Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (17)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = lake mead

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
30 pages, 3887 KiB  
Article
Fish Health Altered by Contaminants and Low Water Temperatures Compounded by Prolonged Regional Drought in the Lower Colorado River Basin, USA
by Steven L. Goodbred, Reynaldo Patiño, David A. Alvarez, Darren Johnson, Deena Hannoun, Kathy R. Echols and Jill A. Jenkins
Toxics 2024, 12(10), 708; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12100708 - 28 Sep 2024
Viewed by 1289
Abstract
The goal of this study was to assess health of male Common Carp (carp, Cyprinus carpio) at four sites with a wide range in environmental organic contaminant (EOC) concentrations and water temperatures in Lake Mead National Recreation Area NV/AZ, US, and the [...] Read more.
The goal of this study was to assess health of male Common Carp (carp, Cyprinus carpio) at four sites with a wide range in environmental organic contaminant (EOC) concentrations and water temperatures in Lake Mead National Recreation Area NV/AZ, US, and the potential influence of regional drought. Histological and reproductive biomarkers were measured in 17–30 carp at four sites and 130 EOCs in water per site were analyzed using passive samplers in 2010. Wide ranges among sites were noted in total EOC concentrations (>10Xs) and water temperature/degree days (10Xs). In 2007/08, total polychlorinated biphenyls (tPCBs) in fish whole bodies from Willow Beach (WB) in the free-flowing Colorado River below Hoover Dam were clearly higher than at the other sites. This was most likely due to longer exposures in colder water (12–14 °C) and fish there having the longest lifespan (up to 54 years) for carp reported in the Colorado River Basin. Calculated estrogenicity in water exceeded long-term, environmentally safe criteria of 0.1–0.4 ng/L by one to three orders of magnitude at all sites except the reference site. Low ecological screening values for four contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) in water were exceeded for one CEC in the reference site, two in WB and Las Vegas Bay and three in the most contaminated site LVW. Fish health biomarkers in WB carp had 25% lower liver glycogen, 10Xs higher testicular pigmented cell aggregates and higher sperm abnormalities than the reference site. Sperm from LVW fish also had significantly higher fragmentation of DNA, lower motility and testis had lower percent of spermatozoa, all of which can impair reproduction. Projections from a 3D water quality model performed for WB showed that EOC concentrations due to prolonged regional drought and reduced water levels could increase as high as 135%. Water temperatures by late 21st century are predicted to rise between 0.7 and 2.1 °C that could increase eutrophication, algal blooms, spread disease and decrease dissolved oxygen over 5%. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the four sampling sites in and near the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA), NV and AZ, US where Common Carp (<span class="html-italic">Cypinus carpio</span>) were collected, and semipermeable membrane device samplers (SPMD) deployed. The Willow Beach inset shows the five sites in the Colorado River below Hoover Dam where sediment and periphyton were collected and SPMDs were deployed to assess potential polychlorinated biphenyl sources. Lake Mead formed by the Hoover Dam is within the recreation area (green area). Note the drinking water withdrawal location for the City of Las Vegas in Boulder Basin below Las Vegas Wash where there are three sewage treatment plants and an industrial site in Henderson with surface and underground contamination [<a href="#B4-toxics-12-00708" class="html-bibr">4</a>]. The reference site is Overton Arm, at the northern part of LMNRA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Monthly water levels at Hoover Dam for the past 22 years [<a href="#B11-toxics-12-00708" class="html-bibr">11</a>]. A long-term mega-drought in the Colorado River Basin has resulted in the lowest recorded water level in Lake Mead since it was created in 1937. Lower lake water levels provide less volume to dilute environmental organic contaminants discharged from Las Vegas Wash.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Overview and chronology of experimental activities presented in this manuscript focusing on male Common Carp (<span class="html-italic">Cyprinus carpio</span>), chemistry, and climate at LVB (Las Vegas Bay), LVW (Las Vegas Wash), WB (Willow Beach), OA (Overton Arm) in Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada/Arizona, United States. EOCs <sup>1</sup> (environmental organic contaminants) detected in the water matrix, only; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons); OCs (organochlorine pesticides); PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls); PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants); CECs (contaminants of emerging concern). <sup>2</sup> Water quality models predictive of recycled water concentrations incorporating flow conditions, wastewater effluent, water and air temperatures [<a href="#B27-toxics-12-00708" class="html-bibr">27</a>,<a href="#B28-toxics-12-00708" class="html-bibr">28</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Water temperatures at four sampling sites in Lake Mead National Recreation Area NV and AZ, US where common carp (<span class="html-italic">Cypinus carpio</span>) were sampled over a one-year period to analyze accumulation of environmental organic contaminants. Degree days over that period were calculated by summing all the temperatures above 12 °C, which initiates growth in common carp [<a href="#B53-toxics-12-00708" class="html-bibr">53</a>]. Willow Beach had substantially lower degree days (up to 10 times), indicating slower growth and longer lifespans.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>A</b>) Fish from Overton Arm (OA) and Willow Beach (WB) collected in November 2010, and (<b>B</b>) from Las Vegas Wash (LVW) and Las Vegas Bay (LVB) in July 2010. In the OA-WB plot, OA data appeared evenly distributed among all quadrants, except the upper left, which was occupied mostly by WB data. Principal Component vectors show lower liver glycogen, higher incidence of testicular pigmented cell aggregates and more abnormal sperm compared to OA indicating exposure to environmental organic contaminants (EOCs). (<b>B</b>) In the LVW-LVB plot, LVW data appeared evenly distributed in all quadrants except the upper right, which was exclusively occupied by LVB data. PC vectors show lower progressive sperm motility, higher % haploid sperm and higher DNA fragmentation in LVW compared to LVB indicating exposure to EOCs. Ranked value analysis is represented by “R.” Pigmented cell aggregates is “PgCA”. Gonadosomatic index is “GSI”. Mitochondrial is “Mito”.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Photomicrograph of pigmented cell aggregates (asterisks) in the testis of a male common carp collected from Willow Beach. The cell aggregates take on a yellow–brown coloration when stained with hematoxylin and eosin, which was previously shown to represent ceroid–lipofuscin deposition [<a href="#B16-toxics-12-00708" class="html-bibr">16</a>]. When present, pigmented cell aggregates could be found throughout the testes, including near their surface.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Recycled water concentrations (RWCs), that are the percent of highly treated wastewater effluent from Las Vegas Wash, in October-November. Meters above sea level (masl). (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>) are predicted RWCs at the face of Hoover Dam, and (<b>B</b>,<b>D</b>) are predicted RWCs leaving Hoover Dam. Note lower RWCs in the cooler hypolimnions (blue) and higher RWCs (orange) in the warmer epilimnion in late November (<b>C</b>). RWCs leaving Hoover Dam at the lower lake level are lower through mid-November then rising sharply to a maximum of 4% (<b>D</b>). Lower lake levels provide less dilution for RWCs resulting in higher RWCs at certain times of the year.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Recycled Water Concentrations (RWC), that are the percent of highly treated wastewater effluent from Las Vegas Wash, in October-November predicted at Willow Beach on the Colorado River below Hoover Dam from a water quality model in 2010 and 2022 and at three different Lake Mead water levels down to deadpool (level where hydro turbines can’t generate electricity). Note the highest RWCs of 4% are predicted in late November at a lower lake level of 304.8 m and the lowest RWCs predicted at a higher lake level of 325.2 m from 2022. This indicates that lower volumes of receiving water in Lake Mead provide less dilution for the wastewater discharged from Las Vegas Wash resulting in higher RWCs.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 7218 KiB  
Article
A Machine Learning Approach for the Estimation of Total Dissolved Solids Concentration in Lake Mead Using Electrical Conductivity and Temperature
by Godson Ebenezer Adjovu, Haroon Stephen and Sajjad Ahmad
Water 2023, 15(13), 2439; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15132439 - 2 Jul 2023
Cited by 14 | Viewed by 4271
Abstract
Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration determination in water bodies is sophisticated, time-consuming, and involves expensive field sampling and laboratory processes. TDS concentration has, however, been linked to electrical conductivity (EC) and temperature. Compared to monitoring TDS concentrations, monitoring EC and temperature is simpler, [...] Read more.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration determination in water bodies is sophisticated, time-consuming, and involves expensive field sampling and laboratory processes. TDS concentration has, however, been linked to electrical conductivity (EC) and temperature. Compared to monitoring TDS concentrations, monitoring EC and temperature is simpler, inexpensive, and takes less time. This study, therefore, applied several machine learning (ML) approaches to estimate TDS concentration in Lake Mead using EC and temperature data. Standalone models including the support vector machine (SVM), linear regressors (LR), K-nearest neighbor model (KNN), the artificial neural network (ANN), and ensemble models such as bagging, gradient boosting machine (GBM), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), and extra trees (ET) models were used in this study. The models’ performance were evaluated using several performance metrics aimed at providing a holistic assessment of each model. Metrics used include the coefficient of determination (R2), mean absolute error (MAE), percent mean absolute relative error (PMARE), root mean square error (RMSE), the scatter index (SI), Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE) coefficient, and percent bias (PBIAS). Results obtained showed varying model performance at the training, testing, and external validation stage of the models, with obtained R2 of 0.77–1.00, RMSE of 2.28–37.68 mg/L, an MAE of 0.14–22.67 mg/L, a PMARE of 0.02–3.42%, SI of 0.00–0.06, NSE of 0.77–1.00, and a PBIAS of 0.30–0.97 across all models for the three datasets. We utilized performance rankings to assess the model performance and found the LR to be the best-performing model on the external validation datasets among all the models (R2 of 0.82 and RMSE of 33.09 mg/L), possibly due to the established existence of a relationship between TDS and EC, although this may not always be linear. Similarly, we found the XGBoost to be the best-performing ensemble model based on the external validation with R2 of 0.81 and RMSE of 34.19 mg/L. Assessing the overall performance of the models across all the datasets, however, revealed GBM to produce a superior performance based on the ranks, possibly due to its ability to reduce overfitting and improve generalizations. The findings from this study could be employed in assisting water resources managers and stakeholders in effective monitoring and management of water resources to ensure their sustainability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Water Quality and Contamination)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Detailed map of Lake Mead located on the Colorado River Basin (light green boundary). The location of the lake is indicated by the small boundary within the Colorado River Basin and the enlarged as depicted by the yellow boundary. The study area is shown by the orange square. boundary.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Detailed map showing stations (marked with red dots and numbers) on Lake Mead. The yellow arrows indicate the flow directions into the study area. The Colorado River through the lake is identified by the blue arrow.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Boxplots of the studied WQPs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Correlation matrix for the variables.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>TDS estimations for the various ML models with the 45° bisector line. LR denotes linear regressors, SVM denotes support vector machine or regressors, KNN denotes K-nearest neighbor regressors, ANN denotes artificial neural network, Random Forest denotes random forest regressor, Gradient Boosting denotes Gradient Boosting Regressor, Bagging denotes bagging regressor, Extra Trees denote extra tree regressors, and XGBoost denotes extreme gradient boosting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>TDS estimations for the various ML models with the 45° bisector line. LR denotes linear regressors, SVM denotes support vector machine or regressors, KNN denotes K-nearest neighbor regressors, ANN denotes artificial neural network, Random Forest denotes random forest regressor, Gradient Boosting denotes Gradient Boosting Regressor, Bagging denotes bagging regressor, Extra Trees denote extra tree regressors, and XGBoost denotes extreme gradient boosting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Boxplots of the observed and estimated TDS concentration for the various ML models. LR denotes linear regressors, SVM denotes support vector machine or regressors, KNN denotes K-nearest neighbor regressors, ANN denotes artificial neural network, Random Forest denotes random forest regressor, Gradient Boosting denotes Gradient Boosting Regressor, Bagging denotes bagging regressor, Extra Trees denote extra tree regressors, and XGBoost denotes extreme gradient boosting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Boxplots of the observed and estimated TDS concentration for the various ML models. LR denotes linear regressors, SVM denotes support vector machine or regressors, KNN denotes K-nearest neighbor regressors, ANN denotes artificial neural network, Random Forest denotes random forest regressor, Gradient Boosting denotes Gradient Boosting Regressor, Bagging denotes bagging regressor, Extra Trees denote extra tree regressors, and XGBoost denotes extreme gradient boosting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Identification of the optimal lag time using autocorrelation analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Time series plots of the observed and estimated TDS for the ML model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Time series plots of the observed and estimated TDS for the ML model.</p>
Full article ">
42 pages, 5613 KiB  
Article
Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Key Water Quality Parameters in a Thermal Stratified Lake Ecosystem: The Case Study of Lake Mead
by Godson Ebenezer Adjovu, Haroon Stephen and Sajjad Ahmad
Earth 2023, 4(3), 461-502; https://doi.org/10.3390/earth4030025 - 30 Jun 2023
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 3112
Abstract
Lake Mead located in the Arizona–Nevada region of the Mohave Dessert is a unique and complex water system whose flow follows that of a warm monomictic lake. Although monomictic lakes experience thermal stratification for almost the entire year with a period of complete [...] Read more.
Lake Mead located in the Arizona–Nevada region of the Mohave Dessert is a unique and complex water system whose flow follows that of a warm monomictic lake. Although monomictic lakes experience thermal stratification for almost the entire year with a period of complete mixing, the lake on occasion deviates from this phenomenon, undergoing incomplete turnovers categorized with light stratifications every other year. The prolonged drought and growing anthropogenic activities have the potential to considerably impact the quality of the lake. Lake Mead and by extension the Boulder Basin receive cooler flow from the Colorado River and flow with varying temperatures from the Las Vegas Wash (LVW), which impacts its stratification and complete turnovers. This study analyzes four key water quality parameters (WQPs), namely, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO), using statistical and spatial analyses to understand their variations in light of the lake stratifications and turnovers to further maintain its overall quality and sustainability. The study also evaluates the impacts of hydrological variables including in and out flows, storage, evaporation, and water surface elevation on the WQPs. The results produced from the analysis show significant levels of TDS, TSS, and temperature from the LVW and Las Vegas Bay regions compared with the Boulder Basin. LVW is the main channel for conveying effluents from several wastewater treatment facilities into the lake. We observed an increase in the levels of TDS, TSS, and temperature water quality in the epilimnion compared with the other layers of the lake. The metalimnion and the hypolimnion layer, however, showed reduced DO due to depletion by algal blooms. We observed statistically significant differences in the WQPs throughout various months, but not in the case for season and year, an indication of relatively consistent variability throughout each season and year. We also observed a no clear trend of influence of outflows and inflows on TDS, temperature, and DO. TSS concentrations in the lake, however, remained constant, irrespective of the inflows and outflows, possibly due to the settling of the sediments and the reservoir capacity. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of Lake Mead located in the Colorado River Basin (green boundary). The small blue boundary indicates the position of the lake in the Colorado River Basin. Lake Mead boundary is indicated by the red boundary. The blue arrows indicate the flow directions in and out of the lake with the study area shown in the yellow square boundary.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Map showing the locations of the stations indicated in yellow numbers on Lake Mead. Red arrows indicate the flow directions in and out of the study area. The blue arrow identifies the Colorado River through Lake Mead.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Time series variations of key WQPs for Station 1 from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Time series variations of key WQPs for Station 6 from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial distribution of the key WQPs along the study area for 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Monthly variations of key WQPs in Lake Mead from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Seasonal spatial distribution of key WQPs in Lake Mead from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Seasonal variability of key WQPs in Lake Mead from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Yearly variability of key WQPs in Lake Mead from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Impact of the hydrological factors on TDS concentration in Lake Mead from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Impact of the hydrological factors on temperature in Lake Mead from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Impact of the hydrological factors on DO concentration in Lake Mead from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Time series variations of the WQPs at the three depth zones of the Lake Mead from 2016–2021.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 2315 KiB  
Article
Volatile Metabolites in Lavage Fluid Are Correlated with Cytokine Production in a Valley Fever Murine Model
by Emily A. Higgins Keppler, Marley C. Caballero Van Dyke, Heather L. Mead, Douglas F. Lake, D. Mitchell Magee, Bridget M. Barker and Heather D. Bean
J. Fungi 2023, 9(1), 115; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9010115 - 14 Jan 2023
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2580
Abstract
Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii are soil-dwelling fungi of arid regions in North and South America that are responsible for Valley fever (coccidioidomycosis). Forty percent of patients with Valley fever exhibit symptoms ranging from mild, self-limiting respiratory infections to severe, life-threatening pneumonia that [...] Read more.
Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii are soil-dwelling fungi of arid regions in North and South America that are responsible for Valley fever (coccidioidomycosis). Forty percent of patients with Valley fever exhibit symptoms ranging from mild, self-limiting respiratory infections to severe, life-threatening pneumonia that requires treatment. Misdiagnosis as bacterial pneumonia commonly occurs in symptomatic Valley fever cases, resulting in inappropriate treatment with antibiotics, increased medical costs, and delay in diagnosis. In this proof-of-concept study, we explored the feasibility of developing breath-based diagnostics for Valley fever using a murine lung infection model. To investigate potential volatile biomarkers of Valley fever that arise from host–pathogen interactions, we infected C57BL/6J mice with C. immitis RS (n = 6), C. posadasii Silveira (n = 6), or phosphate-buffered saline (n = 4) via intranasal inoculation. We measured fungal dissemination and collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) for cytokine profiling and for untargeted volatile metabolomics via solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled with time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC×GC-TOFMS). We identified 36 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that were significantly correlated (p < 0.05) with cytokine abundance. These 36 VOCs clustered mice by their cytokine production and were also able to separate mice with moderate-to-high cytokine production by infection strain. The data presented here show that Coccidioides and/or the host produce volatile metabolites that may yield biomarkers for a Valley fever breath test that can detect coccidioidal infection and provide clinically relevant information on primary pulmonary disease severity. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Basic and Clinical Research on Coccidioides)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>There is a gradient of total cytokine concentrations in the BALF of <span class="html-italic">Coccidioides</span>-inoculated mice. A total of 26 cytokines are shown for individual mice inoculated with <span class="html-italic">C. immitis</span> strain RS (blue) and <span class="html-italic">C. posadasii</span> strain Silveira (Sil; red), or sham-inoculated with PBS (gray). Mice with disseminated disease are indicated with an asterisk (fungal counts in the spleen and brain are provided in <a href="#app1-jof-09-00115" class="html-app">Supplementary Table S2</a>). Immune markers are color-coded by type, and should be read from left to right in the bar graph in order to match them with their labels in the legend, listed from top to bottom. Cytokine production was dominated by pro-inflammatory cytokines (blue) and chemokines (purple), while anti-inflammatory (yellow) and multifaceted (green) cytokines were produced at low levels.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Differences in total cytokine production are the dominant source of variance driving separation of the mice in a Valley fever infection model. A principal component analysis (PCA) score plot of 16 mice inoculated with <span class="html-italic">C. immitis</span> RS (blue circles, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 6), <span class="html-italic">C. posadasii</span> Silveira (red circles, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 6) or PBS (white triangles, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 4) as observations, using 26 cytokines as variables shows that total cytokine abundance separates the mice on PC1, representing the majority of the total variance. The color gradient in the observation markers indicates total cytokine abundance, with the darkest colors indicating the highest abundance; mice with disseminated disease are indicated with an asterisk (*). Differences in the cytokine profiles between RS and Sil, represented on PC2, are small in comparison.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>A subset of the volatilome is correlated to the cytokines in BALF. Kendall correlations were calculated between the VOCs and the cytokines in BALF of 12 Cocci-inoculated and 4 PBS-inoculated mice. This Kendall correlation plot represents the 36 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (columns) that are significantly correlated with at least one of the 26 cytokines (rows). Circles indicate statistically significant correlations (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05), with positive correlations in blue (τ &gt; 0.3), negative correlations in red (τ &lt; −0.3), and darker colors and larger sizes indicating a stronger correlation. The volatiles are ordered by mean correlation from most positive (<b>left</b>) to most negative (<b>right</b>). Additional information about the VOCs, including putative identities, is provided in <a href="#app1-jof-09-00115" class="html-app">Supplementary Table S3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Immune-correlated VOCs recapitulate the clustering patterns produced by BALF cytokines. Principal component analysis score plot (<b>A</b>) and loading plot (<b>B</b>) using 36 immune-correlated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from BALF as variables, and mice inoculated with <span class="html-italic">C. immitis</span> RS (blue circles), <span class="html-italic">C. posadasii</span> Silveira (red circles) or PBS (white triangles) as observations. The score plot (<b>A</b>) shows the mice separate on PC1 in a pattern that corresponds to their total cytokine production, and mice with moderate-to-high levels of cytokines separate by infection strain on PC2. The color gradient of the markers, darker to lighter, indicates total cytokine abundance, higher to lower; disseminated disease is indicated with an asterisk. The loading plot (<b>B</b>) shows the 12 VOCs that are negatively correlated with cytokines load onto PC1 &gt; 0 where the mice with the lowest total cytokines cluster, and the remaining 24 positively-correlated VOCs load onto PC1 &lt; 0 with the mice with moderate-to-high levels of cytokines. Additional information about the VOCs, including putative identities, is provided in <a href="#app1-jof-09-00115" class="html-app">Supplementary Table S3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Immune-correlated VOCs cluster mice by total cytokine levels in BALF. Hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA) of 12 Cocci-inoculated and 4 PBS mice (rows) based on the relative abundance of 36 immune-correlated VOCs (columns) shows the mice are separated into two main clusters that reflect total BALF cytokine production. Additionally, the VOCs are divided into two clusters, those that are positively correlated (τ &gt; 0.3) with cytokine production and those that are negatively correlated (τ &lt; −0.3). Clustering of mice and VOCs used Pearson correlations with average linkage. Mice are color-coded by strain (blue = <span class="html-italic">C. immitis</span> RS; red = <span class="html-italic">C. posadasii</span> Sil) and a color gradient indicating total cytokine abundance, with darker color meaning higher abundance; disseminated disease is indicated with an asterisk (fungal counts in the spleen and brain are provided in <a href="#app1-jof-09-00115" class="html-app">Supplementary Table S2</a>). Kendall correlation between volatiles and cytokines is noted above the dendrogram, with τ &gt; 0.3 for positive correlations and τ &lt; −0.3 for negative. Volatiles abundances (mean-centered and scaled to unit variance) are represented in the heat map. Additional information about the VOCs, including putative identities, is provided in <a href="#app1-jof-09-00115" class="html-app">Supplementary Table S3</a>.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 5851 KiB  
Article
Smart Sharing Plan: The Key to the Water Crisis
by Qinyi Zhang, Mengchao Fan, Jing Hui, Haochong Huang, Zijian Li and Zhiyuan Zheng
Water 2022, 14(15), 2320; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152320 - 26 Jul 2022
Viewed by 2700
Abstract
Over the years, the Colorado River has become inadequate for development due to natural factors and human activities. The hydroelectric facilities in Lake Mead and Lake Powell are also not fully utilized. Downstream, Mexico is also involved in the competition for water. The [...] Read more.
Over the years, the Colorado River has become inadequate for development due to natural factors and human activities. The hydroelectric facilities in Lake Mead and Lake Powell are also not fully utilized. Downstream, Mexico is also involved in the competition for water. The resulting allocation of water and electricity resources and sustainable development are hanging over our heads and waiting to be solved. In this work, a simplified Penstock Dam model and a Distance Decay model are designed based on publicly available data, and a Multi-attribute Decision model for hydropower based on the Novel Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution method is proposed. In addition, an Improved Particle Swarm Optimization model is proposed by adding oscillation parameters. The Mexican equity problem is also explored. The theoretical results show that the average error of the Penstock Dam model is 3.2%. The minimum water elevation requirements for Lake Mead and Lake Powell are 950 ft and 3460 ft, respectively; they will not meet demand in 2026 and 2027 without action, and they will require the introduction of 3.69×1010 m3 and 2.08×109 m3 water in 2027 and 2028, respectively. The solution shows that the net profit for the United States is greatest when 38.6% of the additional water is used for general purposes, 47.5% is used for power generation, and the rest flows to Mexico. A final outlook on the sustainability of the Colorado River is provided. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Scarcity: From Ancient to Modern Times and the Future)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The framework of the work performed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The proportion of hydropower in the total electricity generation of the five states.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic diagram of dam power generation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The central idea of power allocation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>There are four main attributes that correspond to indicators in the distribution of power.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Distance quantization ideal schematic.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The weight distribution of four major attributes. (<b>a</b>) The HD. (<b>b</b>) The GCD. The relative proximity of the 193 counties to HD and GCD was calculated using the improved model derivation. The results are presented in <a href="#water-14-02320-t003" class="html-table">Table 3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The water level of Lake Mead and Lake Powell from 1963 to 2022. (<b>a</b>) The average elevation. (<b>b</b>) The content. Source: National Water Information System <a href="https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis" target="_blank">https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis</a> (accessed on 20 January 2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Contour topographic map of two dams and their surroundings. Source: topographic-map <a href="https://en-us.topographic-map.com" target="_blank">https://en-us.topographic-map.com</a> (accessed on 20 January 2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Schematic of distribution under extreme conditions, idealized state.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Reservoir average annual elevation statistics and nonlinear fitting map from 1963 to 2022. (<b>a</b>) The HD. (<b>b</b>) The GCD. Source: National Water Information System <a href="https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis" target="_blank">https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis</a> (accessed on 20 January 2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The Results of Fitting and Predicting of the Water Elevations at the dam. (<b>a</b>) The HD. (<b>b</b>) The GCD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Volume of water to be introduced at the HD and the GCD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Particle swarm algorithm vector demonstration map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Particle swarm algorithm vector demonstration map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Percentage of U.S. Electricity Generation of four main types.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>The results of sensitivity analysis of the dam water level prediction model. The blue line in the figure is the standard fit curve. The red line shows the curve obtained by slightly increasing the parameters. The yellow line shows the curve obtained after the parameters are slightly reduced. (<b>a</b>) The HD. (<b>b</b>) The GCD.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 4424 KiB  
Article
Calibration of the k-ω SST Turbulence Model for Free Surface Flows on Mountain Slopes Using an Experiment
by Daria Romanova, Oleg Ivanov, Vladimir Trifonov, Nika Ginzburg, Daria Korovina, Boris Ginzburg, Nikita Koltunov, Margarita Eglit and Sergey Strijhak
Fluids 2022, 7(3), 111; https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids7030111 - 17 Mar 2022
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 4543
Abstract
We calibrate the k-ωSST turbulence model for free surface flows in the channel or on the slope using machine learning techniques. To calibrate the turbulence model, an experiment is carried out in an inclined rectangular research chute. In [...] Read more.
