Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Ecohydrology”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

QA/QC-ed Groundwater Level Time Series in PLM-1 and PLM-6 Monitoring Wells, East River, Colorado (2016-2022)

This data set contains QA/QC-ed (Quality Assurance and Quality Control) water level data for the PLM1 and PLM6 wells. PLM1 and PLM6 are location identifiers used by the Watershed Function SFA project for two groundwater monitoring wells along an elevation gradient located along the lower montane life zone of a hillslope near the Pumphouse location at the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA. These wells are used to monitor subsurface water and carbon inventories and fluxes, and to determine the seasonally dependent flow of groundwater under the PLM hillslope. The downslope flow of groundwater in combination with data on groundwater chemistry (see related references) can be used to estimate rates of solute export from the hillslope to the floodplain and river. QA/QC analysis of measured groundwater levels in monitoring wells PLM-1 and PLM-6 included identification and flagging of duplicated values of timestamps, gap filling of missing timestamps and water levels, removal of abnormal/bad and outliers of measured water levels. The QA/QC analysis also tested the application of different QA/QC methods and the development of regular (5-minute, 1-hour, and 1-day) time series datasets, which can serve as a benchmark for testing other QA/QC techniques, and will be applicable for ecohydrological modeling. The package includes a Readme file, one R code file used to perform QA/QC, a series of 8 data csv files (six QA/QC-ed regular time series datasets of varying intervals (5-min, 1-hr, 1-day) and two files with QA/QC flagging of original data), and three files for the reporting format adoption of this dataset (InstallationMethods, file level metadata (flmd), and data dictionary (dd) files).QA/QC-ed data herein were derived from the original/raw data publication available at Williams et al., 2020 (DOI: 10.15485/1818367). For more information about running R code file (10.15485_1866836_QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) to reproduce QA/QC output files, see README (QAQC_PLM_readme.docx). This dataset replaces the previously published raw data time series, and is the final groundwater data product for the PLM wells in the East River. Complete metadata information on the PLM1 and PLM6 wells are available in a related dataset on ESS-DIVE: Varadharajan C, et al (2022). https://doi.org/10.15485/1660962. These data products are part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area collection effort to further scientific understanding of biogeochemical dynamics from genome to watershed scales. 2022/09/09 Update: Converted data files using ESS-DIVE’s Hydrological Monitoring Reporting Format. With the adoption of this reporting format, the addition of three new files (v1_20220909_flmd.csv, V1_20220909_dd.csv, and InstallationMethods.csv) were added. The file-level metadata file (v1_20220909_flmd.csv) contains information specific to the files contained within the dataset. The data dictionary file (v1_20220909_dd.csv) contains definitions of column headers and other terms across the dataset. The installation methods file (InstallationMethods.csv) contains a description of methods associated with installation and deployment at PLM1 and PLM6 wells. Additionally, eight data files were re-formatted to follow the reporting format guidance (er_plm1_waterlevel_2016-2020.csv, er_plm1_waterlevel_1-hour_2016-2020.csv, er_plm1_waterlevel_daily_2016-2020.csv, QA_PLM1_Flagging.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_2016-2020.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_1-hour_2016-2020.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_daily_2016-2020.csv, QA_PLM6_Flagging.csv). The major changes to the data files include the addition of header_rows above the data containing metadata about the particular well, units, and sensor description. 2023/01/18 Update: Dataset updated to include additional QA/QC-ed water level data up until 2022-10-12 for ER-PLM1 and 2022-10-13 for ER-PLM6. Reporting format specific files (v2_20230118_flmd.csv, v2_20230118_dd.csv, v2_20230118_InstallationMethods.csv) were updated to reflect the additional data. R code file (QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) was added to replace the previously uploaded HTML files to enable execution of the associated code. R code file (QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) and ReadMe file (QAQC_PLM_readme.docx) were revised to clarify where original data was retrieved from and to remove local file paths.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Raw soil carbon dioxide, moisture, temperature and micrometeorological data in the East River Watershed, Colorado June 2021-June 2024. (DE-SC0021139)

