Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “EARTH SCIENCE > BIOSPHERE > VEGETATION > CARBON”

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.

132 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Model simulations of Plum Island Ecosystems LTER low marsh site using ELM-PFLOTRAN

Model simulations using the E3SM Land Model (ELM) coupled to the PFLOTRAN reactive transport model via the Alquimia interface. The simulations were conducted for a tidal salt marsh at the Plum Island Ecosystems LTER near Rowley, Massachusetts, USA. Model simulations were forced using site-specific tidal cycles and salinity, and the simulations used a biogeochemical reaction network including aerobic decomposition, sulfate reduction, iron reduction, and methanogenesis. Model outputs include simulated carbon stocks, carbon dioxide and methane fluxes, and porewater concentrations of key solutes related to sulfur, iron, and carbon cycling. The model simulations included a saline simulation (with tidal sulfate inputs), a fresh simulation (with low salinity and low sulfate inputs), and a saline simulation with lower vegetation productivity to represent the effect of salinity on vegetation. These simulations were conducted to demonstrate that a new model framework incorporating subsurface redox and biogeochemical interactions into a land surface model could reproduce measured surface greenhouse gas fluxes and biogeochemical dynamics in tidal marsh ecosystems, and to test whether including redox interactions in a land surface model would allow the model to resolve contrasts in biogeochemical cycling and greenhouse gas production between saline and freshwater wetlands.The data package includes gzipped tar archives (which can be expanded using standard tar and gzip utilities) of model outputs from three model configurations: saline subsurface and reduced vegetation productivity related to salinity; saline subsurface with vegetation productivity not reduced; and freshwater. Also included are code for the modified E3SM model, Alquimia interface, and PFLOTRAN reactive transport simulator in gzipped tar format; plain text parameter and configuration files; python code files for visualizing model output and defining model configurations; and model output, tide and salinity forcing, and configuration files in netCDF format. See the README.md file in the data package for a detailed description of all files contained in the package. All files are in netCDF (.nc), gzipped tar archive (.tar.gz or .tgz), or text (all other files).Updated: May 13, 2024. Model output, E3SM code, PFLOTRAN input files, and python codes for visualizing results were updated to reflect changes made for the manuscript revision. The updated archive reflects the code and model output from the final accepted manuscript. Changes included updated reaction parameters reflecting improved parameterization and additional comparisons with field measurements. E3SM code changes included better support for multiple grid cells and improved flow and transport parameterization.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi-resolution Arctic Shrub Cover Dataset Derived from UAS and Airborne SfM and LiDAR (2013-2025)

We synthesized 177 unoccupied aerial system flights and 77 airborne flights across the Arctic and created a multi-resolution benchmark data of low-to-tall shrub fractional cover leveraging Structure-from-Motion and Light Detection and Ranging. The resulting dataset covered a total of 1899 km2 across Alaska, Western Canada, Sweden, and Siberian Arctic, including key sites from the Oro Arctic to the High Arctic. The dataset is organized into 6 primary data collection directories (“Abisko,” “AWI,” “ERE,” “Fairbanks,” “NGEE,” “Toolik”), each containing site and flight subdirectories. Flight directories include shrub cover rasters (*.tifs) at 1 m, 5 m, and 30 m resolution, the canopy height model at 1 m resolution (*.tifs), and a bounding box *.kml file. For the AWI, Abisko, NGEE, and Fairbanks collections, we also include the GCC raster at 1 m resolution (*.tif). Files are organized by Collection > Site > Flight Name > Data Files. Flight rasters are in the local UTM zone and the .kml files are in the geographic coordinate system EPSG 4326. We also include a .csv file that details the source datasets for every flight. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments in the Arctic (NGEE Arctic) project is a research effort to reduce uncertainty in the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) by developing a predictive understanding of Arctic tundra ecosystems underlain by permafrost and to quantify feedbacks from the Arctic tundra to the Earth system. NGEE Arctic is supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Over Phases 1–3, observations made by the NGEE Arctic team across a gradient of permafrost landscapes in Arctic Alaska improved the representation of tundra processes in the land surface component of E3SM (the E3SM Land Model, ELM). Model improvements emphasized unique aspects of permafrost environments and explored reductions in model complexity while retaining predictive power. The Arctic-informed ELM developed by NGEE Arctic has been used to make novel predictions on processes ranging from permafrost thaw to soil biogeochemical cycling to Earth system feedbacks associated with the unique characteristics of tundra plants. In Phase 4, the NGEE Arctic team is evaluating our new predictive understanding under novel conditions across the Arctic domain. In collaboration with partners at long-term pan-Arctic research sites we are examining whether an Arctic-informed ELM can faithfully simulate interactions among surface and subsurface processes at site, regional, and pan-Arctic scales. In turn, we are using variety of tools to dynamically extend and evaluate ELM inference, with an emphasis on data synthesis and pan-Arctic model evaluation, reintegration of code with an evolving E3SM, scaling across heterogeneous Arctic landscapes, and the appropriate representation of the impacts of increasingly frequent Arctic disturbances.

