vegetation modules.
0 and FireCCI5. 1 burnt area reference datasets (mean R 2 = 0. 31, range 0. 19-0. 38). Areas where the FireMIP models represent vegetation carbon poorly coincide with some of the regions where models have trouble representing the spatial pattern of burnt area such as dryland regions (Figure  1 ). Although there is no relationship between GPP/NPP and burnt area benchmarking scores, there is a positive 345 relationship between simulated burnt area scores and the seasonal concentration of GPP (R 2 = 0. 30-0. 84) and, to a lesser extent, the seasonal phase of GPP (R 2 = 0. 09-0. 24). This supports the idea that seasonal vegetation production and senescence, which have an important influence on fuel loads, drive the interactions between vegetation and fire within each model. Fire carbon emission benchmarking scores are strongly related to the burnt area performance (R 2 > 0.
Discussion and future model development There are large differences in the total burnt area between the FireMIP models, with two models (LPJ-GUESS-GlobFIRM and MC2) falling well outside the observed range in burnt area for the recent period. In the case of 370 LPJ-GUESS-GlobFIRM, this is because GlobFIRM was developed before global burnt area products were available, resulting in a general poor performance  (Kloster and Lasslop, 2017) , in combination with the fact that structural changes were made to the vegetation model without a commensurate development of the fire module. In the case of MC2, this probably reflects the fact that MC2 was developed for regional applications but was applied globally here without any refinement of the fire model. The other FireMIP models used the burned area datasets 375 to develop and tune their models.
vii This book describes the archaeology of all known submerged prehistoric remains and their regional context for the whole European continental shelf. They were inundated by the postglacial rise of global sea level. Over 2600 submerged Stone Age artefact sites, settlements, and anthropogenic indicators have been identified on the seabed of the European marginal seas, and their significance is analysed to show how the underwater remains influence our understanding of early exploitation of coastal and marine resources and early seafaring. The scope of this study is unique, since no attempt has been made previously to assemble and integrate submerged archaeological data on this geographical scale. It articulates fully the range of archaeological issues to which underwater prehistoric discoveries are relevant in Europe.
This is for the simple reason that most of the evidence is on the present sea floor, and the missing data are brought together and recorded here for the first time. In some cases, the submerged discoveries reveal that technical skills, food types, and materials were already in use thousands of years before their earliest occurrence on the present dry land. A few sites described in this book are older than 20,000 years, and thus predate the Last Glacial Maximum, and some are even older, going back through several glacial cycles. These early sites tell us how Palaeolithic communities interacted with the sea and its resources. The ability to cross sea straits in some form of floating craft certainly existed tens of thousands of years ago. Submerged sites in the time range 20,000 to 120,000 years, that is, pre-Last Glacial Maximum, confirm that prehistoric material in context can survive multiple marine transgressions.
The present volume is also intended as a complement to an online database of known underwater archaeological sites throughout Europe, known as the SPLASHCOS Viewer, which has grown to be another major output of SPLASHCOS and is publicly available at http://splashcos. maris2. nl/ and http://splashcos-viewer. eu/. The information in the database has been collected by the authors of the national overview chapters in this volume, and these chapters draw on the records of the SPLASHCOS Viewer and provide the scientific description, analysis, and evaluation of them. We have, therefore, aimed in this volume to facilitate cross-referencing with the SPLASHCOS Viewer and with the chapters in the Quaternary Paleoenvironments volume, with amplification of issues relating to sea-level change, landscape setting, and geological and oceanographic conditions of archaeological site preservation as well as a full description of the archaeological finds themselves.
Nena Galanidou and Hans Peeters have added their archaeological expertise and perspectives from different parts of Europe to the work of writing and editing, and Hauke Jöns has guided the development of the SPLASHCOS Viewer from the beginning and coordinated the work of data collection by the national contributors. Moritz Mennenga has taken on Preface xiv the arduous task of collating and inputting the national records of underwater archaeological sites and preparing the digital maps of site distributions that appear throughout the volume. We anticipate that this database will continue to be added to and improved as a major research tool for the benefit of future research. Although the formal term of COST funding ceased in 2013, SPLASHCOS has continued to be active informally, through the completion of publications planned and initiated during the life of the Action, and through new research based on existing collaborations and the development of new ones.
Preface xv In bringing this volume to completion, we thank first and foremost all the participants in the meetings of WG1 that took place during the lifetime of the COST Action for all their hard work and contribution of data and ideas, especially Anders Fischer as Chairman of WG1, who led the discussions and played an important role in laying the foundations for the resulting publications and online database. Most of our authors in this volume participated in these original discussions while others were recruited later to fill critical gaps in geographical coverage and expertise. We thank them all for their patience and perseverance in dealing with a succession of editorial interventions and requests for revisions. All the chapters have been subjected to independent peer review, and we thank the many colleagues who agreed to act as anonymous peer reviewers (some are named with their agreement in individual chapters) and for their constructive comments.