This dataset contains raw data from four tripod stations along an elevation gradient on Snodgrass Mountain in the East River Watershed, CO, USA. Each station contains a datalogger connected to 3 soil Carbon Dioxide CO2 gas probes, 3 soil temperature/moisture sensors and a micrometeorological station. Sensors are scanned every minute, and the 30 minute average is reported. The file snodgrass_soil_ESS.csv contains raw data, a row of column descriptors, and units of measurements. some data processing and QA/QC was done to filter out data from sensors that went bad and extreme outliers. CO2 sensors that went bad were replaced with new sensors as soon as possible. This research was performed to investigate the ecohydrological linkages of belowground carbon processes in the East River watershed forested communities to better understand how these ecosystems will respond to a changing cold-season moisture input. This is the second version of this data set and was modified on 10/01/2024. The primary change in the data was the addition of data from the fall of 2022 to June of 2024. In addition, minor QA/QC was done to filter out data from sensors that went bad and extreme outliers. THe filtered data are now NA's in this data frame and primarily the CO2 sensors. Limited to no QA/QC has been done on the other environmental data. This is now the third version of the data set, and was modified 03/25/2026. The primary change in the data was the addition of data from the June of 2024 to December 2025. Further r QA/QC was done with the new data to filter out bad data from faulty sensors and extreme outliers. The filtered data are now NA's in this data frame and primarily the CO2 sensors. Limited to no QA/QC has been done on the other environmental data. ##This additional data was funded under DE-SC0024218( Responses of Plant and Microbial Respiration Sources to Changing Cold Season Climate Drivers in the East River Watershed)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

CO2 and CH4 leaf-level fluxes and soil porewater concentrations from common vegetation patches in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands

This dataset contains leaf-level flux and soil porewater concentration measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4 ) in plots in the footprint of Ameriflux sites US-LA2 and US-LA3. Leaf fluxes in US-LA2 were measured on patches dominated by Sagittaria lancifolia and co-dominated by Sagittaria lancifolia and Typha latifolia. In US-LA3, fluxes were measured from distinct Juncus roemerianus and Spartina alterniflora patches. The porewater concentrations were collected across a vertical profile (~50 cm depth) at centric locations within 25 m2 plots where we measured the leaf fluxes. US-LA3 included an additional set of measurements in open water spots. We aimed to evaluate differences in leaf fluxes and porewater pools of CO2 and CH4 of representative ecohydrological patches across a salinity gradient. We also used this dataset to help develop ELM-Wet, a more realistic representation of wetland carbon biogeochemical processes within the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model version 1 (ELM v.1). The files can be opened with regular text editors or spreadsheet programs. Version 2.0 (8/26/2025): This is the latest version of this dataset. The update includes additional samples of soil porewater CH4/CO2 concentrations from June-2021 to November-2022, as well as minor adjustments made to V1 samples via changing Henry's solubility to account for porewater salinity. Additionally leaf-level measurments of spectral indices, PSRI, NDVI, and PRI have been added to complement Leaf-level flux measurements. All V1 data sets have been integrated into V2 sheets, ensuring data from the previous version is contained with the additional samples and consistent with V2 metadata.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2022

E-Field_Log Metadata, BR-Ma2: Manaus, 2016 - 2017

This data package contains the Excel file "E-Field_Log_v1-1_BR-Ma2_20190725_20190910175444," which has metadata for sap velocity, leaf temperature, leaf gas exchange, and soil water content data packages. Each data package is listed in the below field "dataset references." All data was collected from the NGEE Tropics site in Manaus, Brazil (BR-Ma2), between 24 May 2016 and 16 March 2017. This dataset replaces the E-Field metadata file of two retired packages, NGT0019 and NGT0040. This metadata file includes site details, species information, equipment used, and more. For more information about the design and use of the E-Field_Log and accompanying metadata files, see Danielle Christianson, Charuleka Varadharajan, Brad Christoffersen, Matteo Detto, Boris Faybishenko, Val Hendrix, Kolby Jardine, Robinson Negron-Juarez, Bruno Gimenez, Gilberto Pastorello, Thomas Powell, Megha Sandesh, Jeffrey Warren, Brett Wolfe, Jeff Chambers, Lara Kueppers, Nate McDowell, Deb Agarwal(2018). FRAMES Metadata Reporting Templates for Ecohydrological Observations, version 1.1. NGEE Tropics Data Collection. Accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.15486/ngt/1419956.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Space and Time Dynamics of Transpiration in the East River Watershed: Biotic and Abiotic Controls

