Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “watershed”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Groundwater and river water elevations and temperature from 2017 to 2022 across Meander Z in the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset includes groundwater and river water elevations and temperature data collected in the East River watershed located in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The data were collected in order to investigate the coupling between hydrology and biogeochemical processes in the floodplain. Data was collected at ten groundwater locations in Meander Z (MZ), located just upstream of the confluence with Brush Creek and two river locations directly adjacent to Meander Z from 2017-2019. From 2019-2022, data was collected at five groundwater locations in Meander Z. Note that location names, not location identifiers (IDs), are used in the related publication Dewey et al. (2022). Both location IDs and names are included in data files. Files in this dataset include the main data files for each location zipped into a single folder (waterlevel_data.zip), an installation methods file describing sensor installation (InstallationMethods.csv), a file containing field metadata including GPS (Global Positioning System) coordinates and ground surface elevations (transducers_locations.csv). This dataset also includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. This dataset conforms to the ESS-DIVE hydrological reporting format. 2026-04-27 Update: The river water elevation data files (ER-MZR1.csv and ER-MZR2.csv) were corrected. The data for these two locations were inadvertently swapped in the original published data. 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

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 near Trail Creek. 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 TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores 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 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 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 OSTI2026

Denudation, solute export, landscape evolution modeling, and geographic information system data for the East River watershed, Colorado, USA (2020-2024)

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of lithologic controls on denudation, solute export, carbon-scaling relationships, and transient landscape evolution in the East River watershed near Crested Butte, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the Figure 2 map, including drainage, hillshade, lithology, sample locations, and basin polygons, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. One group of tables reports sample-level and catchment-level information for river-sediment samples analyzed for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample names, outlet elevations, geographic coordinates, upstream drainage area, rock-type classes, production-rate scaling scheme, analyzed nuclide, catchment-averaged denudation rates, and associated lower and upper analytical uncertainties. Sample and catchment attributes provide the basis for comparing denudation rates across intrusive, shale, sedimentary, and mixed-lithology settings. A second group of tables reports supporting information for landscape-evolution modeling and the mapped geologic framework of the study area. Included files list parameter values and definitions for the two-phase landscape-evolution simulations, summarize full-domain model erosion fluxes and topographic metrics for different simulation configurations, provide a fixed-area carbon-model scaling table, and summarize mapped geologic units within the East River study domain, including geologic code, formation name, lithologic description, mapped area, and lithologic class grouping. Model outputs and geologic summaries support interpretation of transient landscape behavior and its relation to the mapped distribution of shale, intrusive, sedimentary, and surficial units. A third group of tables reports hydrologic and hydrochemical information used to quantify dissolved export from the watershed. Included files provide site-level values for drainage area, mean annual solute export, standard error of annual export, area-normalized solute yield, and equivalent weathering rate for five East River monitoring sites, along with metadata describing the number, sampling cadence, and date range of discharge records and partial and full total dissolved solids observations used in the solute-yield analyses. The package also contains a supplementary daily ion-load time series with daily mean discharge, discharge observation counts, dissolved concentrations, and daily loads for calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, fluoride, dissolved silica, charge-balance bicarbonate, and total dissolved solids. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, a package-tree text file, and a readme text file.

10Be↗
DOE OSTI2026

Synoptic NO3 in Slate River Watershed, Colorado (2022)

The synoptic nitrate (NO3) dataset in the Slate River Watershed, Colorado consists of NO3 data collected at 19 locations three times during the summer of 2022. Stream samples were collected in early summer (early July), mid summer (late August), and late summer (late September). The samples include mainstem, tributary, and point source input water samples. These data were collected to evaluate spatiotemporal variability in stream NO3 during the summer, and evaluate anthropogenic controls on stream NO3 dynamics. This data package contains: (1) a csv of all NO3 samples and (2) a csv of locations for each sampling site. The dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. 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 > BIOSPHERE > ECOSYSTEMS > FRESHWATE↗
DOE OSTI2022

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-HWB USDA ARS Pasture Sytems and Watershed Management Research Unit- Hawbecker Site

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-HWB USDA ARS Pasture Sytems and Watershed Management Research Unit- Hawbecker Site. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-HWB USDA ARS Pasture Sytems and Watershed Management Research Unit- Hawbecker Site produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Hawbecker farm is owned by Penn State University. The farming that took place was performed by their Farm Operations Division. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, the Beef and Sheep Reasearch Farm, The University Airport, and other large fields maintained by Farm Operations. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Meteorological Site, a Phenocam, and the GraceNet plots. Crop Rotation during period was 2 years Alfalfa, 1 year Corn for grain and 1 year Wheat.