canopy height model↗
DOE OSTI2025

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach

FLUXNET comprises globally distributed eddy-covariance-based estimates of carbon fluxes between the biosphere and the atmosphere. Since eddy covariance flux towers have a relatively small footprint and are distributed unevenly across the world, upscaling the observations is necessary to obtain global-scale estimates of biosphere–atmosphere exchange. Based on cross-consistency checks with atmospheric inversions, sun-induced fluorescence (SIF) and dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), here we provide a systematic assessment of the latest upscaling efforts for gross primary production (GPP) and net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of the FLUXCOM initiative, where different machine learning methods, forcing data sets and sets of predictor variables were employed. Spatial patterns of mean GPP are consistent across FLUXCOM and DGVM ensembles (R 2 >0.94 at 1° spatial resolution) while the majority of DGVMs show, for 70 % of the land surface, values outside the FLUXCOM range. Global mean GPP magnitudes for 2008–2010 from FLUXCOM members vary within 106 and 130 PgC yr -1 with the largest uncertainty in the tropics. Seasonal variations in independent SIF estimates agree better with FLUXCOM GPP (mean global pixel-wise R 2 ~0.75) than with GPP from DGVMs (mean global pixel-wise R 2 ~0.6). Seasonal variations in FLUXCOM NEE show good consistency with atmospheric inversion-based net land carbon fluxes, particularly for temperate and boreal regions (R 2 >0.92). Interannual variability of global NEE in FLUXCOM is underestimated compared to inversions and DGVMs. The FLUXCOM version which also uses meteorological inputs shows a strong co-variation in interannual patterns with inversions (R 2 =0.87 for 2001–2010). Mean regional NEE from FLUXCOM shows larger uptake than inversion and DGVM-based estimates, particularly in the tropics with discrepancies of up to several hundred grammes of carbon per square metre per year. These discrepancies can only partly be reconciled by carbon loss pathways that are implicit in inversions but not captured by the flux tower measurements such as carbon emissions from fires and water bodies. We hypothesize that a combination of systematic biases in the underlying eddy covariance data, in particular in tall tropical forests, and a lack of site history effects on NEE in FLUXCOM are likely responsible for the too strong tropical carbon sink estimated by FLUXCOM. Furthermore, as FLUXCOM does not account for CO 2 fertilization effects, carbon flux trends are not realistic. Overall, current FLUXCOM estimates of mean annual and seasonal cycles of GPP as well as seasonal NEE variations provide useful constraints of global carbon cycling, while interannual variability patterns from FLUXCOM are valuable but require cautious interpretation. Exploring the diversity of Earth observation data and of machine learning concepts along with improved quality and quantity of flux tower measurements will facilitate further improvements of the FLUXCOM approach overall.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Spatial Study 2022: Surface Water Samples, Cotton Strip Degradation, and Hydrologic Sensor Data across the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of spatial variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides data and photos generated from sample collection during the same one-week period at 48 sites within multiple rivers throughout the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. The contents include surface water geochemistry data; river substrate grain size photos; stream depth data; manual chamber open channel respiration data; and field metadata (including qualitative information on instream and river corridor characteristics). Grain size photos can be used to improve estimates of channel substrate D50 data. The dataset also includes tensile strength and photos from cotton strip field degradation experiments; five-week sensor time series temperature, dissolved oxygen, pressure, pH, specific conductance, chlorophyll A, and turbidity data; plots of the sensor data; and R scripts used to generate the plots. Samples collected during this study were labeled as “Second Spatial Study” or “SSS.” A subset of data from the SSS samples were published in the contiguous United States (CONUS)-Scale Model-Sample (CM) study data package available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1923689 that presents data from across the CONUS. SSS data published in the CM data package were not included in this data package. They include dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC), total nitrogen (TN), grain size, aerobic sediment respiration, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature. Parent IDs and Site IDs are consistent between the SSS and CM data packages, and they can be mapped directly so data across packages can be used together. Additionally, sensor data from a similar 2021 spatial study can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1892052 and 2021 sample data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1898914. The 2021 spatial study had some sites in common with this 2022 spatial study. This dataset is comprised of three photo folders and one main data folder with six subfolders. The photo folders contain photographs and videos of cotton strip retrieval and sediment quadrats. The main data folder consists of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) total suspended solids (TSS) data and cotton strip tensile strength data and averages; (5) field protocol; (6) readme; (7) methods codes; (8) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (9) sensor installation methods summary; (10) stream depth and averages; and (11) Ultrameter data and averages. The Sonar subfolder consists of Sonar time-series depth data and a processing script. The BarotrollAtm, DepthHOBO, MantaRiver, miniDOT, and miniDOTManualChamber subfolders contain time-series data, plots, and summary files. All files are .csv, .pdf, .txt, .R, .Rmd, .jpg, .jpeg, .AVI, .mp4, or .mov. The data package was originally published in April 2023. It was updated in August 2023 (v2; modified files) and September 2024 (v3; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for details. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Global Carbon Budget 2025

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesise datasets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO 2 emissions (E FOS ) are based on energy and cement production data. Emissions from land-use change (E LUC ) are estimated by bookkeeping models based on land-use data. The global atmospheric CO 2 growth rate (G ATM ) is computed from changes in concentration measured at surface stations. The global net uptake of CO 2 by the ocean (S OCEAN ) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based fCO 2 -products. The global net uptake of CO 2 by the land (S LAND ) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. Additional lines of evidence are provided by atmospheric inversions, atmospheric oxygen measurements, ocean interior observation-based estimates, and Earth System Models. This year, we introduced corrections on the E LUC , S OCEAN and S LAND estimates. The sum of all sources and sinks results in the carbon budget imbalance (B IM ), a measure of imperfect data and incomplete understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ± 1σ. For the year 2024, E FOS increased by 1.1 % relative to 2023, with fossil emissions at 10.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 (including the cement carbonation sink, 0.2 GtC yr −1 ), E LUC was 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr −1 , for total anthropogenic CO 2 emissions of 11.6 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 (42.4 ± 3.2 GtCO2 yr −1 ). Also, for 2024, G ATM was 7.9 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (3.73 ± 0.1 ppm yr −1 ), 2.2 GtC above the 2023 growth rate. SOCEAN was 3.4 ± 0.4 GtC yr −1 and S LAND was 1.9 ± 1.1 GtC yr −1 , leaving a large negative B IM (−1.7 GtC yr −1 ), suggesting that the total sink or G ATM is strongly overestimated in 2024. The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration averaged over 2024 reached 422.8 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2025 suggest an increase in E FOS relative to 2024 of +1.0 % (0.2 % to 1.7 %) globally, and atmospheric CO 2 concentration increasing by 2.1 ppm reaching 425.6 ppm, 53 % above the pre-industrial level (around 278 ppm in 1750). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2024, with a near-zero overall budget imbalance, although discrepancies of up to around 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation of annual to decadal variability in CO 2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows: (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO 2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the mean ocean sink. This living data update documents changes in methods and datasets applied to this most-recent global carbon budget as well as evolving community understanding of the global carbon cycle. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2025 (Friedlingstein et al., 2025c).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