Alpine forests have important impacts on water resources by affecting how much of the precipitation that falls on a watershed is routed to streamflow or returned to the atmosphere as transpiration – so-called “green water”. In many of the high-altitude watersheds that supply critical water resources to the western US, it remains a challenge to predict how much water forests will utilize limiting the ability to predict both short and long term information on downstream water resources. The uncertainty emerges because transpiration varies between tree species, across landscapes and over time in ways that cannot readily be predicted from physically-based models for evaporation. In this project, we utilized a technique called sap flux to measure the rate of water use for three common species of fir, spruce and aspen distributed across a hillslope in the East River Watershed from 2019-2021. We also made ~weekly measurements of the concentration of stable isotopic tracers in transpiration to understand not only how much water was being used but whether it originated from summer rain or snowmelt. Firstly, our results show that the species tend to use similar amounts of total water but they achieve this similar cumulative water flux both by using water at different times of the year and by using different water sources. This shows the importance of including species-level information into models used to make seasonal streamflow predictions. Secondly, our results show that trees lower on the hillslope use older waters all through the summer whereas trees higher on the hillslope rely more heavily on recent summer rain. This means trees lower on the hillslope are less sensitive to year-to-year changes in summer climate. Lastly, we found that sites with dense forest stands displayed the largest amounts of year-to-year changes in transpiration and thus these high localized spots in the watershed are the primary drivers of changes in “green water” use. The results provide an unprecedented spatial and temporal picture of forest water use that confirms a number of fundamental hypotheses on hillslope ecohydrology that had not previously been tested against observations. Predictions of streamflow that will benefit from this work are highly valuable for agriculture management, flood control and ecological restoration efforts.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Water foraging with dynamic roots in E3SM; The role of roots in terrestrial ecosystem memory on intermediate timescales (Final Technical Report)

Terrestrial ecosystems can show sustained responses to stress events that may last for years after the initial perturbation. This phenomenon is referred to as legacy or memory and it emerges from a set of ecosystem processes that are poorly captured by Earth System and Land Surface Models. Consequently, these models struggle to predict the impact that extreme climate events have on surface energy, carbon and hydrological exchange once a stressor such as drought has relaxed or in response to repeated exposure to stress. In this project, we set out to test how the addition of dynamic root profiles in land surface models impact the capacity for Earth System Models, such as the Department of Energy’s E3SM, to capture realistic legacy effects. Observations have shown that vegetation shifts their root profiles during stress events to forage for water and these altered root profiles may take years to relax back to the initial state. We hypothesized that the alteration of the belowground root structures may be a source of terrestrial ecosystem legacy that is missing from models. To test this idea we undertook three core activities. (1) We developed a global-scale analysis of the impact of dynamic roots on ecosystem legacy building from a recently developed dynamic root module. (2) We developed new root dynamics in the DOE’s Energy Land Model (ELM) that allowed not only root profiles to shift their profile but also simultaneously alter carbon allocation to fine root pools. We then tested the impact of these new dynamics with intensive sensitivity analysis at four long-term AmeriFlux sites. (3) We undertook detailed isotopic analysis of tree rings from these AmeriFlux sites to assess ecophysiological and ecohydrological legacy to stress events that can be used to benchmark the sensitivity experiments with ELM. From these core activities, we report the following key findings. Firstly, on a global scale, the addition of dynamic roots led to chronically water-stressed ecosystems recovering faster to climate stress while wetter ecosystem showed enhanced legacy. This is because across ecosystems, stress events were almost universally associated with water shortages that led to the development of deeper root profiles. These deeper root profiles proved beneficial for recovery from drought stress. While the root dynamics did not universally improve the modeled representation of legacy it showed complex transient dynamics that emerge from the addition of dynamic roots. Secondly, the sensitivity analysis illustrated long term shifts in rooting depths away from the prescribed default profile suggesting that initializing of root profiles could benefit from spin-up simulations that converge on locally optimized root profiles. In addition, by enabling dynamic allocation some of the sites predicted unrealistically low allocation to roots (and high allocation to leaves). While these changes did not dramatically alter modeled gross primary productivity, they illustrated that without more sophisticated root processes in models, there is little penalty to dramatically disinvest in roots. Thirdly, the isotopic analysis of tree rings showed highly distinct legacy responses across species and sites. For example, T. canadensis showed reduced transpiration the year after stress events illustrated by sustained elevated $\delta^{18}$O. In contrast, A saccharum displayed elevated $\delta^{13}$C associated with reduced stomatal conductance in response to the previous years’ stress event. These geochemical signatures of legacy were present despite tree growth returning to normal the year after the stress. The results show the importance of species-level dynamics in legacy that are absent in modeling that assumes common traits within plant functional types. In summary, the work here established new avenues to explore root dynamics in models while illustrating how additional root processes are needed before dynamic carbon allocation can be implemented. Lastly, this project provided mentorship to a postdoctoral fellow, training for an early career scientist and multiple undergraduate students recruited from a minority serving institution.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Functional-type modeling approach and data-driven parameterization of methane emissions in wetlands (Final Technical Science Report)

