More Like this

1. Florida mangrove saltmarsh reference surface soils

   https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/0e08cbe07c84488cb7b9dd16669946d0  

   Lewis, David Bruce ( January 2021 , Environmental Data Initiative)

   Site description. This data package consists of data obtained from sampling surface soil (the 0-7.6 cm depth profile) in black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) dominated forest and black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) saltmarsh along the Gulf of Mexico coastline in peninsular west-central Florida, USA. This location has a subtropical climate with mean daily temperatures ranging from 15.4 °C in January to 27.8 °C in August, and annual precipitation of 1336 mm. Precipitation falls as rain primarily between June and September. Tides are semi-diurnal, with 0.57 m median amplitudes during the year preceding sampling (U.S. NOAA National Ocean Service, Clearwater Beach, Florida, station 8726724). Sea-level rise is 4.0 ± 0.6 mm per year (1973-2020 trend, mean ± 95 % confidence interval, NOAA NOS Clearwater Beach station). The A. germinans mangrove zone is either adjacent to water or fringed on the seaward side by a narrow band of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). A near-monoculture of J. roemerianus is often adjacent to and immediately landward of the A. germinans zone. The transition from the mangrove to the J. roemerianus zone is variable in our study area. An abrupt edge between closed-canopy mangrove and J. roemerianus monoculture may extend for up to several hundred meters in some locations, while other stretches of ecotone present a gradual transition where smaller, widely spaced trees are interspersed into the herbaceous marsh. Juncus roemerianus then extends landward to a high marsh patchwork of succulent halophytes (including Salicornia bigellovi, Sesuvium sp., and Batis maritima), scattered dwarf mangrove, and salt pans, followed in turn by upland vegetation that includes Pinus sp. and Serenoa repens. Field design and sample collection. We established three study sites spaced at approximately 5 km intervals along the western coastline of the central Florida peninsula. The sites consisted of the Salt Springs (28.3298°, -82.7274°), Energy Marine Center (28.2903°, -82.7278°), and Green Key (28.2530°, -82.7496°) sites on the Gulf of Mexico coastline in Pasco County, Florida, USA. At each site, we established three plot pairs, each consisting of one saltmarsh plot and one mangrove plot. Plots were 50 m^2 in size. Plots pairs within a site were separated by 230-1070 m, and the mangrove and saltmarsh plots composing a pair were 70-170 m apart. All plot pairs consisted of directly adjacent patches of mangrove forest and J. roemerianus saltmarsh, with the mangrove forests exhibiting a closed canopy and a tree architecture (height 4-6 m, crown width 1.5-3 m). Mangrove plots were located at approximately the midpoint between the seaward edge (water-mangrove interface) and landward edge (mangrove-marsh interface) of the mangrove zone. Saltmarsh plots were located 20-25 m away from any mangrove trees and into the J. roemerianus zone (i.e., landward from the mangrove-marsh interface). Plot pairs were coarsely similar in geomorphic setting, as all were located on the Gulf of Mexico coastline, rather than within major sheltering formations like Tampa Bay, and all plot pairs fit the tide-dominated domain of the Woodroffe classification (Woodroffe, 2002, "Coasts: Form, Process and Evolution", Cambridge University Press), given their conspicuous semi-diurnal tides. There was nevertheless some geomorphic variation, as some plot pairs were directly open to the Gulf of Mexico while others sat behind keys and spits or along small tidal creeks. Our use of a plot-pair approach is intended to control for this geomorphic variation. Plot center elevations (cm above mean sea level, NAVD 88) were estimated by overlaying the plot locations determined with a global positioning system (Garmin GPS 60, Olathe, KS, USA) on a LiDAR-derived bare-earth digital elevation model (Dewberry, Inc., 2019). The digital elevation model had a vertical accuracy of ± 10 cm (95 % CI) and a horizontal accuracy of ± 116 cm (95 % CI). Soil samples were collected via coring at low tide in June 2011. From each plot, we collected a composite soil sample consisting of three discrete 5.1 cm diameter soil cores taken at equidistant points to 7.6 cm depth. Cores were taken by tapping a sleeve into the soil until its top was flush with the soil surface, sliding a hand under the core, and lifting it up. Cores were then capped and transferred on ice to our laboratory at the University of South Florida (Tampa, Florida, USA), where they were combined in plastic zipper bags, and homogenized by hand into plot-level composite samples on the day they were collected. A damp soil subsample was immediately taken from each composite sample to initiate 1 y incubations for determination of active C and N (see below). The remainder of each composite sample was then placed in a drying oven (60 °C) for 1 week with frequent mixing of the soil to prevent aggregation and liberate water. Organic wetland soils are sometimes dried at 70 °C, however high drying temperatures can volatilize non-water liquids and oxidize and decompose organic matter, so 50 °C is also a common drying temperature for organic soils (Gardner 1986, "Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1", Soil Science Society of America); we accordingly chose 60 °C as a compromise between sufficient water removal and avoidance of non-water mass loss. Bulk density was determined as soil dry mass per core volume (adding back the dry mass equivalent of the damp subsample removed prior to drying). Dried subsamples were obtained for determination of soil organic matter (SOM), mineral texture composition, and extractable and total carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) within the following week. Sample analyses. A dried subsample was apportioned from each composite sample to determine SOM as mass loss on ignition at 550 °C for 4 h. After organic matter was removed from soil via ignition, mineral particle size composition was determined using a combination of wet sieving and density separation in 49 mM (3 %) sodium hexametaphosphate ((NaPO_3)_6) following procedures in Kettler et al. (2001, Soil Science Society of America Journal 65, 849-852). The percentage of dry soil mass composed of silt and clay particles (hereafter, fines) was calculated as the mass lost from dispersed mineral soil after sieving (0.053 mm mesh sieve). Fines could have been slightly underestimated if any clay particles were burned off during the preceding ignition of soil. An additional subsample was taken from each composite sample to determine extractable N and organic C concentrations via 0.5 M potassium sulfate (K_2SO_4) extractions. We combined soil and extractant (ratio of 1 g dry soil:5 mL extractant) in plastic bottles, reciprocally shook the slurry for 1 h at 120 rpm, and then gravity filtered it through Fisher G6 (1.6 μm pore size) glass fiber filters, followed by colorimetric detection of nitrite (NO_2^-) + nitrate (NO_3^-) and ammonium (NH_4^+) in the filtrate (Hood Nowotny et al., 2010,Soil Science Society of America Journal 74, 1018-1027) using a microplate spectrophotometer (Biotek Epoch, Winooski, VT, USA). Filtrate was also analyzed for dissolved organic C (referred to hereafter as extractable organic C) and total dissolved N via combustion and oxidation followed by detection of the evolved CO_2 and N oxide gases on a Formacs HT TOC/TN analyzer (Skalar, Breda, The Netherlands). Extractable organic N was then computed as total dissolved N in filtrate minus extractable mineral N (itself the sum of extractable NH_4-N and NO_2-N + NO_3-N). We determined soil total C and N from dried, milled subsamples subjected to elemental analysis (ECS 4010, Costech, Inc., Valencia, CA, USA) at the University of South Florida Stable Isotope Laboratory. Median concentration of inorganic C in unvegetated surface soil at our sites is 0.5 % of soil mass (Anderson, 2019, Univ. of South Florida M.S. thesis via methods in Wang et al., 2011, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 174, 241-257). Inorganic C concentrations are likely even lower in our samples from under vegetation, where organic matter would dilute the contribution of inorganic C to soil mass. Nevertheless, the presence of a small inorganic C pool in our soils may be counted in the total C values we report. Extractable organic C is necessarily of organic C origin given the method (sparging with HCl) used in detection. Active C and N represent the fractions of organic C and N that are mineralizable by soil microorganisms under aerobic conditions in long-term soil incubations. To quantify active C and N, 60 g of field-moist soil were apportioned from each composite sample, placed in a filtration apparatus, and incubated in the dark at 25 °C and field capacity moisture for 365 d (as in Lewis et al., 2014, Ecosphere 5, art59). Moisture levels were maintained by frequently weighing incubated soil and wetting them up to target mass. Daily CO_2 flux was quantified on 29 occasions at 0.5-3 week intervals during the incubation period (with shorter intervals earlier in the incubation), and these per day flux rates were integrated over the 365 d period to compute an estimate of active C. Observations of per day flux were made by sealing samples overnight in airtight chambers fitted with septa and quantifying headspace CO_2 accumulation by injecting headspace samples (obtained through the septa via needle and syringe) into an infrared gas analyzer (PP Systems EGM 4, Amesbury, MA, USA). To estimate active N, each incubated sample was leached with a C and N free, 35 psu solution containing micronutrients (Nadelhoffer, 1990, Soil Science Society of America Journal 54, 411-415) on 19 occasions at increasing 1-6 week intervals during the 365 d incubation, and then extracted in 0.5 M K_2SO_4 at the end of the incubation in order to remove any residual mineral N. Active N was then quantified as the total mass of mineral N leached and extracted. Mineral N in leached and extracted solutions was detected as NH_4-N and NO_2-N + NO_3-N via colorimetry as above. This incubation technique precludes new C and N inputs and persistently leaches mineral N, forcing microorganisms to meet demand by mineralizing existing pools, and thereby directly assays the potential activity of soil organic C and N pools present at the time of soil sampling. Because this analysis commences with disrupting soil physical structure, it is biased toward higher estimates of active fractions. Calculations. Non-mobile C and N fractions were computed as total C and N concentrations minus the extractable and active fractions of each element. This data package reports surface-soil constituents (moisture, fines, SOM, and C and N pools and fractions) in both gravimetric units (mass constituent / mass soil) and areal units (mass constituent / soil surface area integrated through 7.6 cm soil depth, the depth of sampling). Areal concentrations were computed as X × D × 7.6, where X is the gravimetric concentration of a soil constituent, D is soil bulk density (g dry soil / cm^3), and 7.6 is the sampling depth in cm. 