We calibrate the k-ωSST turbulence model for free surface flows in the channel or on the slope using machine learning techniques. To calibrate the turbulence model, an experiment is carried out in an inclined rectangular research chute. In the experiment, the pressure values in the flow are measured at different distances from the bottom; after transforming data, the flow velocity profile is obtained. The k-ωSST turbulence model is calibrated based on experimental data using the Nelder-Mead optimization algorithm. The calibrated turbulence model is then used to calculate the glacial lake Maliy Azau outburst flood on the Elbrus (Central Caucasus). Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Scheme of chute in University of Iceland experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Calculation domain and initial condition for simulating the experiment at the University of Iceland experiment chute. The green line shows the location of the section in which the data was measured and calculated for the flow without dams.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The flow without dams. Depth-averaged velocity at a distance of 11.1 m from the beginning of the chute. Red lines—experiment [<a href="#B38-fluids-07-00111" class="html-bibr">38</a>]; green line—simulated by <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ε</mi> </semantics></math> turbulence model; blue line—simulated by the <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ω</mi> <mspace width="4pt"/> <mi>S</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> turbulence model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Experiment chute scheme.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Calculation mesh for University of Iceland experiment chute.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The architecture of the proposed algorithm for calibrating the <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ω</mi> </semantics></math> <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> turbulence model coefficients.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of velocity profiles calculated by the <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ω</mi> </semantics></math> <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> model using initial and tuned coefficients with the experimental profile at different chute inclination angles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The interaction of the flow with three dams (simulation). There are splashes and formation of jets on the dams. The colors are related to the values of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>α</mi> </semantics></math> (i.e., the relative part of the cell occupied by liquid): blue—1, black—0. White lines are dams.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Depth-averaged velocity measured at a distance of 11.1 m from the beginning of the chute without dams. The water boundary is defined by a water volume fraction of 90%. The experimental data taken from [<a href="#B38-fluids-07-00111" class="html-bibr">38</a>] (Experiment) colored in red, calculated data obtained by the authors using the <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ε</mi> </semantics></math> turbulence model (Calculated <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<span class="html-italic">ε</span>) colored in green, calculated data obtained by the authors using the <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ω</mi> </semantics></math> <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> turbulence model (Calculated <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<span class="html-italic">ω</span> <span class="html-italic">SST</span>) colored in blue and calculated data obtained by the authors using the <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ω</mi> </semantics></math> <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> turbulence model (Calculated <span class="html-italic">k</span>-<span class="html-italic">ω</span> <span class="html-italic">SST</span> tuned) with tuned coefficients colored in cyan.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Maliy Azau glacial lake outburst flood map [<a href="#B50-fluids-07-00111" class="html-bibr">50</a>] (<b>left</b>); 3D simulation of outburst flood 1 minute after start (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Discharge (red) and the volume of liquid poured out of the lake (blue) versus time from the start of the outburst.</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 10454 KiB  
Article
NASA’s MODIS/VIIRS Global Water Reservoir Product Suite from Moderate Resolution Remote Sensing Data
by Yao Li, Gang Zhao, Deep Shah, Maosheng Zhao, Sudipta Sarkar, Sadashiva Devadiga, Bingjie Zhao, Shuai Zhang and Huilin Gao
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(4), 565; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040565 - 5 Feb 2021
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 7844
Abstract
Global reservoir information can not only benefit local water management but can also improve our understanding of the hydrological cycle. This information includes water area, elevation, and storage; evaporation rate and volume values; and other characteristics. However, operational wall-to-wall reservoir storage and evaporation [...] Read more.
Global reservoir information can not only benefit local water management but can also improve our understanding of the hydrological cycle. This information includes water area, elevation, and storage; evaporation rate and volume values; and other characteristics. However, operational wall-to-wall reservoir storage and evaporation monitoring information is lacking on a global scale. Here we introduce NASA’s new MODIS/VIIRS Global Water Reservoir product suite based on moderate resolution remote sensing data—the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). This product consists of 8-day (MxD28C2 and VNP28C2) and monthly (MxD28C3 and VNP28C3) measurements for 164 large reservoirs (MxD stands for the product from both Terra (MOD) or Aqua (MYD) satellites). The 8-day product provides area, elevation, and storage values, which were generated by first extracting water areas from surface reflectance data and then applying the area estimations to the pre-established Area–Elevation (A–E) relationships. These values were then further aggregated to monthly, with the evaporation rate and volume information added. The evaporation rate and volume values were calculated after the Lake Temperature and Evaporation Model (LTEM) using MODIS/VIIRS land surface temperature product and meteorological data from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS). Validation results show that the 250 m area classifications from MODIS agree well with the high-resolution classifications from Landsat (R2 = 0.99). Validation of elevation and storage products for twelve Indian reservoirs show good agreement in terms of R2 values (0.71–0.96 for elevation, and 0.79–0.96 for storage) and normalized root-mean-square error (NRMSE) values (5.08–19.34% for elevation, and 6.39–18.77% for storage). The evaporation rate results for two reservoirs (Lake Nasser and Lake Mead) agree well with in situ measurements (R2 values of 0.61 and 0.66, and NRMSE values of 16.25% and 21.76%). Furthermore, preliminary results from the VIIRS reservoir product have shown good consistency with the MODIS based product, confirming the continuity of this 20-year product suite. This new global water reservoir product suite can provide valuable information with regard to water-sources-related studies, applications, management, and hydrological modeling and change analysis such as drought monitoring. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Locations of the 151 man-made reservoirs (in red and blue) and 13 regulated natural lakes (in yellow) are contained in this product. The reservoirs labeled in blue are used for validation purposes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flow chart of the algorithm for deriving the MxD28C2 product, which contains 8-day area, elevation, and storage results for the 164 reservoirs. The green boxes represent the product components.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>A demonstration of the water enhancement algorithm using the Cahora Bassa reservoir (Mozambique, Africa) on 1 January 2007, as an example: (<b>a</b>) original Near Infrared (NIR) image, (<b>b</b>) clear areas in NIR extruding the cloud contaminations, (<b>c</b>) water areas extracted from image (<b>b</b>), (<b>d</b>) water occurrence (percentile) image, (<b>e</b>) percentile threshold used for enhancement, and (<b>f</b>) water areas after enhancement.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Flow chart of the algorithm for deriving the MxD28C3 product, which contains monthly area, elevation, storage, evaporation rate, and volumetric evaporation loss results for the 164 reservoirs. The green boxes represent the product components.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The density plot of monthly area estimations between Landsat and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) from February 2000 to December 2018 for the 164 reservoirs. Note that the x-axis and y-axis use a logarithmic scale, and there are a total of 37,228 (227 × 164) pairs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Validation of MODIS 8-day elevation products for twelve Indian reservoirs from 2000 to 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Validation of MODIS 8-day storage products for twelve Indian reservoirs from 2000 to 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Validation of the evaporation rates for (<b>a</b>) Lake Nasser and (<b>b</b>) Lake Mead using Bowen ratio energy budget (BREB) estimations and eddy covariance (EC) measurements. The evaporation rate for Lake Mead (from 2010 to 2015) was calculated using MYD21A2 land surface temperature (LST) data because the current version of MOD21A2 only covers the years from 2000 to 2005 (when acquired in November 2020). The evaporation rate for Lake Nasser (from 2000 to 2004) was calculated using MOD21A2 because the MYD21A2 product started from July 2002.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of 8-day area values between MODIS and Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) from January 2012 to August 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison of monthly evaporation rates for Lake Mead between MODIS and VIIRS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of reservoir coverage and temporal resolution of elevation measurements between satellite radar altimetry products (i.e., Hydroweb and G-REALM) and MODIS/VIIRS based products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of elevation time series values between radar altimetry products (Hydroweb and G-REALM) and the MODIS-based product. Note that the elevation measurements provided by G-REALM are not available between 2002 and 2008 for the Qapshaghay Bogeni, Mosul, and Powell reservoirs due to a data gap. These are filled in by linear interpolation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Total reservoir storage variations in the (<b>a</b>) Colorado and (<b>b</b>) Murray-Darling river basins.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Validation of monthly elevation products for twelve Indian reservoirs from 2000 to 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Validation of monthly storage products for twelve Indian reservoirs from 2000 to 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>Comparisons of evaporation rates calculated from different datasets (GLDAS + MxD21 and TerraClimate + MxD11) for (<b>a</b>) Lake Nasser and (<b>b</b>) Lake Mead.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 5398 KiB  
Article
Multi-Sensor InSAR Assessment of Ground Deformations around Lake Mead and Its Relation to Water Level Changes
by Mehdi Darvishi, Georgia Destouni, Saeid Aminjafari and Fernando Jaramillo
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(3), 406; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13030406 - 25 Jan 2021
Cited by 16 | Viewed by 4071
Abstract
Changes in subsurface water resources might alter the surrounding ground by generating subsidence or uplift, depending on geological and hydrogeological site characteristics. Improved understanding of the relationships between surface water storage and ground deformation is important for design and maintenance of hydraulic facilities [...] Read more.