Our goals are to improve understanding and quantitative representation of the multiple processes that affect methane emissions at a high (patch level, vertically detailed) spatial resolution, and translate this understanding to improved modeling capability of coastal wetland fluxes using the E3SM Land Model (ELM v1) wetland CH4 biogeochemistry module. We propose an experimental approach to identify and parameterize uncertainties in ELM. Understanding of methane emissions can be improved along three conceptual axes: (i) horizontal (ecohydrological patch resolution), (ii) vertical (through the depth of the soil column), and (iii) process level (e.g., resolving microbial pathways, vegetation specific transport pathways). Along each of the three axes, we will characterize, quantify, and model, the key ecological, hydrological, and meteorological controls of methane (CH4) flux heterogeneity in four model coastal wetlands.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Model and remote-sensing-guided experimental design and hypothesis generation for monitoring snow-soil–plant interactions

In this study, we develop a machine-learning (ML)-enabled strategy for selecting hillslope-scale ecohydrological monitoring sites within snow-dominated mountainous watersheds, with a particular focus on snow-soil–plant interactions. Data layers rely on spatial data layers from both remote sensing and hydrological model simulations. Specifically, a Landsat-based foresummer drought sensitivity index is used to define the dependency of the annual peak plant productivity on the Palmer drought severity index in the early growing season. Hydrological simulations provide the spatiotemporal dynamics of near-surface soil moisture and snow depth. In this framework, a regression analysis identifies the key hydrological variables relevant to the spatial heterogeneity of drought sensitivity. We then apply unsupervised clustering to these key variables, using the Gaussian mixture model, to group hillslopes into several zones that have divergent relationships regarding soil moisture, snow dynamics, and drought sensitivity. Using the datasets collected in the East River Watershed (Crested Butte, Colorado, United States), results show that drought sensitivity is significantly correlated with model-derived soil moisture and snow-free timing over space and time. The relationship is, however, non-linear, such that the correlation decreases above a threshold elevation and in a heavy snow year due to large snowpacks, lateral flow, and soil storage limitations. Clustering is then able to define the zones that have high or low sensitivity to drought, as well as the mid-elevation regions where sensitivity is associated with the topographic aspect and net potential radiation. In addition, the algorithm identifies the most representative hillslopes with road/trail access within each zone for installing monitoring sites. Our method also aims to significantly increase the use of ML and model-simulation results to guide critical zone and watershed monitoring activities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Global transpiration data from sap flow measurements: the SAPFLUXNET database