   more » « less
2. Multi-variable, multi-configuration testing of ORCHIDEE land surface model water flux and storage estimates across semi-arid sites in the southwestern US

   https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2019-598  

   MacBean, N. ; Scott, R. ; Biederman, J. ; Ottlé, C. ; Vuichard, N. ; Ducharne, A. ; Kolb, T. ; Dore, S. ; Litvak, M.E. ; Moore, D. ( December 2019 , Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract. Plant activity in semi-arid ecosystems is largely controlled by pulses of precipitation, making them particularly vulnerable to increased aridity expected with climate change. Simple bucket-model hydrology schemes in land surface models (LSMs) have had limited ability in accurately capturing semi-arid water stores and fluxes. Recent, more complex, LSM hydrology models have not been widely evaluated against semi-arid ecosystem in situ data. We hypothesize that the failure of older LSM versions to represent evapotranspiration, ET, in arid lands is because simple bucket models do not capture realistic fluctuations in upper layer soil moisture. We therefore predict that including a discretized soil hydrology scheme based on a mechanistic description of moisture diffusion will result in an improvement in model ET when compared to data because the temporal variability of upper layer soil moisture content better corresponds to that of precipitation inputs. To test this prediction, we compared ORCHIDEE LSM simulations from (1) a simple conceptual 2-layer bucket scheme with fixed hydrological parameters; and (2) a 11-layer discretized mechanistic scheme of moisture diffusion in unsaturated soil based on Richards equations against daily and monthly soil moisture and ET observations, together with data-derived transpiration / evaporation, T / ET, ratios, from six semi-arid grass, shrub and forest sites in the southwestern USA. The 11-layer scheme also has modified calculations of surface runoff, bare soil evaporation, and water limitation to be compatible with the more complex hydrology configuration. To diagnose remaining discrepancies in the 11-layer model, we tested two further configurations: (i) the addition of a term that captures bare soil evaporation resistance to dry soil; and (ii) reduced bare soil fraction. We found that the more mechanistic 11-layer model results better representation of the daily and monthly ET observations. We show that is likely because of improved simulation of soil moisture in the upper layers of soil (top 5 cm). Some discrepancies between observed and modelled soil moisture and ET may allow us to prioritize future model development. Adding a soil resistance term generally decreased simulated E and increased soil moisture content, thus increasing T and T / ET ratios and reducing the negative T / ET model-data bias. By reducing the bare soil fraction in the model, we illustrated that modelled leaf T is too low at sparsely vegetated sites. We conclude that a discretized soil hydrology scheme and associated developments improves estimates of ET by allowing the model to more closely match the pulse precipitation dynamics of these semi-arid ecosystems; however, the partitioning of T from bare soil evaporation is not solved by this modification alone. 