Goslee, Sarah↗
DOE OSTI2023

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-xBN NEON Caribou Creek - Poker Flats Watershed (BONA)

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-xBN NEON Caribou Creek - Poker Flats Watershed (BONA). This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-xBN NEON Caribou Creek - Poker Flats Watershed (BONA) produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software.

Network), NEON (National Ecological Observatory↗
DOE OSTI2026

AmeriFlux CA-BCW Big Creek Watershed

This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site CA-BCW Big Creek Watershed. Site Description - This flux tower is located in the Lower Big Creek Watershed on agricultural land restored by the Nature Conservancy of Canada. The tower is monitoring a 0.88 ha marsh dominated by rushes and open shallow water. This wetland was created in 2012.

Barreto, Carlos [Ontario Ministry of Natural Resou↗
DOE OSTI2021

Event-scale predictions of water and nitrogen exports in coastal watersheds

Focal Area(s): The purpose of this white paper is to call for the improvement of the predictability and explainability of the magnitude and timing of water and nutrient exports in coastal watersheds. In this regard, hybrid machine learning approaches and process-based numerical models provide new opportunities to maximize predictability, emulate process-based model components, and explicitly address model uncertainty associated with event-scale predictions in coastal watersheds.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Ecohydrological controls on root and microbial respiration in the East River watershed of Colorado

The main objective of this project was to conduct exploratory work to quantify how snow and rain water inputs influence the CO2 coming from the soil surface (soil CO2 flux), and its plant and microbial sources, in the East River watershed, near Crested Butte, Colorado. Knowledge gained from this effort laid the groundwork for a more comprehensive (ongoing) follow-on grant that is using a combination of experiments, field observations, machine learning and simulation modeling to fully disentangle these relationships. New field measurements were made at four locations along an elevational transect on Snodgrass Mountain at Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. These sites were chosen to differ in total snowpack and water table depth, and included both deciduous (aspen) and evergreen (spruce/fir) forest types. We used automated measurements of soil CO2 concentrations to quantify the total soil CO2 flux, and the vertical CO2 production within the soil profile at each site. Isotope (radiocarbon, 14C) measurements determined how much of the CO2 emitted from the soil surface came from plant respiration (root metabolism) versus microbial respiration (decomposition of soil organic matter) sources. Supporting data on plant phenology and microbial dynamics provided context for the observed variation in respiration sources. This work was motivated by our overarching hypothesis that quantifying belowground plant and microbial processes separately, and how they are influenced by snow and rain inputs, is necessary for understanding and predicting how the East River watershed ecosystems will respond to future environmental change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Hybrid Bioenergy and Hydropower Systems: Leveraging Heterogeneous Biomass and Wastes from Watersheds

Sandia National Laboratories and INL explore the water-for-energy nexus in this white paper, focusing on the impact of heterogeneous watershed waste materials on hydropower facilities. They identify key challenges—such as wildfires, and debris intercepted at water intakes—that adversely affect both watershed health and hydropower operations. More importantly, SNL and INL highlight opportunities to valorize these bioresources and waste materials by converting them into usable energy.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Distribution of Antibiotic Resistance in a Mixed-Use Watershed and the Impact of Wastewater Treatment Plants on Antibiotic Resistance in Surface Water