Plant transpiration links physiological responses of vegetation to water supply and demand with hydrological, energy, and carbon budgets at the land–atmosphere interface. However, despite being the main land evaporative flux at the global scale, transpiration and its response to environmental drivers are currently not well constrained by observations. Here we introduce the first global compilation of whole-plant transpiration data from sap flow measurements (SAPFLUXNET, https://sapfluxnet.creaf.cat/, last access: 8 June 2021). We harmonized and quality-controlled individual datasets supplied by contributors worldwide in a semi-automatic data workflow implemented in the R programming language. Datasets include sub-daily time series of sap flow and hydrometeorological drivers for one or more growing seasons, as well as metadata on the stand characteristics, plant attributes, and technical details of the measurements. SAPFLUXNET contains 202 globally distributed datasets with sap flow time series for 2714 plants, mostly trees, of 174 species. SAPFLUXNET has a broad bioclimatic coverage, with woodland/shrubland and temperate forest biomes especially well represented (80 % of the datasets). The measurements cover a wide variety of stand structural characteristics and plant sizes. The datasets encompass the period between 1995 and 2018, with 50 % of the datasets being at least 3 years long. Accompanying radiation and vapour pressure deficit data are available for most of the datasets, while on-site soil water content is available for 56 % of the datasets. Many datasets contain data for species that make up 90 % or more of the total stand basal area, allowing the estimation of stand transpiration in diverse ecological settings. SAPFLUXNET adds to existing plant trait datasets, ecosystem flux networks, and remote sensing products to help increase our understanding of plant water use, plant responses to drought, and ecohydrological processes. SAPFLUXNET version 0.1.5 is freely available from the Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3971689; Poyatos et al., 2020a). The “sapfluxnetr” R package – designed to access, visualize, and process SAPFLUXNET data – is available from CRAN.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

SERGHEI (SERGHEI-SWE) v1.0: a performance-portable high-performance parallel-computing shallow-water solver for hydrology and environmental hydraulics

The Simulation EnviRonment for Geomorphology, Hydrodynamics, and Ecohydrology in Integrated form (SERGHEI) is a multi-dimensional, multi-domain, and multi-physics model framework for environmental and landscape simulation, designed with an outlook towards Earth system modelling. At the core of SERGHEI's innovation is its performance-portable high-performance parallel-computing (HPC) implementation, built from scratch on the Kokkos portability layer, allowing SERGHEI to be deployed, in a performance-portable fashion, in graphics processing unit (GPU)-based heterogeneous systems. In this work, we explore combinations of MPI and Kokkos using OpenMP and CUDA backends. In this contribution, we introduce the SERGHEI model framework and present with detail its first operational module for solving shallow-water equations (SERGHEI-SWE) and its HPC implementation. This module is designed to be applicable to hydrological and environmental problems including flooding and runoff generation, with an outlook towards Earth system modelling. Its applicability is demonstrated by testing several well-known benchmarks and large-scale problems, for which SERGHEI-SWE achieves excellent results for the different types of shallow-water problems. Finally, SERGHEI-SWE scalability and performance portability is demonstrated and evaluated on several TOP500 HPC systems, with very good scaling in the range of over 20 000 CPUs and up to 256 state-of-the art GPUs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Watershed zonation through hillslope clustering for tractably quantifying above- and below-ground watershed heterogeneity and functions

Abstract. In this study, we develop a watershed zonation approach for characterizing watershed organization and functions in a tractable manner by integrating multiple spatial data layers. We hypothesize that (1) a hillslope is an appropriate unit for capturing the watershed-scale heterogeneity of key bedrock-through-canopy properties and for quantifying the co-variability of these properties representing coupled ecohydrological and biogeochemical interactions, (2) remote sensing data layers and clustering methods can be used to identify watershed hillslope zones having the unique distributions of these properties relative to neighboring parcels, and (3) property suites associated with the identified zones can be used to understand zone-based functions, such as response to early snowmelt or drought and solute exports to the river. We demonstrate this concept using unsupervised clustering methods that synthesize airborne remote sensing data (lidar, hyperspectral, and electromagnetic surveys) along with satellite and streamflow data collected in the East River Watershed, Crested Butte, Colorado, USA. Results show that (1) we can define the scale of hillslopes at which the hillslope-averaged metrics can capture the majority of the overall variability in key properties (such as elevation, net potential annual radiation, and peak snow-water equivalent – SWE), (2) elevation and aspect are independent controls on plant and snow signatures, (3) near-surface bedrock electrical resistivity (top 20 m) and geological structures are significantly correlated with surface topography and plan species distribution, and (4) K-means, hierarchical clustering, and Gaussian mixture clustering methods generate similar zonation patterns across the watershed. Using independently collected data, we show that the identified zones provide information about zone-based watershed functions, including foresummer drought sensitivity and river nitrogen exports. The approach is expected to be applicable to other sites and generally useful for guiding the selection of hillslope-experiment locations and informing model parameterization.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2019