   more » « less
3. Dataset: Spatial Variability and Uncertainty of Soil Nitrogen across the Conterminous United States at Different Depths

   https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19397156.v1  

   Smith, Elizabeth ; Vargas, Rodrigo ; Guevara, Mario ; Tarin, Tonantzin ; Pouyat, Richard ( January 2022 , figshare)

   Soil nitrogen (N) is an important driver of plant productivity and ecosystem functioning; consequently, it is critical to understand its spatial variability from local-to-global scales. Here we provide a quantitative assessment of the three-dimensional spatial distribution of soil N across the conterminous United States (CONUS) using a digital soil mapping (DSM) approach. We used a random forest-regression kriging algorithm to predict soil N concentrations and associated uncertainty across six soil depths (0-5, 5-15, 15-30, 30-60, 60-100, 100-200 cm) at 5 km spatial grids. Across CONUS, there is a strong spatial dependence of soil N, where soil N concentrations decrease but uncertainty increases with soil depth. Soil N was higher in Pacific Northwest, Northeast, and Great Lakes National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) ecoclimatic domains. Model uncertainty was higher in Atlantic Neotropical, Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau and Southeast NEON domains. We also compared our soil N predictions with satellite-derived gross primary production (GPP) and forest biomass from the National Biomass and Carbon Dataset. Finally, we used uncertainty information to propose optimized locations for designing future soil surveys and found that the Atlantic Neotropical, Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, and Appalachian/Cumberland Plateau NEON domains may require larger survey efforts. We highlight the need to increase knowledge of biophysical factors regulating soil processes at deeper depths to better characterize the three-dimensional space of soils. Our results provide a national benchmark regarding the spatial variability and uncertainty of soil N and reveal areas in need of a better representation.

   
   

   This dataset includes all covariates used for modeling soil Nitrogen, the training data, and the modeling output. The output represents raster files at 5km resolution of soil N at different depths and associated model uncertainty.

   
   

   Main reference:

   Smith EM, Guevara M, Tarin T, Pouyat R, Vargas R. Spatial variability and uncertainty of soil nitrogen across the conterminous United States (in review). Ecosphere.

    

   more » « less
4. Daily Cropland Soil NO x Emissions Identified by TROPOMI and SMAP

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089949  

   Huber, Daniel E. ; Steiner, Allison L. ; Kort, Eric A. ( November 2020 , Geophysical Research Letters)

   We use TROPOMI (TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument) tropospheric nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) measurements to identify cropland soil nitrogen oxide (NO_x = NO + NO₂) emissions at daily to seasonal scales in the U.S. Southern Mississippi River Valley. Evaluating 1.5 years of TROPOMI observations with a box model, we observe seasonality in local NO_xenhancements and estimate maximum cropland soil NO_xemissions (15–34 ng N m⁻² s⁻¹) early in growing season (May–June). We observe soil NO_xpulsing in response to daily decreases in volumetric soil moisture (VSM) as measured by the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite. Daily NO₂enhancements reach up to 0.8 × 10¹⁵ molecules cm⁻²4–8 days after precipitation when VSM decreases to ~30%, reflecting emissions behavior distinct from previously defined soil NO_xpulse events. This demonstrates that TROPOMI NO₂observations, combined with observations of underlying process controls (e.g., soil moisture), can constrain soil NO_xprocesses from space.