The aquatic environment has been recognized as a source of antibiotic resistance (AR) that factors into the One Health approach to combat AR. To provide much needed data on AR in the environment, a comprehensive survey of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB), antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), and antibiotic residues was conducted in a mixed-use watershed and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) within the watershed to evaluate these contaminants in surface water. A culture-based approach was used to determine prevalence and diversity of ARB in surface water. Low levels of AR Salmonella (9.6%) and Escherichia coli (6.5%) were detected, while all Enterococcus were resistant to at least one tested antibiotic. Fewer than 20% of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae (17.3%) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (7.7%) were recovered. Six ARGs were detected using qPCR, primarily the erythromycin-resistance gene, ermB. Of the 26 antibiotics measured, almost all water samples (98.7%) had detectable levels of antibiotics. Analysis of wastewater samples from three WWTPs showed that WWTPs did not completely remove AR contaminants. ARGs and antibiotics were detected in all the WWTP effluent discharges, indicating that WWTPs are the source of AR contaminants in receiving water. However, no significant difference in ARGs and antibiotics between the upstream and downstream water suggests that there are other sources of AR contamination. The widespread occurrence and abundance of medically important antibiotics, bacteria resistant to antibiotics used for human and veterinary purposes, and the genes associated with resistance to these antibiotics, may potentially pose risks to the local populations exposed to these water sources.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hyperspectral remote sensing-based plant community map for region around NGEE-Arctic intensive research watersheds at Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2017-2019

Using airborne hyperspectral remote sensing data from NASA Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer- Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) platforms in a region near NGEE-Arctic intensive watersheds at Seward peninsula of Alaska, high resolution (5m) maps of plant community distribution were developed and included in this data collected. AVIRIS-NG data collected over 2017-2019 period were used to develop deep neural networks, trained using vegetation plot observations collected at NGEE-Arctic watersheds at Kougarok, Council and Teller. A hierarchical vegetation classification scheme consisting of six classes at Level I, and 16 classes at Level II contained in two .txt files were used to developed the plant community maps for the region. Two geospatial raster data files (.tif) at both thematic levels are shared in this data collection. Data files in this collection use Alaska Albers Equal Area projection. Readme files available in three formats (*.html, *.md, *.pdf) and one *.png visualization map.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluating SWAT + model uncertainties for human and natural outcomes: Application in a Great Lakes agricultural watershed

Nutrient exports from agricultural lands in the Great Lakes Region pose significant threats to water quality and ecological health through eutrophication, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms. Climate change and agricultural adaptation practices complicate future nutrient loading due to intensified hydrologic cycles and land use decisions. Our research focuses on evaluating the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) plus model parametric uncertainties for human and natural outcomes across different scales. These factors are integral to ensuring a balance between productive agricultural practices and maintaining the health of watershed hydrology. However, uncertainties in modeling such complex interactions pose significant challenges, limiting our ability to precisely determine critical factors that influence crop yield and soil moisture. Our analysis employs Sobol global sensitivity analysis to evaluate first-order, second order, and total-order indices for SWAT crop growth parameter, ensuring comprehensive assessment of individual and interactive effects on model outputs. The objective is to identify the parameters that significantly affect model outputs for crop yield and soil moisture and improve our understanding of their interactions at the basin and hydrological response unit (HRU) scale. Our case study, the Portage River Watershed, which drains into Lake Erie, is chosen to better capture finer scale interactions crucial for predicting nutrient loading under future climate scenarios. This foundational work is aimed at setting the stage for the future development of an agent-based model (ABM). The ABM model would incorporate SWAT outputs to dynamically simulate decision-making processes.

Bunyon, Enock↗
DOE OSTI2021

Ensemble modeling of watershed-scale hydrologic effects of short-rotation woody crop production

Short-rotation woody crop (SRWC) production involves a set of silvicultural practices that aim to produce large volumes of biomass over relatively short time frames. The area over which these practices are employed is likely to increase in the coming decades as the demand for bioenergy increases, but the potential effects of this change in land management, including the hydrologic effects, are largely unknown. Here we outline the results from an ensemble modeling study that was developed to forecast the range of potential hydrological responses to the implementation of SRWC production over areas that are large (>1000 ha) relative to the size of individual clearcuts. The three models, SWAT, MIKE-SHE, and Envision-SRS, a physically based model designed to represent watersheds with dynamic land cover, represent a range of simulation tools that include hydrological response to landcover change. Results suggest that SRWC production will affect the hydrologic balance, primarily through changes in the volume of transpired water associated with the rapidly growing young stands. In particular, average annual actual evapotranspiration (ET) rates tend to decline under SRWC production in response to the less mature vegetation. These reductions in ET are balanced in the hydrological cycle through elevated groundwater recharge, expressed in the model results as elevated annual stream discharge.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Supporting cost-effective watershed management strategies for Chesapeake Bay using a modeling and optimization framework

Extensive efforts to adaptively manage nutrient pollution rely on Chesapeake Bay Program’s (Phase 6) Watershed Model, called Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST), which helps decision-makers plan and track implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). We describe mathematical characteristics of CAST and develop a constrained nonlinear BMP-subset model, software, and visualization framework. This represents the first publicly available optimization framework for exploring least-cost strategies of pollutant load control for the United States’ largest estuary. The optimization identifies implementation options for a BMP subset modeled with load reduction effectiveness factors, and the web interface facilitates interactive exploration of >30,000 solutions organized by objective, nutrient control level, and for ~200 counties. We assess framework performance and demonstrate modeled cost improvements when comparing optimization-suggested proposals with proposals inspired by jurisdiction plans. Stakeholder feedback highlights the framework’s current utility for investigating cost-effective tradeoffs and its usefulness as a foundation for future analysis of restoration strategies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Diminishing marginal effect in estimating the dissolved organic carbon export from a watershed

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) can be initially moved from soils to inland waters with surface runoff, and then mineralized, buried, or eventually delivered to the coastal ocean. This land-to-ocean phase of the DOC flux must be accounted for to comprehensively understand the global carbon cycle. To estimate the terrestrial-aquatic DOC leaching, calculating the product of the riverine DOC concentration and the corresponding river discharge measured at the watershed outlet is a common method. However, it is challenging to frequently and exactly record riverine DOC concentrations, thus the relationship between DOC concentrations and discharges (C-Q relationship) are established and used to interpolate the time-series of DOC concentrations. We found that the widely used time-dependent and time-independent C-Q regression models are weak in representing their altered relationship when the discharge is extremely high, which was named as diminishing marginal effect. In this study, we evaluated the performance of two C-Q regression models and discussed possible reasons for the diminishing marginal effect. We suggest that repeated and long-term measurements of the DOC concentration are required to adequately analyze their relationships, especially during the early spring and seasons with heavy precipitations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Virus diversity and activity is driven by snowmelt and host dynamics in a high-altitude watershed soil ecosystem

Background: Viruses impact nearly all organisms on Earth, including microbial communities and their associated biogeochemical processes. In soils, highly diverse viral communities have been identified, with a global distribution seemingly driven by multiple biotic and abiotic factors, especially soil temperature and moisture. However, our current understanding of the stability of soil viral communities across time and their response to strong seasonal changes in environmental parameters remains limited. Here, we investigated the diversity and activity of environmental soil DNA and RNA viruses, focusing especially on bacteriophages, across dynamics’ seasonal changes in a snow-dominated mountainous watershed by examining paired metagenomes and metatranscriptomes. Results: We identified a large number of DNA and RNA viruses taxonomically divergent from existing environmental viruses, including a significant proportion of fungal RNA viruses, and a large and unsuspected diversity of positive single-stranded RNA phages ( Leviviricetes ), highlighting the under-characterization of the global soil virosphere. Among these, we were able to distinguish subsets of active DNA and RNA phages that changed across seasons, consistent with a “seed-bank” viral community structure in which new phage activity, for example, replication and host lysis, is sequentially triggered by changes in environmental conditions. At the population level, we further identified virus-host dynamics matching two existing ecological models: “Kill-The-Winner” which proposes that lytic phages are actively infecting abundant bacteria, and “Piggyback-The-Persistent” which argues that when the host is growing slowly, it is more beneficial to remain in a dormant state. The former was associated with summer months of high and rapid microbial activity, and the latter with winter months of limited and slow host growth. Conclusion: Taken together, these results suggest that the high diversity of viruses in soils is likely associated with a broad range of host interaction types each adapted to specific host ecological strategies and environmental conditions. As our understanding of how environmental and host factors drive viral activity in soil ecosystems progresses, integrating these viral impacts in complex natural microbiome models will be key to accurately predict ecosystem biogeochemistry.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