Search for: All records

The data provided here accompany the publication "Drought Characterization with GPS: Insights into Groundwater and Reservoir Storage in California" [Young et al., (2024)] which is currently under review with Water Resources Research. (as of 28 May 2024)Please refer to the manuscript and its supplemental materials for full details. (A link will be appended following publication)File formatting information is listed below, followed by a sub-section of the text describing the Geodetic Drought Index Calculation. The longitude, latitude, and label for grid points are provided in the file "loading_grid_lon_lat".Time series for each Geodetic Drought Index (GDI) time scale are provided within "GDI_time_series.zip".The included time scales are for 00- (daily), 1-, 3-, 6-, 12- 18- 24-, 36-, and 48-month GDI solutions.Files are formatted following...Title: "grid point label L****"_"time scale"_monthFile Format: ["decimal date" "GDI value"]Gridded, epoch-by-epoch, solutions for each time scale are provided within "GDI_grids.zip".Files are formatted following...Title: GDI_"decimal date"_"time scale"_monthFile Format: ["longitude" "latitude" "GDI value" "grid point label L****"]2.2 GEODETIC DROUGHT INDEX CALCULATION We develop the GDI following Vicente-Serrano et al. (2010) and Tang et al. (2023), such that the GDI mimics the derivation of the SPEI, and utilize the log-logistic distribution (further details below). While we apply hydrologic load estimates derived from GPS displacements as the input for this GDI (Figure 1a-d), we note that alternate geodetic drought indices could be derived using other types of geodetic observations, such as InSAR, gravity, strain, or a combination thereof. Therefore, the GDI is a generalizable drought index framework. A key benefit of the SPEI is that it is a multi-scale index, allowing the identification of droughts which occur across different time scales. For example, flash droughts (Otkin et al., 2018), which may develop over the period of a few weeks, and persistent droughts (>18 months), may not be observed or fully quantified in a uni-scale drought index framework. However, by adopting a multi-scale approach these signals can be better identified (Vicente-Serrano et al., 2010). Similarly, in the case of this GPS-based GDI, hydrologic drought signals are expected to develop at time scales that are both characteristic to the drought, as well as the source of the load variation (i.e., groundwater versus surface water and their respective drainage basin/aquifer characteristics). Thus, to test a range of time scales, the TWS time series are summarized with a retrospective rolling average window of D (daily with no averaging), 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48-months width (where one month equals 30.44 days). From these time-scale averaged time series, representative compilation window load distributions are identified for each epoch. The compilation window distributions include all dates that range ±15 days from the epoch in question per year. This allows a characterization of the estimated loads for each day relative to all past/future loads near that day, in order to bolster the sample size and provide more robust parametric estimates [similar to Ford et al., (2016)]; this is a key difference between our GDI derivation and that presented by Tang et al. (2023). Figure 1d illustrates the representative distribution for 01 December of each year at the grid cell co-located with GPS station P349 for the daily TWS solution. Here all epochs between between 16 November and 16 December of each year (red dots), are compiled to form the distribution presented in Figure 1e. This approach allows inter-annual variability in the phase and amplitude of the signal to be retained (which is largely driven by variation in the hydrologic cycle), while removing the primary annual and semi-annual signals. Solutions converge for compilation windows >±5 days, and show a minor increase in scatter of the GDI time series for windows of ±3-4 days (below which instability becomes more prevalent). To ensure robust characterization of drought characteristics, we opt for an extended ±15-day compilation window. While Tang et al. (2023) found the log-logistic distribution to be unstable and opted for a normal distribution, we find that, by using the extended compiled distribution, the solutions are stable with negligible differences compared to the use of a normal distribution. Thus, to remain aligned with the SPEI solution, we retain the three-parameter log-logistic distribution to characterize the anomalies. Probability weighted moments for the log-logistic distribution are calculated following Singh et al., (1993) and Vicente-Serrano et al., (2010). The individual moments are calculated following Equation 3. These are then used to calculate the L-moments for shape (), scale (), and location () of the three-parameter log-logistic distribution (Equations 4 – 6). The probability density function (PDF) and the cumulative distribution function (CDF) are then calculated following Equations 7 and 8, respectively. The inverse Gaussian function is used to transform the CDF from estimates of the parametric sample quantiles to standard normal index values that represent the magnitude of the standardized anomaly. Here, positive/negative values represent greater/lower than normal hydrologic storage. Thus, an index value of -1 indicates that the estimated load is approximately one standard deviation dryer than the expected average load on that epoch. *Equations can be found in the main text. 