Chapter 14: 100 Years of Progress in Hydrology

The focus of this chapter is progress in hydrology for the last 100 years. During this period, we have seen a marked transition from practical engineering hydrology to fundamental developments in hydrologic science, including contributions to Earth system science. The first three sections in this chapter review advances in theory, observations, and hydrologic prediction. Building on this foundation, the growth of global hydrology, land-atmosphere interactions and coupling, ecohydrology, and water management are discussed, as well as a brief summary of emerging challenges and future directions. Although the review attempts to be comprehensive, the chapter offers greater coverage on surface hydrology and hydrometeorology for readers of this American Meteorological Society (AMS) Monograph.

Peters-Lidard, Christa D.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Managing wetlands to solve the water crisis in the Katuma River ecosystem, Tanzania

The formerly perennial Katuma River in western Tanzania starts in a protected forest, it then flows through irrigated rice farms before reaching Lake Katavi, a floodplain wetland whose outflow regulates the river flow through the Katavi National Park (KNP) down to its outlet at Lake Rukwa, which has no outlet. In recent years, due to overexploitation of water for irrigation, the Katuma River dried out for up to four months per year and this greatly degraded the KNP ecosystem, the siltation of river lead to flooding of the adjacent areas during heavy rains, and the water level of Lake Rukwa has decreased by 4 m since 1992 while its fishery yield and water quality also deteriorated. In 2016, a total of 46 illegal weirs were removed from the Katuma River upstream of KNP. Following that, the river zero-flow periods were reduced by two months and Lake Rukwa water level rose by 1 m. We suggest that the construction of a low V-notch weir at the outlet of the Lake Katavi wetlands would further reduce the Katuma River zero-flow periods by an additional month, thus returning the river nearly to its former perennial status. The enforcement of regulations governing the construction of irrigation weirs is essential. These ecohydrology solutions do not eliminate the threats, but they amplify the opportunities for sustainable development at the basin scale. This example of active governance of water resources at the basin scale can be applied throughout Tanzania and in semi-arid East Africa in general.

Satellite altimetry↗
NASA NTRS2021

Recovery: Fast and Slow—Vegetation Response During the 2012–2016 California Drought

The 2012–2016 California Drought severely impacted natural vegetation across a wide range of environmental gradient. Although several studies have reported an increase in plant water stress and mortality, the spatiotemporal variations of ecosystem productivity responses and the associated environmental and biological drivers remain unclear. Here, using Enhanced Vegetation Index from the Moderate resolution imaging spectrometer, we found that 45% of the natural ecosystems showed an abrupt change (breakpoint [BP]) in productivity during 2012–2016. There were three major contrasting temporal patterns of productivity responses: (i) a steady increase under higher temperature followed by a decline due to accumulated moisture depletion (high elevation forest) or temperature decrease (high elevation nonforest), (ii) gradual decline during the drought followed by a rapid recovery within 1 year after drought stress was partially relieved, and (iii) both a gradual decline and an abrupt decline. The magnitude of abrupt changes was negatively correlated (r = −0.80, p < 0.001) with initial gradual changes. Overall, changes during BP offset, on average, 57% of the preceding gradual responses. The spatial variability in ecosystem response patterns is driven by both environmental and biological factors. Particularly, for forests, positive BP was driven by increasing rainfall and decreasing temperature, while negative BP was mainly driven by the precipitation anomaly. By 2019, 33% of the natural vegetation have recovered to the level of EVI in 2010. Ecosystem responses to multiyear droughts can influence ecosystem dynamics in a complex pattern. Multiple ecohydrological factors should be considered to understand and predict the long-term drought impacts on ecosystems.

Xi Yang↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of the NASA Earth Action Strategies Wildland Fire Initiative

As part of NASA’s new Earth Action strategy, the Wildland Fire initiative was established, which includes both the NASA Wildland Fire Program (WFP) and the FireSense project. NASA has over 50 years of experience generating data and technology to enhance fire science and operational management. The WFP’s mission is threefold: 1) assemble communities of practice through collaborative efforts with government, academia, and the private sector; 2) co-develop knowledge and applications with relevant partners and stakeholders in the wildfire community; and 3) improve wildland fire management through the transitioning of NASA data, technology, tools, and science to stakeholder organizations. The WFP is focusing on supporting proactive fire management, including situational awareness, preparedness, and risk mitigation. This will be accomplished through selected projects that identify management challenges, relevant to partners and end users, and the NASA data that will be utilized to deliver innovative solutions to enhance the management of wildland fires. Examples include: i) investigation of evaporative stress from OpenET to help predict the risk of wildfire occurrence in watersheds; ii) incorporation of space based LiDAR for the generation of 3-dimensional forest fuel metrics, used to improve wildfire risk and behavior models; iii) integration of global, multi-platform geostationary active-fire data in near-real-time into NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS); and iv) identification of post-fire ecohydrological conditions using thermal, multispectral, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and hyperspectral remotely-sensed data to improve flood hazard forecast models. The FireSense project is a US-focused 5-year project that will focus on delivering NASA’s unique Earth science and technological capabilities to operational agencies, striving towards enhancing fire fighting and air quality management. The project will include airborne campaigns and new technology that will likely have global implications. Initial stakeholder engagement led FireSense to focus on four use-cases focused on the characterization and measurement of: (i) pre-fire fuels conditions, (ii) active fire-dynamics; (iii) post-fire impact and threats; and iv) air quality impacts and forecasting, each-developed with identified stakeholders.

Wildland Fire program↗
DOE OSTI2023

Little vertical and circumferential variations in stem xylem water Δ 2 H and Δ 18 O in three tree species

Vertical and circumferential patterns of xylem water isotope signatures in large trees are rarely characterized but may influence interpretation of water source investigations and soil/xylem water isotope offsets. Furthermore, to examine vertical and circumferential variation in xylem water δ 2 H and δ 18 O, we collected xylem tissue at 5 heights (0, 1, 4, 7 and 10 m) from three replicate trees of three species with contrasting xylem anatomy, two angiosperms (Liquidambar styraciflua and Quercus nigra) and one gymnosperm (Pinus taeda). Concurrently, we also determined δ 2 H and δ 18 O of groundwater, soil water, and recent precipitation. On a different day, we collected circumferential samples at 1 m from the same trees to test for sectorality effects. Water from stem and soil samples were cryogenically extracted and analyzed for δ 2 H and δ 18 O. Mean xylem water δ 2 H and δ 18 O were significantly different between species, both vertically and circumferentially. We did not find significant (p = 0.05) systematic variation in δ 2 H or δ 18 O with height. We found no significant evidence for sectorality effects on δ 2 H, δ 18 O. Variances of vertical synoptic xylem water δ 2 H or δ 18 O were similar between species, 7.2–10.4‰ for δ 2 H and 0.58–0.81‰ for δ 18 O. Circumferential variances were also similar between species, 4.0–6.0 for δ 2 H and 0.37–0.44 for δ 18 O. A mixing model showed that sweetgum, water oak and loblolly pine, were drawing most of their water from deep soil from 45 to 190 cm (84.7, 68.4 and 53.2%, respectively) however, soil water-excess values indicate δ 2 H fractionation effects on these estimates. Dual isotope mixing model evaluation with single and multiple sample configurations showed that source water estimates were not affected by within tree variability of xylem water signatures. Xylem water δ 2 H and δ 18 O variability with height or circumference, was 3.2 and 2.7 times less than between tree variation because of transient temporal and spatial processes and is, therefore, not likely to affect interpretations of water sourcing in these three species.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