Changes in subsurface water resources might alter the surrounding ground by generating subsidence or uplift, depending on geological and hydrogeological site characteristics. Improved understanding of the relationships between surface water storage and ground deformation is important for design and maintenance of hydraulic facilities and ground stability. Here, we construct one of the longest series of Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) to date, over twenty-five years, to study the relationships between water level changes and ground surface deformation in the surroundings of Lake Mead, United States, and at the site of the Hoover Dam. We use the Small Baseline Subset (SBAS) and Permanent scatterer interferometry (PSI) techniques over 177 SAR data, encompassing different SAR sensors including ERS1/2, Envisat, ALOS (PALSAR), and Sentinel-1(S1). We perform a cross-sensor examination of the relationship between water level changes and ground displacement. We found a negative relationship between water level change and ground deformation around the reservoir that was consistent across all sensors. The negative relationship was evident from the long-term changes in water level and deformation occurring from 1995 to 2014, and also from the intra-annual oscillations of the later period, 2014 to 2019, both around the reservoir and at the dam. These results suggest an elastic response of the ground surface to changes in water storage in the reservoir, both at the dam site and around the reservoir. Our study illustrates how InSAR-derived ground deformations can be consistent in time across sensors, showing the potential of detecting longer time-series of ground deformation. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Location of Lake Mead (<b>a</b>) in the United States, (<b>b</b>) satellite view of Lake Mead and location of the GPS station P006 (red triangle), (<b>c</b>) zoomed view of the Hoover Dam (photo source: [<a href="#B54-remotesensing-13-00406" class="html-bibr">54</a>]), (<b>d</b>) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the area of interest with 30−m spatial resolution, and (<b>e</b>) extent of the four different SAR scenes used in this study over the Lake Mead area (i.e., ERS1/2−red, Envisat−green, ALOS-blue, and S1−purple), shown over a Google Earth image. The standard full extent of the Envisat, ERS, and ALOS data, and the extent of three selected bursts of S1 (ascending and descending) are displayed in the figure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Water level and storage volume in Lake Mead. (<b>a</b>) Mean water level in Lake Mead and storage volume (United States Bureau of Reclamation) along with the periods of availability of the four types of SAR data. (<b>b</b>) The scatter plot shows the linear correlation between the water level and water storage, along with the correlation coefficient.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Sensor−specific velocity maps of ground deformation of Lake Mead. Boundary of Lake Mead during the ERS period (black) and maps for the (<b>a</b>) ERS, (<b>b</b>) Envisat, (<b>c</b>) ALOS, (<b>d</b>) S1D (Descending), and (<b>e</b>) S1A (Ascending), showing the Satellite Pass (SP) and Line of Sight (LOS). Negative values indicate an increase in the distance along the LOS (subsidence) and positive values present a decrease in the distance along the LOS (uplift). The S1A map was clipped based on the S1D extent for better inter-comparison. The pixel corresponding to the GPSP006 station in <a href="#remotesensing-13-00406-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a> was used as the reference point.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Velocity maps of ground displacement in the buffer zone. LOS velocity maps for (<b>a</b>) ERS, (<b>b</b>) Envisat, (<b>c</b>) ALOS, (<b>d</b>) S1D, and (<b>e</b>) S1A, each with three small panels on the right showing the ground deformation velocity in mm per year along each transect (i.e., A’−A’’, B’−B’’, and C’−C’’).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Water level and InSAR−calculated displacement relative to the initial ground level of each sensor-period. Water level (m.a.s.l, dark blue) and InSAR LOS average displacement of a 3 × 3 pixel−area at 500 m from the shore and along the transects (<b>a</b>) A, (<b>b</b>) B, and (<b>c</b>) C.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Validation with GPS station during the S1 period. Cross−comparison between vertical ground displacements at station P006 from both GPS measurements and SBAS during the S1 period for both (<b>a</b>) descending and (<b>b</b>) ascending modes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>LOS displacements in Hoover Dam derived by the SBAS and PSI. (<b>a</b>) SBAS displacement along the LOS in ascending (SBAS−A), (<b>b</b>) and descending (SBAS−D) mode, (<b>c</b>) PSI displacement in ascending (PSI−A) and (<b>d</b>) descending (PSI−D) modes. Point “b” indicates the middle of the crest.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Displacements in the middle of the crest. Water level and PSI/SBAS ground displacement along the LOS at the middle of the crest (point b in <a href="#remotesensing-13-00406-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a>a). (<b>a</b>) The ascending mode and (<b>b</b>) the descending modes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Horizontal and vertical displacements of the Hoover Dam during the S1 period. Regional (<b>a</b>) horizontal and (<b>b</b>) vertical displacement maps, with focus on the dam site—(<b>c</b>) horizontal and (<b>d</b>) vertical displacements, respectively. (<b>e</b>) Total horizontal and vertical displacements along the crest (from point K’ to K’’) and (<b>f</b>) time-series of water level and the vertical displacements of the buttresses and the points ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’, along and over the crest (<a href="#remotesensing-13-00406-f009" class="html-fig">Figure 9</a>d).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9 Cont.
<p>Horizontal and vertical displacements of the Hoover Dam during the S1 period. Regional (<b>a</b>) horizontal and (<b>b</b>) vertical displacement maps, with focus on the dam site—(<b>c</b>) horizontal and (<b>d</b>) vertical displacements, respectively. (<b>e</b>) Total horizontal and vertical displacements along the crest (from point K’ to K’’) and (<b>f</b>) time-series of water level and the vertical displacements of the buttresses and the points ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’, along and over the crest (<a href="#remotesensing-13-00406-f009" class="html-fig">Figure 9</a>d).</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 4988 KiB  
Article
Monitoring Annual Changes of Lake Water Levels and Volumes over 1984–2018 Using Landsat Imagery and ICESat-2 Data
by Nan Xu, Yue Ma, Wenhao Zhang, Xiao Hua Wang, Fanlin Yang and Dianpeng Su
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(23), 4004; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12234004 - 7 Dec 2020
Cited by 26 | Viewed by 5245
Abstract
With new Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat)-2 lidar (Light detection and ranging) datasets and classical Landsat imagery, a method was proposed to monitor annual changes of lake water levels and volumes for 35 years dated back to 1980s. Based on the [...] Read more.