Abstract Geodetic methods can monitor changes in terrestrial water storage (TWS) across large regions in near real‐time. Here, we investigate the effect of assumed Earth structure on TWS estimates derived from Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) displacement time series. Through a series of synthetic tests, we systematically explore how the spatial wavelength of water load affects the error of TWS estimates. Large loads (e.g., >1,000 km) are well recovered regardless of the assumed Earth model. For small loads (e.g., <10 km), however, errors can exceed 75% when an incorrect model for the Earth is chosen. As a case study, we consider the sensitivity of seasonal TWS estimates within mountainous watersheds of the western U.S., finding estimates that differ by over 13% for a collection of common global and regional structural models. Errors in the recovered water load generally scale with the total weight of the load; thus, long‐term changes in storage can produce significant uplift (subsidence), enhancing errors. We demonstrate that regions experiencing systematic and large‐scale variations in water storage, such as the Greenland ice sheet, exhibit significant differences in predicted displacement (over 20 mm) depending on the choice of Earth model. Since the discrepancies exceed GNSS observational precision, an appropriate Earth model must be adopted when inverting GNSS observations for mass changes in these regions. Furthermore, regions with large‐scale mass changes that can be quantified using independent data (e.g., altimetry, gravity) present opportunities to use geodetic observations to refine structural properties of seismologically derived models for the Earth's interior structure. 

Abstract Storage-discharge relationships and dynamic changes in storage connectivity remain key unknowns in understanding and predicting watershed behavior. In this study, we use Global Positioning System measurements of load-induced Earth surface displacement as a proxy for total water storage change in four climatologically diverse mountain watersheds in the western United States. Comparing total water storage estimates with stream-connected storage derived from hydrograph analysis, we find that each of the investigated watersheds exhibits a characteristic seasonal pattern of connection and disconnection between total and stream-connected storage. We investigate how the degree and timing of watershed-scale connectivity is related to the timing of precipitation and seasonal changes in dominant hydrologic processes. Our results show that elastic deformation of the Earth due to water loading is a powerful new tool for elucidating dynamic storage connectivity and watershed discharge response across scales in space and time. 

Abstract Hydrogeodesy, a relatively new field within the earth sciences, is the analysis of the distribution and movement of terrestrial water at Earth's surface using measurements of Earth's shape, orientation, and gravitational field. In this paper, we review the current state of hydrogeodesy with a specific focus on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)/Global Positioning System measurements of hydrologic loading. As water cycles through the hydrosphere, GNSS stations anchored to Earth's crust measure the associated movement of the land surface under the weight of changing hydrologic loads. Recent advances in GNSS‐based hydrogeodesy have led to exciting applications of hydrologic loading and subsequent terrestrial water storage (TWS) estimates. We describe how GNSS position time series respond to climatic drivers, can be used to estimate TWS across temporal scales, and can improve drought characterization. We aim to facilitate hydrologists' use of GNSS‐observed surface deformation as an emerging tool for investigating and quantifying water resources, propose methods to further strengthen collaborative research and exchange between geodesists and hydrologists, and offer ideas about pressing questions in hydrology that GNSS may help to answer. 

Abstract We installed a purpose‐built network of co‐located Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) stations and meteorological instrumentation to investigate water storage in a high‐mountain watershed along the Idaho‐Montana border. Twelve GNSS stations are distributed across the Selway‐Lochsa watersheds at approximately 30–40 km spacing, filling a critical observational gap between localized point measurements and regional geodetic and satellite data sets. The unique coupling of geodetic and hydrologic observations in this network enables direct comparison between co‐located GNSS measurements of the elastic response of the solid Earth and local changes in measured water storage. This network is specifically designed to address questions of hydrologic storage and movement at the mountain watershed scale. Here, we describe technical details of the network and its deployment; introduce new hydrologic, meteorologic, and geodetic data sets recorded by the network; process and analyze the source data (e.g., time series of daily three‐dimensional GNSS site positions, removal of non‐hydrologic signals); and characterize basic empirical relationships between water storage, water movement, and GNSS‐inferred surface displacement. The network shows preliminary evidence for spatial differences in displacement resulting from a range of snow loads across elevations, but longer and more complete data records are needed to support these initial findings. We also provide examples of additional scientific applications of this network, including estimations of snow depth and snow water equivalent from GNSS multipath reflectometry. Finally, we consider the challenges, limitations, and opportunities of deploying GNSS and weather stations at high elevations with heavy snowpack and offer ideas for technical improvements.