skip to main content


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Young, Zachary"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. 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"_month

    File 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"_month

    File 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.




     
    more » « less
  2. These datasets accompany a publication in Geophysical Research Letters by Martens et al. (2024), entitled: "GNSS Geodesy Quantifies Water-Storage Gains and Drought Improvements in California Spurred by Atmospheric Rivers." Please refer to the manuscript and supporting information for additional details.

    Dataset 1: Seasonal Changes in TWS based on the Mean and Median of the Solution Set

    We estimate net gains in water storage during the fall and winter of each year (October to March) using the mean TWS solutions from all nine inversion products, subtracting the average storage for October from the average storage for March in the following year. One-sigma standard deviations are computed as the square root of the sum of the variances for October and for March. The variance in each month is computed based on the nine independent estimates of mean monthly storage (see “GNSS Analysis and Inversion” in the Supporting Information).

    The dataset includes net gains in water storage for both the Sierra Nevada and the SST watersheds (see header lines). For each watershed, results are provided in units of volume (km3) and in units of equivalent water height (mm). Furthermore, for each watershed, we also provide the total storage gains based on non-detrended and linearly detrended time series. In columns four and five, respectively, we provide estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) from SNODAS (National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center, 2023) and water-storage changes in surface reservoirs from CDEC (California Data Exchange Center, 2023). In the final column, we provide estimates of net gains in subsurface storage (soil moisture plus groundwater), which are computed by subtracting SWE and reservoir storage from total storage.

    For each data block, the columns are: (1) time period (October of the starting year to March of the following year); (2) average gain in total water storage constrained by nine inversions of GNSS data; (3) one-sigma standard deviation in the average gain in total water storage; (4) gain in snow water equivalent, computed by subtracting the average snow storage in October from the average snow storage in March of the following year; (5) gain in reservoir storage (CDEC database; within the boundaries of each watershed), computed by subtracting the average reservoir storage in October from the average reservoir storage in March of the following year; and (6) average gain in subsurface water storage, estimated as the average gain in total water storage minus the average gain in snow storage minus the gain in reservoir storage.

    For the period from October 2022 to March 2023, we also compute mean gains in total water storage using daily estimates of TWS. Here, we subtract the average storage for the first week in October 2022 (1-7 October) from the average storage for the last week in March 2023 (26 March – 1 April). The one-sigma standard deviation is computed as the square root of the sum of the variances for the first week in October and the last week in March. The variance in each week is computed based on the nine independent estimates of daily storage over seven days (63 values per week). The storage gains for 2022-2023 computed using these methods are distinguished in the datafile by an asterisk (2022-2023*; final row in each data section).

    Dataset 1a provides estimates of storage changes based on the mean and standard deviation of the solution set. Dataset 1b provides estimates of storage changes based on the median and inter-quartile range of the solution set.

    Dataset 2: Estimated Changes in TWS in the Sierra Nevada

    Changes in TWS (units of volume: km3) in the Sierra Nevada watersheds. The first column represents the date (YYYY-MM-DD). For monthly solutions, the TWS solutions apply to the month leading up to that date. The remaining nine columns represent each of the nine solutions described in the text. “UM” represents the University of Montana, “SIO” represents the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and “JPL” represents the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “NGL” refers to the use of GNSS analysis products from the Nevada Geodetic Laboratory, “CWU” refers to Central Washington University, and “MEaSUREs” refers to the Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments program. The time series have not been detrended.

    We highlight that we have added changes in reservoir storage (see Dataset 8) back into the JPL solutions, since reservoir storage had been modeled and removed from the GNSS time series prior to inversion in the JPL workflow (see “Detailed Description of Methods” in the Supporting Information). Thus, the storage values presented here for JPL differ slightly from storage values pulled directly from Dataset 6 and integrated over the area of the Sierra Nevada watersheds.

    Dataset 3: Estimated Changes in TWS in the Sacramento-San Joaquin-Tulare Basin

    Same as Dataset 2, except that data apply to the Sacramento-San Joaquin-Tulare (SST) Basin.

    Dataset 4: Inversion Products (SIO)

    Inversion solutions (NetCDF format) for TWS changes across the western US from January 2006 through March 2023. The products were produced at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) using the methods described in the Supporting Information.

    Dataset 5: Inversion Products (UM)

    Inversion solutions (NetCDF format) for TWS changes across the western US from January 2006 through March 2023. The products were produced at the University of Montana (UM) using the methods described in the Supporting Information.

    Dataset 6: Inversion Products (JPL)

    Inversion solutions (NetCDF format) for TWS changes across the western US from January 2006 through March 2023. The products were produced at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using the methods described in the Supporting Information.

    Dataset 7: Lists of Excluded Stations

    Stations are excluded from an inversion for TWS change based on a variety of criteria (detailed in the Supporting Information), including poroelastic behavior, high noise levels, and susceptibility to volcanic deformation. This dataset provides lists of excluded stations from each institution generating inversion products (SIO, UM, JPL).

    Dataset 8: Lists of Reservoirs and Lakes

    Lists of reservoirs and lakes from the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) (California Data Exchange Center, 2023), which are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the main manuscript. In the interest of figure clarity, Figure 1 depicts only those reservoirs that exhibited volume changes of at least 0.15 km3 during the first half of WY23.

    Dataset 8a includes all reservoirs and lakes in California that exhibited volume changes of at least 0.15 km3 between October 2022 and March 2023. The threshold of 0.15 km3 represents a natural break in the distribution of volume changes at all reservoirs and lakes in California over that period (169 reservoirs and lakes in total). Most of the 169 reservoirs and lakes exhibited volume changes near zero km3. Datasets 8b and 8c include subsets of reservoirs and lakes (from Dataset 8a) that fall within the boundaries of the Sierra Nevada and SST watersheds.

