No abstract

Streams and rivers can substantially modify organic carbon (OC) inputs from terrestrial landscapes, and much of this processing is the result of microbial respiration. While carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major end‐product of ecosystem respiration, methane (CH4) is also present in many fluvial environments even though methanogenesis typically requires anoxic conditions that may be scarce in these systems. Given recent recognition of the pervasiveness of this greenhouse gas in streams and rivers, we synthesized existing research and data to identify patterns and drivers of CH4, knowledge gaps, and research opportunities. This included examining the history of lotic CH4 research, creating a database of concentrations and fluxes (MethDB) to generate a global‐scale estimate of fluvial CH4 efflux, and developing a conceptual framework and using this framework to consider how human activities may modify fluvial CH4 dynamics. Current understanding of CH4 in streams and rivers has been strongly influenced by goals of understanding OC processing and quantifying the contribution of CH4 to ecosystem C fluxes. Less effort has been directed towards investigating processes that dictate in situ CH4 production and loss. CH4 makes a meager contribution to watershed or landscape C budgets, but streams and rivers are often significant CH4 sources to the atmosphere across these same spatial extents. Most fluvial systems are supersaturated with CH4 and we estimate an annual global emission of 26.8 Tg CH4, equivalent to ~15‐40% of wetland and lake effluxes, respectively. Less clear is the role of CH4 oxidation, methanogenesis, and total anaerobic respiration to whole ecosystem production and respiration. Controls on CH4 generation and persistence can be viewed in terms of proximate controls that influence methanogenesis (organic matter, temperature, alternative electron acceptors, nutrients) and distal geomorphic and hydrologic drivers. Multiple controls combined with its extreme redox status and low solubility result in high spatial and temporal variance of CH4 in fluvial environments, which presents a substantial challenge for understanding its larger‐scale dynamics. Further understanding of CH4 production and consumption, anaerobic metabolism, and ecosystem energetics in streams and rivers can be achieved through more directed studies and comparison with knowledge from terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic disciplines.

Growing awareness of ongoing and rapid changes in Earth's carbon cycle is motivating a new era of research aimed at improving our understanding of ecosystems as both responders to, and drivers of larger-scale biogeochemical dynamics. In the case of streams and rivers, this has often taken the form of elucidating their role as processors of organic carbon (OC), a capacity that far exceeds their meager size and significantly influences the export of continental OC to marine environments (Cole et al. 2007, Battin et al. 2009, Aufdenkampe et al. 2011). Amplified OC processing has been inferred from observations of smaller export loads relative to inputs, rates of ecosystem respiration that exceed gross primary production, and/or occurrence of supersaturated concentrations of the products of OC decomposition, namely, carbon dioxide (CO 2) and methane (CH 4).

The rapid growth of data in water resources has created new opportunities to accelerate knowledge discovery with the use of advanced deep learning tools. Hybrid models that integrate theory with state‐of‐the art empirical techniques have the potential to improve predictions while remaining true to physical laws. This paper evaluates the Process‐Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) hybrid modeling framework with a use‐case of predicting depth‐specific lake water temperatures. The PGDL model has three primary components: a deep learning model with temporal awareness (long short‐term memory recurrence), theory‐based feedback (model penalties for violating conversation of energy), and model pretraining to initialize the network with synthetic data (water temperature predictions from a process‐based model). In situ water temperatures were used to train the PGDL model, a deep learning (DL) model, and a process‐based (PB) model. Model performance was evaluated in various conditions, including when training data were sparse and when predictions were made outside of the range in the training data set. The PGDL model performance (as measured by root‐mean‐square error (RMSE)) was superior to DL and PB for two detailed study lakes, but only when pretraining data included greater variability than the training period. The PGDL model also performed well when extended to 68 lakes, with a median RMSE of 1.65 °C during the test period (DL: 1.78 °C, PB: 2.03 °C; in a small number of lakes PB or DL models were more accurate). This case‐study demonstrates that integrating scientific knowledge into deep learning tools shows promise for improving predictions of many important environmental variables.

Although there are considerable site-based data for individual or groups of ecosystems, these datasets are widely scattered, have different data formats and conventions, and often have limited accessibility. At the broader scale, national datasets exist for a large number of geospatial features of land, water, and air that are needed to fully understand variation among these ecosystems. However, such datasets originate from different sources and have different spatial and temporal resolutions. By taking an open-science perspective and by combining site-based ecosystem datasets and national geospatial datasets, science gains the ability to ask important research questions related to grand environmental challenges that operate at broad scales. Documentation of such complicated database integration efforts, through peer-reviewed papers, is recommended to foster reproducibility and future use of the integrated database. Here, we describe the major steps, challenges, and considerations in building an integrated database of lake ecosystems, called LAGOS (LAke multi-scaled GeOSpatial and temporal database), that was developed at the sub-continental study extent of 17 US states (1,800,000 km2). LAGOS includes two modules: LAGOSGEO, with geospatial data on every lake with surface area larger than 4 ha in the study extent (~50,000 lakes), including climate, atmospheric deposition, land use/cover, hydrology, geology, and topography measured across a range of spatial and temporal extents; and LAGOSLIMNO, with lake water quality data compiled from ~100 individual datasets for a subset of lakes in the study extent (~10,000 lakes). Procedures for the integration of datasets included: creating a flexible database design; authoring and integrating metadata; documenting data provenance; quantifying spatial measures of geographic data; quality-controlling integrated and derived data; and extensively documenting the database. Our procedures make a large, complex, and integrated database reproducible and extensible, allowing users to ask new research questions with the existing database or through the addition of new data. The largest challenge of this task was the heterogeneity of the data, formats, and metadata. Many steps of data integration need manual input from experts in diverse fields, requiring close collaboration.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13742-015-0067-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.