Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Zipper, Samuel C.

Publications and source records attributed to Zipper, Samuel C..

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

How High to Fly? Mapping Evapotranspiration from Remotely Piloted Aircrafts at Different Elevations

Recent advancements in remotely piloted aircrafts (RPAs) have made frequent, low-flying imagery collection more economical and feasible than ever before. The goal of this work was to create, compare, and quantify uncertainty associated with evapotranspiration (ET) maps generated from different conditions and image capture elevations. We collected optical and thermal data from a commercially irrigated potato (Solanum tuberosum) field in the Wisconsin Central Sands using a quadcopter RPA system and combined multispectral/thermal camera. We conducted eight mission sets (24 total missions) during the 2019 growing season. Each mission set included flights at 90, 60, and 30 m above ground level. Ground reference measurements of surface temperature and soil moisture were collected throughout the domain within 15 min of each RPA mission set. Evapotranspiration values were modeled from the flight data using the High-Resolution Mapping of Evapotranspiration (HRMET) model. We compared HRMET-derived ET estimates to an Eddy Covariance system within the flight domain. Additionally, we assessed uncertainty for each flight using a Monte Carlo approach. Results indicate that the primary source of uncertainty in ET estimates was the optical and thermal data. Despite some additional detectable features at low elevation, we conclude that the tradeoff in resources and computation does not currently justify low elevation flights for annual vegetable crop management in the Midwest USA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Toward a Generalizable Framework of Disturbance Ecology Through Crowdsourced Science

Disturbances fundamentally alter ecosystem functions, yet predicting their impacts remains a key scientific challenge. While the study of disturbances is ubiquitous across many ecological disciplines, there is no agreed-upon, cross-disciplinary foundation for discussing or quantifying the complexity of disturbances, and no consistent terminology or methodologies exist. This inconsistency presents an increasingly urgent challenge due to accelerating global change and the threat of interacting disturbances that can destabilize ecosystem responses. By harvesting the expertise of an interdisciplinary cohort of contributors spanning 42 institutions across 15 countries, we identified an essential limitation in disturbance ecology: the word ‘disturbance’ is used interchangeably to refer to both the events that cause, and the consequences of, ecological change, despite fundamental distinctions between the two meanings. In response, we developed a generalizable framework of ecosystem disturbances, providing a well-defined lexicon for understanding disturbances across perspectives and scales. The framework results from ideas that resonate across multiple scientific disciplines and provides a baseline standard to compare disturbances across fields. This framework can be supplemented by discipline-specific variables to provide maximum benefit to both inter- and intra-disciplinary research. To support future syntheses and meta-analyses of disturbance research, we also encourage researchers to be explicit in how they define disturbance drivers and impacts, and we recommend minimum reporting standards that are applicable regardless of scale. Finally, we discuss the primary factors we considered when developing a baseline framework and propose four future directions to advance our interdisciplinary understanding of disturbances and their social-ecological impacts: integrating across ecological scales, understanding disturbance interactions, establishing baselines and trajectories, and developing process-based models and ecological forecasting initiatives. Our experience through this process motivates us to encourage the wider scientific community to continue to explore new approaches for leveraging Open Science principles in generating creative and multidisciplinary ideas.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Developing a sustainability science approach for water systems

We convened a workshop to enable scientists who study water systems from both social science and physical science perspectives to develop a shared language. This shared language is necessary to bridge a divide between these disciplines’ different conceptual frameworks. As a result of this workshop, we argue that we should view socio-hydrological systems as structurally co-constituted of social, engineered, and natural elements and study the “characteristic management challenges” that emerge from this structure and reoccur across time, space, and socioeconomic contexts. This approach is in contrast to theories that view these systems as separately conceptualized natural and social domains connected by bi-directional feedbacks, as is prevalent in much of the water systems research arising from the physical sciences. A focus on emergent characteristic management challenges encourages us to go beyond searching for evidence of feedbacks and instead ask questions such as: What types of innovations have successfully been used to address these challenges? What structural components of the system affect its resilience to hydrological events and through what mechanisms? Are there differences between successful and unsuccessful strategies to solve one of the characteristic management challenges? If so, how are these differences affected by institutional structure and ecological and economic contexts? To answer these questions, social processes must now take center stage in the study and practice of water management. We also argue that water systems are an important class of coupled systems with relevance for sustainability science because they are particularly amenable to the kinds of systematic comparisons that allow knowledge to accumulate. Indeed, the characteristic management challenges we identify are few in number and recur over most of human history and in most geographical locations. This recurrence should allow us to accumulate knowledge to answer the above questions by studying the long historical record of institutional innovations to manage water systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2016

How Universal is the Relationship Between Remotely Sensed Vegetation Indices and Crop Leaf Area Index? A Global Assessment

Leaf Area Index (LAI) is a key variable that bridges remote sensing observations to the quantification of agroecosystem processes. In this study, we assessed the universality of the relationships between crop LAI and remotely sensed Vegetation Indices (VIs). We first compiled a global dataset of 1459 in situ quality-controlled crop LAI measurements and collected Landsat satellite images to derive five different VIs including Simple Ratio (SR), Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), two versions of the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI and EVI2), and Green Chlorophyll Index (CI(sub Green)). Based on this dataset, we developed global LAI-VI relationships for each crop type and VI using symbolic regression and Theil-Sen (TS) robust estimator. Results suggest that the global LAI-VI relationships are statistically significant, crop-specific, and mostly non-linear. These relationships explain more than half of the total variance in ground LAI observations (R2 greater than 0.5), and provide LAI estimates with RMSE below 1.2 m2/m2. Among the five VIs, EVI/EVI2 are the most effective, and the crop-specific LAI-EVI and LAI-EVI2 relationships constructed by TS, are robust when tested by three independent validation datasets of varied spatial scales. While the heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes leads to a diverse set of local LAI-VI relationships, the relationships provided here represent global universality on an average basis, allowing the generation of large-scale spatial-explicit LAI maps. This study contributes to the operationalization of large-area crop modeling and, by extension, has relevance to both fundamental and applied agroecosystem research.

Vegetation Index↗