With new Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat)-2 lidar (Light detection and ranging) datasets and classical Landsat imagery, a method was proposed to monitor annual changes of lake water levels and volumes for 35 years dated back to 1980s. Based on the proposed method, the annual water levels and volumes of Lake Mead in the USA over 1984–2018 were obtained using only two-year measurements of the ICESat-2 altimetry datasets and all available Landsat observations from 1984 to 2018. During the study period, the estimated annual water levels of Lake Mead agreed well with the in situ measurements, i.e., the R2 and RMSE (Root-mean-square error) were 1.00 and 1.06 m, respectively, and the change rates of lake water levels calculated by our method and the in situ data were −1.36 km3/year and −1.29 km3/year, respectively. The annual water volumes of Lake Mead also agreed well with in situ measurements, i.e., the R2 and RMSE were 1.00 and 0.36 km3, respectively, and the change rates of lake water volumes calculated by our method and in situ data were −0.57 km3/year and −0.58 km3/year, respectively. We found that the ICESat-2 exhibits a great potential to accurately characterize the Earth’s surface topography and can capture signal photons reflected from underwater bottoms up to approximately 10 m in Lake Mead. Using the ICESat-2 datasets with a global coverage and our method, accurately monitoring changes of annual water levels/volumes of lakes—which have good water qualities and experienced significant water level changes—is no longer limited by the time span of the available satellite altimetry datasets, and is potentially achievable over a long-term period. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Mapping Using Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat)-2 laser ground tracks (i.e., twelve green lines) in Lake Mead in 2018 and 2019 used in this study. Note that the Sentinel-2 images with a 10 m resolution were collected from the earthexplorer website (<a href="https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/" target="_blank">https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/</a>) as the basemap, and Lake Mead’s boundary in 2016 (using blue curves) was obtained by the modification of the normalized difference water index (MNDWI) method. ICESat-2 flew over Lake Mead four times in 2018 and 2019 and twelve laser ground tracks of raw data points were recorded. The ICESat-2 photon-counting lidar (Light detection and ranging) has three strong laser beams; therefore, one flight route corresponds to three laser ground tracks. These data photons were captured at night when less noise photons were included. The inset shows the location of the study area in the USA. The brown box is the case area to show the ICESat-2 data photons, and to illustrate the matching procedure in detail.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Example of generating land-water map using the thresholding method based on the MNDWI composite image in 2018. The color bar shows the composite value in each pixel. (<b>b</b>) Land-water map in 2018 derived from (<b>a</b>). In sub-figure (<b>b</b>), the land and water areas were labeled by blue and yellow, respectively. (<b>c</b>) Histogram of the MNDWI composite image in 2018. The threshold that was used to classify the land and water was determined at the valley between two peaks (i.e., corresponding to the land and water). (<b>d</b>) Enlarged result of the MNDWI composite image in 2018. The range of the number of pixels (Y-axis) was set from 0 to 1500 to clearly show the valley in (<b>c</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic diagram of the bathymetric error correction for the wave effect on the water surface.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Satellite imagery, ICESat-2’s laser ground track, and Landsat derived annual lake boundary in a case area (corresponding to the brown box in <a href="#remotesensing-12-04004-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>). (<b>b</b>) ICESat-2 lidar raw data points (captured on 12/02/2019) and the detected along-track surface profile in the case area. (<b>c</b>) Landsat-derived annual lake boundary in 2016 matched with the ICESat-2-derived along-track surface profiles. The inset of (<b>c</b>) also corresponds to the case area. In (<b>a</b>), the green line represents one of the ICESat-2 lidar ground tracks on 12/02/2019, the blue curve represents the annual lake boundary in 2016, and the basemap (i.e., Sentinel-2 imagery) was captured on 11/22/2016. Note that, when the Sentinel-2 imagery was captured on 11/22/2016, the water level (1077.8 feet from the in situ data) was approximately 2.4 m lower than the water level (1085.8 feet from the in situ data) on 12/02/2019, when ICESat-2 flew over the Lake Mead. In (<b>b</b>), the raw data points, signal photons from ATL03 standard results, and our detected signal photons are demonstrated in along-track distance, and the detected signal photons correspond to the green line in (<b>a</b>), and the green line in the inset of (<b>c</b>). Some lidar points obtained on 12/02/2019 on the underwater bottom in (<b>b</b>) correspond to land surfaces in (<b>a</b>), because these locations were above the water surface on 11/22/2016, when the basemap image was captured. In (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>), the red circle corresponds to the location where Landsat-derived lake boundary in 2016 was matched with the ICESat-2-derived along-track surface profile. The red dashed line across (<b>a</b>) and (<b>b</b>) indicates the matching principle, i.e., the water/land boundary pixel (<b>a</b>) on the ICESat-2’s laser ground track corresponds to the ICESat-2’s points (<b>b</b>) on the underwater bottom; therefore, the corresponding ICESat-2’s points at this water/land boundary pixel will be selected to calculate the water level in 2016. In (<b>c</b>), blue points and green points represent the lake boundaries and the detected surface profiles from lidar signal photons, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Percentages of lake boundaries covered by shrubs/scrubs (from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2016 product) between 1984 and 2018. (<b>b</b>) Spatial distribution of shrubs/scrubs around Lake Mead in 1998 with the maximum shrubs/scrubs percentage between 1984 and 2018. Relationships and regression results between lake areas extracted from Landsat data and water levels extracted from ICESat-2 data during 1984–2018 (<b>c</b>) and 2007–2018 (<b>d</b>). In sub-figure (<b>a</b>), percentages of shrubs/scrubs along the shoreline of Lake Mead during 2007–2018 are less than 10% (i.e., gray dotted line), and the data of this period were selected to fit the level/area relationship in (<b>d</b>). In sub-figure (<b>b</b>), green areas correspond to shrubs/scrubs, blue areas correspond to the water surface, and gray areas correspond to the background.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Estimations and validations of yearly Lake Mead’s water levels from ICESat-2 data and in situ data from 1984 to 2018. (<b>a</b>) Yearly water levels derived from our results and in situ data. (<b>b</b>) Relationship between the yearly water levels derived from our results and in situ data. In sub-figure (<b>b</b>), the correlation between results from our method and the in situ measurements is 1.00 with an RMSE (Root-mean-square error) of 1.06 m, and the blue dotted line is the 1:1 line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Yearly lake boundaries with the maximum, minimum, and median areas between 1984 and 2018. According to our calculations, the maximum lake area, median lake area, and minimum lake area are 541.27 km<sup>2</sup> in 1998; 468.90 km<sup>2</sup> in 1991; and 309.84 km<sup>2</sup> in 2016, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison between the yearly Lake Mead’s water volumes from our results and the in situ measurements. (<b>a</b>) Yearly water volumes derived from our results and in situ data. (<b>b</b>) Comparison between the yearly water volumes derived from our results and in situ data. The correlation coefficient between our results and the in situ data is 1.00 with an RMSE of 0.36 km<sup>3</sup>. In sub-figure (<b>b</b>), the blue dotted line is the 1:1 line. Note that the unit of water volumes from the in situ measurements were converted from acre feet to cubic kilometers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison between the interannual variations in Lake Mead’s water volumes obtained from our results and the in situ measurements. (<b>a</b>) Interannual variations in water volumes derived from our results and in situ data. (<b>b</b>) Comparison between the interannual variations in water volumes derived from our results and in situ data. The correlation coefficient between two results is 0.94 with an RMSE of 0.37 km<sup>3</sup>. In sub-figure (<b>b</b>), the blue dotted line is the 1:1 line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparisons between in situ data, our results, and the Hydroweb database of water levels (<b>a</b>) and water volumes (<b>b</b>) at an annual scale for Lake Mead.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 7221 KiB  
Article
Water Conservation Potential of Self-Funded Foam-Based Flexible Surface-Mounted Floatovoltaics
by Koami Soulemane Hayibo, Pierce Mayville, Ravneet Kaur Kailey and Joshua M. Pearce
Energies 2020, 13(23), 6285; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236285 - 28 Nov 2020
Cited by 16 | Viewed by 6813
Abstract
A potential solution to the coupled water–energy–food challenges in land use is the concept of floating photovoltaics or floatovoltaics (FPV). In this study, a new approach to FPV is investigated using a flexible crystalline silicon-based photovoltaic (PV) module backed with foam, which is [...] Read more.
A potential solution to the coupled water–energy–food challenges in land use is the concept of floating photovoltaics or floatovoltaics (FPV). In this study, a new approach to FPV is investigated using a flexible crystalline silicon-based photovoltaic (PV) module backed with foam, which is less expensive than conventional pontoon-based FPV. This novel form of FPV is tested experimentally for operating temperature and performance and is analyzed for water-savings using an evaporation calculation adapted from the Penman–Monteith model. The results show that the foam-backed FPV had a lower operating temperature than conventional pontoon-based FPV, and thus a 3.5% higher energy output per unit power. Therefore, foam-based FPV provides a potentially profitable means of reducing water evaporation in the world’s at-risk bodies of fresh water. The case study of Lake Mead found that if 10% of the lake was covered with foam-backed FPV, there would be enough water conserved and electricity generated to service Las Vegas and Reno combined. At 50% coverage, the foam-backed FPV would provide over 127 TWh of clean solar electricity and 633.22 million m3 of water savings, which would provide enough electricity to retire 11% of the polluting coal-fired plants in the U.S. and provide water for over five million Americans, annually. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Energy Technology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Cut away view showing adhesive underneath foam attached to c-Si-based flexible photovoltaic (PV) module: (<b>a</b>) top view and (<b>b</b>) orthogonal view.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Closeup of floating photovoltaic/floatovoltaic (FPV) corner after deployment, showing water coverage from a modest wave (top left).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Wiring diagram for NanoDAQ monitoring board.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Water evaporation simulation results for Lake Mead: (<b>a</b>) simulated evaporation values (mm) for each month of the year 2018; (<b>b</b>) simulated evaporation values (mm) for each day of the year 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Multilinear regression results of the FPV panels’ effective operating temperature (T<sub>eo</sub>): (<b>a</b>) simulated FPV temperature plotted against the measured temperature for 15 June 2020; (<b>b</b>) residuals’ distribution plotted against the simulated FPV temperature for 15 June 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Measured FPV operating temperature compared to simulated FPV operating temperature for 15 June 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Operation temperature of an FPV installed on the surface of Lake Mead. (<b>+</b>) Operating temperature using the proposed model in this study for foam-based FPV. (<b>o</b>) Operating temperature using a ponton-based tilted FPV described by Kamuyu’s model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Monthly energy yield of a simulated foam-based FPV system installed on 10% of Lake Mead’s surface using historical data from 2018. Comparison between the proposed model (c-Si flexible foam-backed FPV) and a tilted FPV based on Kamuyu’s model (c-Si aluminum mount FPV).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Daily energy production results using the temperature model proposed in this study for 10% coverage of Lake Mead’s surface.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Simulated annual energy production (TWh) and water saving capability (millions of m<sup>3</sup>) of a foam-based solar FPV system installed on Lake Mead’s surface using historical temperature data and the proposed model depending on the percentage coverage of the lake’s surface.</p>
Full article ">
28 pages, 3122 KiB  
Article
Future Changes in Water Supply and Demand for Las Vegas Valley: A System Dynamic Approach based on CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate Projections
by Neekita Joshi, Kazi Tamaddun, Ranjan Parajuli, Ajay Kalra, Pankaj Maheshwari, Lorenzo Mastino and Marco Velotta
Hydrology 2020, 7(1), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology7010016 - 10 Mar 2020
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 5819
Abstract
The study investigated the impact on water supply and demand as an effect of climate change and population growth in the Las Vegas Valley (LVV) as a part of the Thriving Earth Exchange Program. The analyses evaluated future supply and demand scenarios utilizing [...] Read more.