    

   more » « less
5. Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Climate Informatics: CI 2016

   https://doi.org/10.5065/D6K072N6  

   Eds.: Banerjee, A. ; Ding, W. ; Dy, J. ; Lyubchich, V. ; Rhines, A. ; Series Eds.: Ebert-Uphoff, I. ; Monteleoni, C. ; Nychka, D. ( September 2016 , Climate Informatics Workshop Proceedings)

   Table of Contents: Foreword by the CI 2016 Workshop Chairs …………………………………vi Foreword by the CI 2016 Steering Committee ..…………………………..…..viii List of Organizing Committee ………………………….……....x List of Registered Participants .………………………….……..xi Acknowledgement of Sponsors ……………………………..…xiv Hackathon and Workshop Agenda .………………………………..xv Hackathon Summary .………………………….…..xviii Invited talks - abstracts and links to presentations ………………………………..xxi Proceedings: 34 short research papers ……………………………….. 1-135 Papers 1. BAYESIAN MODELS FOR CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION FROM POLLEN RECORDS ..................................... 1 Lasse Holmström, Liisa Ilvonen, Heikki Seppä, Siim Veski 2. ON INFORMATION CRITERIA FOR DYNAMIC SPATIO-TEMPORAL CLUSTERING ..................................... 5 Ethan D. Schaeffer, Jeremy M. Testa, Yulia R. Gel, Vyacheslav Lyubchich 3. DETECTING MULTIVARIATE BIOSPHERE EXTREMES ..................................... 9 Yanira Guanche García, Erik Rodner, Milan Flach, Sebastian Sippel, Miguel Mahecha, Joachim Denzler 4. SPATIO-TEMPORAL GENERATIVE MODELS FOR RAINFALL OVER INDIA ..................................... 13 Adway Mitra 5. A NONPARAMETRIC COPULA BASED BIAS CORRECTION METHOD FOR STATISTICAL DOWNSCALING ..................................... 17 Yi Li, Adam Ding, Jennifer Dy 6. DETECTING AND PREDICTING BEAUTIFUL SUNSETS USING SOCIAL MEDIA DATA ..................................... 21 Emma Pierson 7. OCEANTEA: EXPLORING OCEAN-DERIVED CLIMATE DATA USING MICROSERVICES ..................................... 25 Arne N. Johanson, Sascha Flögel, Wolf-Christian Dullo, Wilhelm Hasselbring 8. IMPROVED ANALYSIS OF EARTH SYSTEM MODELS AND OBSERVATIONS USING SIMPLE CLIMATE MODELS ..................................... 29 Balu Nadiga, Nathan Urban 9. SYNERGY AND ANALOGY BETWEEN 15 YEARS OF MICROWAVE SST AND ALONG-TRACK SSH ..................................... 33 Pierre Tandeo, Aitor Atencia, Cristina Gonzalez-Haro 10. PREDICTING EXECUTION TIME OF CLIMATE-DRIVEN ECOLOGICAL FORECASTING MODELS ..................................... 37 Scott Farley and John W. Williams 11. SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF SEASONAL PRECIPITATION OVER US USING CO-CLUSTERING ..................................... 41 Mohammad Gorji–Sefidmazgi, Clayton T. Morrison 12. PREDICTION OF EXTREME RAINFALL USING HYBRID CONVOLUTIONAL-LONG SHORT TERM MEMORY NETWORKS ..................................... 45 Sulagna Gope, Sudeshna Sarkar, Pabitra Mitra 13. SPATIOTEMPORAL PATTERN EXTRACTION WITH DATA-DRIVEN KOOPMAN OPERATORS FOR CONVECTIVELY COUPLED EQUATORIAL WAVES ..................................... 49 Joanna Slawinska, Dimitrios Giannakis 14. COVARIANCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE MODEL OUTPUT ..................................... 53 Chintan Dalal, Doug Nychka, Claudia Tebaldi 15. SIMPLE AND EFFICIENT TENSOR REGRESSION FOR SPATIOTEMPORAL FORECASTING ..................................... 57 Rose Yu, Yan Liu 16. TRACKING OF TROPICAL INTRASEASONAL CONVECTIVE ANOMALIES ..................................... 