2017a ) and the compilation of a publicly available online database and maps with records of all known underwater finds of prehistoric archaeology in Europe-the SPLASHCOS Viewer (http:// splashcos-viewer. eu/; http://splashcos. maris2. nl/). In Europe, the number of underwater Stone Age finds reported from different countries was already known to be many hundreds even before the SPLASHCOS Action began, and part of the stimulus to the project was to bring together the scattered reports of such finds into a single archive and to provide a fuller understanding of what is available and its wider significance. The aim of this volume, then, is to provide, for the first time, a comprehensive description and evaluation of the currently known underwater archaeology on the submerged landscapes of the European continental shelf and the challenges facing future research.
Organisation and Scope The initial compilation of data for the SPLASHCOS Viewer and the subdivision of tasks undertaken by the members of WG1 was organised by each modern nation state, reflecting the practical reality that scientific and academic research institutions, government agencies responsible for cultural heritage, and the conduct of field research are largely organised at national level. This has carried through to the chapters that form the basic building blocks of this volume, which present a series of national overviews. However, modern state boundaries are a poor fit with the environmental features that are of primary relevance in the interpretation of the underwater archaeological record. They risk placing data into arbitrary categories that inhibit supra-national integration and obscure the understanding of variables that go across modern political boundaries.
France, for example, has an Atlantic and a Mediterranean coastline and Denmark a North Sea and a Baltic one. Conversely, some marine basins are only partially represented in our coverage: the Mediterranean, in particular, is represented only by its northern and eastern shorelines, and the North African coastline is absent, despite its importance in prehistory. This reflects both the absence of known underwater prehistoric remains and the lack of participants from the North African countries in the SPLASHCOS Action. 2 Similarly, the Black Sea is represented by only two national contributions (Bulgaria and Ukraine). Also, the Baltic is only represented by the countries at the western end (Germany, Denmark, and Sweden). Again, this reflects, in part, the near absence of underwater archaeological data to the east and the north, but more importantly the impact of glacio-isostatic rebound, which means that the archaeological evidence for the earliest settlement of coastlines in these areas after the retreat of the Scandinavian ice sheet is now mostly uplifted above modern sea level.
With all these factors in mind, we have used three primary groupings to organise the national overviews: the Baltic and Scandinavia (including Norway) (Part I), the North Sea and the Atlantic (Part II), and the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (Part III). These are broad groupings that reflect a compromise between the ideal subdivisions derived from environmental considerations and the relative proportions of archaeological data and investigation distributed across the continent. We recognise that this grouping introduces arbitrary boundaries of its own, and we have dealt with this by introducing each of our main groupings with an editorial introduction, which highlights the features of the national overviews within that grouping, addresses relevant aspects of within-basin variability and inter-basin boundary issues, and incorporates such information as is available from isolated underwater archaeological finds elsewhere and not represented in the national overviews.
3. 4), that this was an important prehistoric landscape. And it is here that evidence for use of coastlines in significantly earlier periods-Late Palaeolithic or earlier-will have to be sought. Another realisable target is the development of a digital database of existing records. These represent a rich source of material for analysis and for planning of future research. The SPLASHCOS Viewer represents a first step in that direction, but the records are still incomplete and organised in the form of a spreadsheet rather than a searchable database. Further development will require resources and skilled personnel and most likely research-led funding. These targets have been on the agenda for many years (e. g. Fischer 2007 ) but with little significant progress. The costs and logistical complexities of underwater work, especially in deeper water, should not be overlooked.
In accordance with these responsibilities, the central government agency for nature and cultural heritage conservation created a special unit for the inventory, registration and inspection of underwater finds  (Thomsen 1987). This work constituted the basis for a central database, which integrated information collected through the intricate network of regional and local museums  (Smed 1987). The contributions of sports divers, the general public and amateur archaeologists to this work have traditionally been substantial  (Fischer and Sørensen 1983; Skaarup 1983; Dal 2013). At present, the Agency for Culture and Palaces under the Ministry of Culture remains the central authority responsible for government decisions relating to specific underwater sites or to underwater cultural heritage in general.
It is also the central clearing house for the administration of relevant data and management of the central database. The acquisition of data, other than through agreement with other offices, is largely decentralized to museums that are recognized by the State under the 'Museum Law'. In total, Denmark has 97 such museums, of which 5 have been assigned a seabed area for which they are archaeologically responsible. The Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde is responsible for the waters around Zealand and Bornholm; Langelands Museum is responsible for the archipelagic waters around Fyn, whereas Moesgaard Museum and the two museum organizations that manage the coastal museums in northern Jutland and on the west-coast share responsibility for the North Sea, the Skagerrak and the Kattegat. The National Museum, with a remit to advise on conservation matters, houses a small unit addressing issues related to degradation and in situ preservation of underwater sites, as well as conservation and restoration of waterlogged finds  (Gregory 2017; Straetkvaern et al.
SINCOS project (Sinking Coasts -Geosphere, Ecosphere and Anthroposphere of the Holocene Southern Baltic Sea). Therefore we would like to thank all the colleagues who have been part of the SINCOS team. Special thanks are due to Prof. Dr. Jan Harff, who directed this research in the friendly and consistent way that is so typical of him. In addition we would like to thank the German Research Foundation for funding the SINCOS project as well as the Strande project; without their help, it is true to say that the results of submerged landscape research in German marine waters would not have been possible. In addition, we have to thank the state authorities for the management of the archaeological heritage of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony who gave us access to their heritage databases, so that we could use the data stored there as a base for our research.
Overview of Submerged Archaeological Sites A database of submerged archaeological sites around Ireland, comprising all known instances of subtidal or intertidal assemblages with prehis-toric evidence, has been compiled for the SPLASHCOS project  (Bailey and Sakellariou 2012). Sites were identified from the published and grey literature, existing gazetteers or Historic Environment Records and the authors' personal knowledge. There are currently 50 sites recorded in the database, of which 11 are fully subtidal, 38 are intertidal and 1 is deeply buried below sea level under reclaimed land (Fig. 11. 3). Given the cut-off date of 5500 cal BP specified for the initial database compilation, the recorded sites are mainly Mesolithic, with a handful of early Neolithic entries. Where possible, chronology has been based on radiocarbon dates or, if lacking, diagnostic artefacts.
Sites without either radiocarbon dates or diagnostic finds (17 in total) are assumed to predate 5500 cal BP and are conservatively placed in a broad prehistoric period since a Mesolithic/Neolithic attribution is not confirmed but cannot be ruled out. Details of chronological assignation for each site can be found in the database hosted on the SPLASHCOS Viewer (http://www. splashcos-viewer. eu). The spatial distribution of sites is heavily biased to the north and north-east coasts (35 sites versus 15 for the rest of Ireland). This mirrors the distribution of the terrestrial Irish Mesolithic. Reasons for the dense concentration in the northeast are argued to be a product of a long history of research and extensive lithic evidence resulting from readily available flint sources as much as former occupation preferences  (Woodman 2015).
Interestingly, this pattern also mirrors the RSL history described above, with the majority of submerged sites located where the lowstand was shallowest and few in the south and west where the lowstand was deepest. The implications of this will be discussed later. The following subsections will describe in more detail the submerged archaeological record, splitting it according to its current location, i. e. , subtidal versus intertidal assemblages. Two other broad categories of evidence not included in the database, but which pertain to submerged landscapes, are also examined. These are intertidal and submerged organic deposits lacking archaeological finds and artefact-bearing raised beach deposits currently situated above present sea level.
Here we gather information from a literature review, personal communication with the pioneers of underwater and coastal research, namely, Augustus Sordinas and Nic Flemming, as well as our own hands-on experience, to put together an overview of the prehistoric sites and landscapes of the Greek continental shelf up to and including the Early Bronze Age. The submerged prehistoric sites from Greece recorded in the SPLASHCOS database number 27 entries (Fig. 19. 1). These sites are testimony to an extensive mosaic of coastal biotopes that were available prior to about 4000 cal BP. The seabed has yielded partially or totally inundated settlements with architectural features (remains of walls, foundations or stone-built structures), loose finds such as stone tools and ceramics, hoards and cave sites containing bones of extinct Pleistocene animals.
Data Categories For the sake of simplicity, the primary data are in spreadsheet format, organised by Nation State as a series of Excel files. The data have been compiled, for the most part, by the authors of the national overviews presented in this volume and have been merged at the Lower Saxony Institute for Historical Coastal Research (Niedersächsisches Institut für historische Küstenforschung-NIhK), where the central database is maintained. The data are hosted online by MARIS (The Marine Information Service of the Netherlands), which is responsible for the pan-European coordination and management of marine and oceanographic data (https:// www. maris. nl/). The archaeological data can be uploaded to a local working environment using the web map service at http://geoservice. maris2. nl/wms/project/splashcos?service=WMS&reque st=GetCapabilities.
The Future of the SPLASHCOS Viewer To secure the future of the Viewer, the following points are important. There must be long-term maintenance of the database, permanent accessibility and the possibility of updates, and these are the responsibility of the NIhK. However, equally important is the gathering and testing of new data. Here, it is necessary that the members of the SPLASHCOS community and all other archaeologists who deal with this topic take on the responsibility of filling gaps in the existing records or submitting new records. NIhK can take on the responsibility for administration of the Viewer, but the quality of the information provided in the Viewer can only be as good or as bad as the information supplied by specialists familiar with the details of the material at the national and regional level.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the rest of the  Landscapes Lost and Blue Archaeology  teams:  Svante Björck ,  Johannes Edvardsson ,  Dan Hammarlund ,  Giacomo Landeschi ,  Hans Linderson ,  Ola Magnell ,  Peter Norman  and  Mats Rundgren. We thank divers  Mikael Björk  and  Beesham Soogrim  together with volunteers and  Marinarkeologiska Sällskapet  and SSDK, Karlshamn. We also thank  Anders Fischer  and  Lars Larsson  for valuable comments on earlier drafts, and the County Administrative Board  of Antiquities, Blekinge , and  Blekinge Museum  for their support of this study in its earlier stages. For funding, we thank the  Crafoord Foundation , the  Royal Physiographic Society in Lund , the  Swedish National Heritage Board  ( FoU 3. 2. 2-3104-2013 ) and the  Swedish Research Council  ( 2016-02027 ).