    Furthermore, in the JPL data-processing and inversion workflow (see “Detailed Description of Methods” in the Supporting Information), surface displacements induced by volume changes in select lakes and reservoirs are modeled and removed from GNSS time series prior to inversion. The water-storage changes in the lakes and reservoirs are then added back into the solutions for water storage, derived from the inversion of GNSS data. Dataset 8d includes the list of reservoirs used in the JPL workflow.

    Dataset 9: Interseismic Strain Accumulation along the Cascadia Subduction Zone

    JPL and UM remove interseismic strain accumulation associated with locking of the Cascadia subduction zone using an updated version of the Li et al. model (Li et al., 2018); see Supporting Information Section 2d. The dataset lists the east, north, and up velocity corrections (in the 4th, 5th, and 6th columns of the dataset, respectively) at each station; units are mm/year. The station ID, latitude, and longitude are listed in columns one, two, and three, respectively, of the dataset.

    Dataset 10: Days Impacted by Atmospheric Rivers

    A list of days impacted by atmospheric rivers within (a) the HUC-2 boundary for California from 1 January 2008 until 1 April 2023 [Dataset 10a] and (b) the Sierra Nevada and SST watersheds from 1 October 2022 until 1 April 2023 [Dataset 10b]. File formats: [decimal year; integrated water-vapor transport (IVT) in kg m-1 s-1; AR category; and calendar date as a two-digit year followed by a three-character month followed by a two-digit day]. The AR category reflects the peak intensity anywhere within the watershed. We use the detection and classification methods of (Ralph et al., 2019; Rutz et al., 2014, 2019). See also Supporting Information Section 2i.

    Dataset 10c provides a list of days and times when ARs made landfall along the California coast between October 1980 and September 2023, based on the MERRA-2 reanalysis using the methods of (Rutz et al., 2014, 2019). Only coastal grid cells are included. File format: [year, month, day, hour, latitude, longitude, and IVT in kg m-1 s-1]. Values are sorted by time (year, month, day, hour) and then by latitude. See also Supporting Information Section 2g.

     
    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    The process instabilities intrinsic to the localized laser-powder bed interaction cause the formation of various defects in laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing process. Particularly, the stochastic formation of large spatters leads to unpredictable defects in the as-printed parts. Here we report the elimination of large spatters through controlling laser-powder bed interaction instabilities by using nanoparticles. The elimination of large spatters results in 3D printing of defect lean sample with good consistency and enhanced properties. We reveal that two mechanisms work synergistically to eliminate all types of large spatters: (1) nanoparticle-enabled control of molten pool fluctuation eliminates the liquid breakup induced large spatters; (2) nanoparticle-enabled control of the liquid droplet coalescence eliminates liquid droplet colliding induced large spatters. The nanoparticle-enabled simultaneous stabilization of molten pool fluctuation and prevention of liquid droplet coalescence discovered here provide a potential way to achieve defect lean metal additive manufacturing.

     
    more » « less
  4. null (Ed.)
    Multiagent coordination is highly desirable with many uses in a variety of tasks. In nature, the phenomenon of coordinated flocking is highly common with applications related to defending or escaping from predators. In this article, a hybrid multiagent system that integrates consensus, cooperative learning, and flocking control to determine the direction of attacking predators and learns to flock away from them in a coordinated manner is proposed. This system is entirely distributed requiring only communication between neighboring agents. The fusion of consensus and collaborative reinforcement learning allows agents to cooperatively learn in a variety of multiagent coordination tasks, but this article focuses on flocking away from attacking predators. The results of the flocking show that the agents are able to effectively flock to a target without collision with each other or obstacles. Multiple reinforcement learning methods are evaluated for the task with cooperative learning utilizing function approximation for state-space reduction performing the best. The results of the proposed consensus algorithm show that it provides quick and accurate transmission of information between agents in the flock. Simulations are conducted to show and validate the proposed hybrid system in both one and two predator environments, resulting in an efficient cooperative learning behavior. In the future, the system of using consensus to determine the state and reinforcement learning to learn the states can be applied to additional multiagent tasks. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    Great Salt Lake (GSL), Utah, lost 1.89 ± 0.04 m of water during the 2012–2016 drought. During this timeframe, data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment mission underestimate this mass loss, while nearby Global Positioning System (GPS) stations exhibit significant shifts in position. We find that crustal deformation, from unloading the Earth's crust consistent with the observed GSL water loss alone, does not explain the GPS displacements, suggesting contributions from additional water storage loss surrounding GSL. This study applies a damped least squares inversion to the three‐dimensional GPS displacements to test a range of distributions of groundwater loads to fit the observations. When considering the horizontal and vertical displacements simultaneously, we find a realistic distribution of water loss while also resolving the observed water loss of the lake. Our preferred model identifies mass loss up to 64 km from the lake via two radial rings. The contribution of exterior groundwater loss is substantial (10.9 ± 2.8 km3vs. 5.5 ± 1.0 km3on the lake), and greatly improves the fit to the observations. Nearby groundwater wells exhibit significant water loss during the drought, which substantiates the presence of significant water loss outside of the lake, but also highlights greater spatial variation than our model can resolve. We observe seismicity modulation within the inferred load region, while the region outside the (un)loading reveals no significant modulation. Drier periods exhibit higher quantities of events than wetter periods and changes in trend of the earthquake rate are correlated with regional mass trends.

     
    more » « less