The study investigated the impact on water supply and demand as an effect of climate change and population growth in the Las Vegas Valley (LVV) as a part of the Thriving Earth Exchange Program. The analyses evaluated future supply and demand scenarios utilizing a system dynamics model based on the climate and hydrological projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 3 and 5 (CMIP3 and CMIP5, respectively) using the simulation period expanding from 1989 to 2049. The main source of water supply in LVV is the water storage in Lake Mead, which is directly related to Lake Mead elevation. In order to assess the future water demand, the elevation of Lake Mead was evaluated under several water availability scenarios. Fifty-nine out of the 97 (27 out of the 48) projections from CMIP5 (CMIP3) indicated that the future mean elevation of Lake Mead is likely to be lower than the historical mean. Demand forecasts showed that the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s conservation goal for 2035 can be significantly met under prevalent conservation practices. Findings from this study can be useful for water managers and resource planners to predict future water budget and to make effective decisions in advance to attain sustainable practices and conservation goals. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location map of the study area—the Las Vegas Valley.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>A simplified conceptual diagram of the system dynamics model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Comparison between the observed and simulated water demand for Las Vegas Valley (LVV) from 1989 to 2012. (<b>b</b>) Plot showing linear relationship between observed and simulated water demand in the LVV from 1989 to 2012. (<b>c</b>) Comparison between the observed and simulated Lake Mead levels for the historical period from 1989 to 2012. (<b>d</b>) Plot showing correlation between the observed and simulated Lake Mead level for the historical period from 1989 to 2012. (<b>e</b>) Plot showing the historical and simulated future water demand in monthly time series.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Boxplots of future simulated elevations of Lake Mead from 2013 to 2049 for the various CMIP3 climate models under emission scenarios (<b>a</b>) A1b, (<b>b</b>) A2, and (<b>c</b>) B1. The solid lines represent the historical mean elevation of Lake Mead.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Boxplots of future simulated elevations of Lake Mead from 2013 to 2049 for the various CMIP5 climate models under emission scenarios (<b>a</b>) RCP 2.6, (<b>b</b>) RCP 4.5, (<b>c</b>) RCP 6.0, and (<b>d</b>) RCP 8.5. The solid lines represent the historical mean elevation of Lake Mead.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 27763 KiB  
Article
Volumetric Analysis of Reservoirs in Drought-Prone Areas Using Remote Sensing Products
by Tejas Bhagwat, Igor Klein, Juliane Huth and Patrick Leinenkugel
Remote Sens. 2019, 11(17), 1974; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11171974 - 22 Aug 2019
Cited by 19 | Viewed by 5475
Abstract
Globally, the number of dams increased dramatically during the 20th century. As a result, monitoring water levels and storage volume of dam-reservoirs has become essential in order to understand water resource availability amid changing climate and drought patterns. Recent advancements in remote sensing [...] Read more.
Globally, the number of dams increased dramatically during the 20th century. As a result, monitoring water levels and storage volume of dam-reservoirs has become essential in order to understand water resource availability amid changing climate and drought patterns. Recent advancements in remote sensing data show great potential for studies pertaining to long-term monitoring of reservoir water volume variations. In this study, we used freely available remote sensing products to assess volume variations for Lake Mead, Lake Powell and reservoirs in California between 1984 and 2015. Additionally, we provided insights on reservoir water volume fluctuations and hydrological drought patterns in the region. We based our volumetric estimations on the area–elevation hypsometry relationship, by combining water areas from the Global Surface Water (GSW) monthly water history (MWH) product with corresponding water surface median elevation values from three different digital elevation models (DEM) into a regression analysis. Using Lake Mead and Lake Powell as our validation reservoirs, we calculated a volumetric time series for the GSWMWH–DEMmedian elevation combinations that showed a strong linear ‘area (WA) – elevation (WH)’ (R2 > 0.75) hypsometry. Based on ‘WA-WH’ linearity and correlation analysis between the estimated and in situ volumetric time series, the methodology was expanded to reservoirs in California. Our volumetric results detected four distinct periods of water volume declines: 1987–1992, 2000–2004, 2007–2009 and 2012–2015 for Lake Mead, Lake Powell and in 40 reservoirs in California. We also used multiscalar Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) for San Joaquin drainage in California to assess regional links between the drought indicators and reservoir volume fluctuations. We found highest correlations between reservoir volume variations and the SPEI at medium time scales (12–18–24–36 months). Our work demonstrates the potential of processed, open source remote sensing products for reservoir water volume variations and provides insights on usability of these variations in hydrological drought monitoring. Furthermore, the spatial coverage and long-term temporal availability of our data presents an opportunity to transfer these methods for volumetric analyses on a global scale. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Lake Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Overview of Study Areas. (<b>a</b>) Water extent variations for validation reservoirs: Lake Mead (Top) and Lake Powell (Bottom) between 1984–2015; (<b>b</b>) Distribution of reservoirs in California across different climate divisions (<span class="html-italic">Source: Global Reservoirs and Dam Database</span>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Workflow: Adaptation of Area–elevation hypsometric relationship to estimate volume variations in drought prone Californian reservoirs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Reservoir cross-section depicting hypsometric relationship between surface water area extent and elevation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Linear hypsometric relationship between GSW-MWH areas and median DEM values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Lake Mead volume variations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Lake Powell volume variations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Lake Mead: Relationship between estimated and in situ volume variations. The vertical lines with darker color-codes indicate the lower standard deviation of the residuals from the regression line (lower RMSE). The lighter color-codes indicate higher deviations of estimated values from the in situ values and higher RMSE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Lake Powell: Relationship between DEM estimated and in situ volume variations. The vertical lines with darker color-codes indicate the lower standard deviation of the residuals from the regression line (lower RMSE). The lighter color-codes indicate higher deviations of estimated values from the in situ values and higher RMSE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Median water volume variations in top 40 reservoirs in California between 1984–2015 based on TanDEM-X-GSW regression analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Volume variation patterns: (<b>a</b>) Lake Oroville, (<b>b</b>) Lake McClure (<b>c</b>) H.V. Eastman Lake (<b>d</b>) Hensley Lake.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index on multiple time scales for San Joaquin Drainage climate division.</p>
Full article ">
5264 KiB  
Article
Water Budget Analysis within the Surrounding of Prominent Lakes and Reservoirs from Multi-Sensor Earth Observation Data and Hydrological Models: Case Studies of the Aral Sea and Lake Mead
by Alka Singh, Florian Seitz, Annette Eicker and Andreas Güntner
Remote Sens. 2016, 8(11), 953; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8110953 - 16 Nov 2016
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 7086
Abstract
The hydrological budget of a region is determined based on the horizontal and vertical water fluxes acting in both inward and outward directions. These integrated water fluxes vary, altering the total water storage and consequently the gravitational force of the region. The time-dependent [...] Read more.