61 Bohar Singh, James L. Kinter 17. ANALYSIS OF AMAZON DROUGHTS USING SUPERVISED KERNEL PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS ..................................... 65 Carlos H. R. Lima, Amir AghaKouchak 18. A BAYESIAN PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS OF DAILY PRECIPITATION DATA ..................................... 69 Sai K. Popuri, Nagaraj K. Neerchal, Amita Mehta 19. INCORPORATING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE IN SPATIO-TEMPORAL NEURAL NETWORK FOR CLIMATIC DATA ..................................... 73 Arthur Pajot, Ali Ziat, Ludovic Denoyer, Patrick Gallinari 20. DIMENSIONALITY-REDUCTION OF CLIMATE DATA USING DEEP AUTOENCODERS ..................................... 77 Juan A. Saenz, Nicholas Lubbers, Nathan M. Urban 21. MAPPING PLANTATION IN INDONESIA ..................................... 81 Xiaowei Jia, Ankush Khandelwal, James Gerber, Kimberly Carlson, Paul West, Vipin Kumar 22. FROM CLIMATE DATA TO A WEIGHTED NETWORK BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL DOMAINS ..................................... 85 Ilias Fountalis, Annalisa Bracco, Bistra Dilkina, Constantine Dovrolis 23. EMPLOYING SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES TO ENHANCE MANAGEMENT OF CLIMATOLOGICAL DATASETS FOR CORAL REEF ANALYSIS ..................................... 89 Mark Jenne, M.M. Dalkilic, Claudia Johnson 24. Profiler Guided Manual Optimization for Accelerating Cholesky Decomposition on R Environment ..................................... 93 V.B. Ramakrishnaiah, R.P. Kumar, J. Paige, D. Hammerling, D. Nychka 25. GLOBAL MONITORING OF SURFACE WATER EXTENT DYNAMICS USING SATELLITE DATA ..................................... 97 Anuj Karpatne, Ankush Khandelwal and Vipin Kumar 26. TOWARD QUANTIFYING TROPICAL CYCLONE RISK USING DIAGNOSTIC INDICES .................................... 101 Erica M. Staehling and Ryan E. Truchelut 27. OPTIMAL TROPICAL CYCLONE INTENSITY ESTIMATES WITH UNCERTAINTY FROM BEST TRACK DATA .................................... 105 Suz Tolwinski-Ward 28. EXTREME WEATHER PATTERN DETECTION USING DEEP CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK .................................... 109 Yunjie Liu, Evan Racah, Prabhat, Amir Khosrowshahi, David Lavers, Kenneth Kunkel, Michael Wehner, William Collins 29. INFORMATION TRANSFER ACROSS TEMPORAL SCALES IN ATMOSPHERIC DYNAMICS .................................... 113 Nikola Jajcay and Milan Paluš 30. Identifying precipitation regimes in China using model-based clustering of spatial functional data .................................... 117 Haozhe Zhang, Zhengyuan Zhu, Shuiqing Yin 31. RELATIONAL RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORKS FOR SPATIOTEMPORAL INTERPOLATION FROM MULTI-RESOLUTION CLIMATE DATA .................................... 121 Guangyu Li, Yan Liu 32. OBJECTIVE SELECTION OF ENSEMBLE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR CLIMATE DOWNSCALING .................................... 124 Andrew Rhines, Naomi Goldenson 33. LONG-LEAD PREDICTION OF EXTREME PRECIPITATION CLUSTER VIA A SPATIO-TEMPORAL CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK .................................... 128 Yong Zhuang, Wei Ding 34. MULTIPLE INSTANCE LEARNING FOR BURNED AREA MAPPING USING MULTI –TEMPORAL REFLECTANCE DATA .................................... 132 Guruprasad Nayak, Varun Mithal, Vipin Kumar 

   more » « less