The hydrological budget of a region is determined based on the horizontal and vertical water fluxes acting in both inward and outward directions. These integrated water fluxes vary, altering the total water storage and consequently the gravitational force of the region. The time-dependent gravitational field can be observed through the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) gravimetric satellite mission, provided that the mass variation is above the sensitivity of GRACE. This study evaluates mass changes in prominent reservoir regions through three independent approaches viz. fluxes, storages, and gravity, by combining remote sensing products, in-situ data and hydrological model outputs using WaterGAP Global Hydrological Model (WGHM) and Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS). The results show that the dynamics revealed by the GRACE signal can be better explored by a hybrid method, which combines remote sensing-based reservoir volume estimates with hydrological model outputs, than by exclusive model-based storage estimates. For the given arid/semi-arid regions, GLDAS based storage estimations perform better than WGHM. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Climate Change and Water Resources)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study box for the Lake Mead region and the Aral Sea region. River discharge: 1 = Colorado River inflow, 2 = Virgin River, 3 = Muddy River, 4 = Colorado River outflow, 5 = Syr Darya and 6 = Amu Darya.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Runoff: (<b>left</b>) Lake Mead and (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Precipitation: (<b>left</b>) The Lake Mead region and (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>ET: (<b>left</b>) The Lake Mead region and (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean reduced reservoir volume: (<b>left</b>) Lake Mead and (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Mean reduced Snow Water Equivalent: (<b>left</b>) The Lake Mead region and (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Mean reduced Soil Moisture: (<b>left</b>) The Lake Mead region and (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)-derived trend of the equivalent water height (meter/year) between 2003 and 2014. The size of the study area was chosen according to the mascon grid. (<b>left</b>) The Lake Mead region is 3° × 3° where Lake Mead is located at the center. (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea region is 4° × 6°covering the entire lake and two mascon grid cells.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>GRACE-derived mass variations with the uncertainty range of the measurements as provided by GRACE Tellus: (<b>left</b>) The Lake Mead region, (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea region</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Lake Mead: (<b>top</b>) Net surface runoff of the lake: inflow–outflow and (<b>bottom</b>) Reservoir volume variation compared with the hydrological fluxes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Lake Mead region (3° × 3°) mass variations observed by net fluxes, net storages, and GRACE: (<b>top</b>) Monthly mass variations and (<b>bottom</b>) Non-seasonal water storage variability. All time series in the lower panel have been reduced for their mean (i.e., mean value over the study period). The large numbers at the top of the figure are the periods of different mass evolution, discussed in <a href="#sec4dot2-remotesensing-08-00953" class="html-sec">Section 4.2</a>. Here symbol δ indicates derivative and <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <mo>∫</mo> </mrow> </semantics> </math> indicates integral of the signal.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Aral Sea region (4° × 6°) mass variations observed by net flux, net storages, and GRACE: (<b>top</b>) Monthly mass variations and (<b>bottom</b>) Non-seasonal water storage variability. All time series in the lower panel have been reduced for their mean (i.e., mean value over the study period). The large numbers at the top of the figure are the periods of different mass evolution, discussed in <a href="#sec4dot3-remotesensing-08-00953" class="html-sec">Section 4.3</a>. Here symbol δ indicates derivative and <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <mo>∫</mo> </mrow> </semantics> </math> indicates integral of the signal.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Total water storage (TWS) observed by GRACE compared with the best estimates and the reservoir volume: (<b>left</b>) The Lake Mead region and (<b>right</b>) The Aral Sea region.</p>
Full article ">
4100 KiB  
Article
Remote Sensing of Storage Fluctuations of Poorly Gauged Reservoirs and State Space Model (SSM)-Based Estimation
by Alka Singh, Ujjwal Kumar and Florian Seitz
Remote Sens. 2015, 7(12), 17113-17134; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71215872 - 18 Dec 2015
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 7090 | Correction
Abstract
To reduce hydrological uncertainties in the regular monitoring of poorly gauged lakes and reservoirs, multi-dimensional remote sensing data have emerged as an excellent alternative. In this paper, we propose three methods to delineate the volume of such equipotential water bodies through a combination [...] Read more.
To reduce hydrological uncertainties in the regular monitoring of poorly gauged lakes and reservoirs, multi-dimensional remote sensing data have emerged as an excellent alternative. In this paper, we propose three methods to delineate the volume of such equipotential water bodies through a combination of altimetry (1D), Landsat (2D) and bathymetry (2D) data, namely an altimetry-bathymetry-volume method (ABV), a Landsat-bathymetry-volume method (LBV) and an altimetry-Landsat-volume-variation method (ALVV). The first two data products are further merged by a Kalman-filter-based state space model (SSM) to obtain a combined estimate (CSSME) time series and near future prediction. To validate our methods, we tested them on the well-measured Lake Mead and further applied them on the poorly gauged Aral Sea, which has inaccurate bathymetry and very limited ground observation data. We updated the lake bathymetry of the Aral Sea, which was more than half a century old. The resultant remote sensing products have a very good long-term agreement among each other. The Lake Mead volume estimations are very highly coherent with the ground observations for all cases (R2 > 0.96 and NRMSE < 2.1%), except for the forecast (R2 = 0.75 and NRMSE = 3.7%). Due to lack of in situ data for the Aral Sea, the estimated volumes are compared, and the entire Aral Sea LBV and ABV have R2 = 0.91 and NRMSE = 5.5%, and the forecast compared to CSSME has R2 = 0.60 and NRMSE = 2.4%. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Methodology of the paper.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Receding shorelines observed from Landsat. <b>Left</b>: the Aral Sea, and <b>right</b>: Lake Mead.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Algorithm of water level estimation in the LBV method: rectangular boxes indicate processes, trapezoids indicate the manual operation and multiple document boxes indicate the time series of the images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Contour of reservoirs; * starting point of boundary pixel collection; the red rectangle is the subsection of the reservoirs for selected area boundary pixels and the large magenta dashed arrow shows the mouth of the river.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>Left</b>) Boundary pixels of the East Aral Sea obtained from Landsat mask at different time points: blue line is the entire boundary vector (EBV), red portions are pixels from the selected region boundary (SRB); (<b>Right</b>) 50-pixel moving standard deviation of EBV.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Surface area and water height relation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>Left</b>) Water height observed by altimetry, Landsat: entire boundary vector (EBV), selected region boundary (SEB) and <span class="html-italic">in situ</span>; (<b>Right</b>) error bar for Landsat-SRB water height.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Volumetric variation computed by ABV, LBV and ALVV methods for the three sub-parts of the Aral Sea and for Lake Mead.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Missing data modification by SSM for the Lake Mead. (<b>Top left</b>) Landsat-bathymetry-volume (LBV) estimation and data gap filled by SSM; (<b>Bottom left</b>) difference between LBV-SSM estimates and <span class="html-italic">in situ</span> observations; (<b>Top right</b>) altimetry-bathymetry-volume (ABV) estimation and data gap filled by SSM; (<b>Bottom right</b>) difference between ABV-SSM estimates and <span class="html-italic">in situ</span> observations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Lake Mead SSM analysis. (<b>Top left</b>) The combined SSM estimate (CSSME) (magenta line) and the forecast (green line) for 2013 and 2014; (<b>Bottom left</b>) difference between CSSME and in situ observations; (<b>Top right</b>) estimated seasonal component; (<b>Bottom right</b>) estimated trend component. The dashed cyan lines indicate the upper and lower 95% confidence limit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Aral Sea absolute volume (ABV and LBV), Combined SSM estimates, and SSM forecast.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>East Aral Sea. (<b>Left</b>) subset of the 1960s Aral Sea bathymetry; (<b>Right</b>) updated bathymetry using remote sensing data.</p>
Full article ">
1193 KiB  
Article
Water Banks: Using Managed Aquifer Recharge to Meet Water Policy Objectives
by Sharon B. Megdal, Peter Dillon and Kenneth Seasholes
Water 2014, 6(6), 1500-1514; https://doi.org/10.3390/w6061500 - 28 May 2014
Cited by 62 | Viewed by 16114
Abstract
Innovation born of necessity to secure water for the U.S. state of Arizona has yielded a model of water banking that serves as an international prototype for effective use of aquifers for drought and emergency supplies. If understood and adapted to local hydrogeological [...] Read more.
Innovation born of necessity to secure water for the U.S. state of Arizona has yielded a model of water banking that serves as an international prototype for effective use of aquifers for drought and emergency supplies. If understood and adapted to local hydrogeological and water supply and demand conditions, this could provide a highly effective solution for water security elsewhere. Arizona is a semi-arid state in the southwestern United States that has growing water demands, significant groundwater overdraft, and surface water supplies with diminishing reliability. In response, Arizona has developed an institutional and regulatory framework that has allowed large-scale implementation of managed aquifer recharge in the state’s deep alluvial groundwater basins. The most ambitious recharge activities involve the storage of Colorado River water that is delivered through the Central Arizona Project (CAP). The CAP system delivers more than 1850 million cubic meters (MCM) per year to Arizona’s two largest metropolitan areas, Phoenix and Tucson, along with agricultural users and sovereign Native American Nations, but the CAP supply has junior priority and is subject to reduction during declared shortages on the Colorado River. In the mid-1980s the State of Arizona established a framework for water storage and recovery; and in 1996 the Arizona Water Banking Authority was created to mitigate the impacts of Colorado River shortages; to create water management benefits; and to allow interstate storage. The Banking Authority has stored more than 4718 MCM of CAP water; including more than 740 MCM for the neighboring state of Nevada. The Nevada storage was made possible through a series of interrelated agreements involving regional water agencies and the federal government. The stored water will be recovered within Arizona; allowing Nevada to divert an equal amount of Colorado River water from Lake Mead; which is upstream of CAP’s point of diversion. This paper describes water banking in Arizona from a policy perspective and identifies reasons for its implementation. It goes on to explore conditions under which water banking could successfully be applied to other parts of the world, specifically including Australia. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Policy and Economics of Managed Aquifer Recharge and Water Banking)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Map of Arizona showing the Active Management Areas (AMAs) and county boundaries. Source: Water Resources Research Center, The University of Arizona [<a href="#B1-water-06-01500" class="html-bibr">1</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Tonopah Desert Recharge Project. Source: Central Arizona Project [<a href="#B11-water-06-01500" class="html-bibr">11</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>CAP water deliveries by type over time. Source: Central Arizona Project [<a href="#B16-water-06-01500" class="html-bibr">16</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) In Phoenix the extensive fresh aquifer acts as a means to transfer credit from water recharged at one place to recovery at another, subject to water quality constraints; (<b>b</b>) Where aquifers are brackish or not highly transmissive, water needs to be recovered close to the point of recharge, and if this water is of suitable quality for transmission through the existing distribution system, this can create a credit that is transferable to other points on the system. Source: Dillon <span class="html-italic">et al.</span> [<a href="#B25-water-06-01500" class="html-bibr">25</a>].</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop