cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011887
title: Physicochemical variables of all ponds studied, and of the monimolimnion brines of the three meromictically stratified ponds

description: <b>Table 1.</b> Physicochemical variables of all ponds studied, and of the monimolimnion brines of the three meromictically stratified ponds. <strong>Abstract</strong> We compared planktonic primary and secondary production across twenty meltwater ponds on the surface of the McMurdo Ice Shelf in January 2007, including some ponds with basal brines created by meromictic stratification. Primary production ranged from 1.07 to 65.72 mgC m<sup>−3</sup> h<sup>−1</sup> in surface waters. In stratified ponds primary production was always more than ten times higher in basal brines than in the corresponding mixolimnion. Regression tree analysis (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.80) identified inorganic nitrogen (as {\mathrm{NH}}_{4}^{+}) as the main factor limiting planktonic primary production. However, there was also evidence of inorganic carbon co-limitation of photosynthesis in some of the more oligotrophic waters. Neither C nor N limited carbon fixation at [NH<sub>4</sub>–N] &gt; 50 mg m<sup>−3</sup>, with photoinhibition the factor most likely limiting photosynthesis under such conditions. Primary production was the only factor significantly correlated to bacterial production and the relationship (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.56) was non-linear. Nitrogen limitation and tight coupling of planktonic primary and bacterial production is surprising in these ponds, as all have large pools of dissolved organic carbon (1.2–260 g m<sup>−3</sup>) and organic nitrogen (all &gt;130 mg m<sup>−3</sup>). The dissolved pools of organic carbon and nitrogen appear to be recalcitrant and bacterial production to be constrained by limited release of labile organics from phytoplankton.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011890
title: Multiple linear regression statistics describing dependence of phytoplankton production and bacterial production rates on predictor variables

description: <b>Table 4.</b> Multiple linear regression statistics describing dependence of phytoplankton production and bacterial production rates on predictor variables. <strong>Abstract</strong> We compared planktonic primary and secondary production across twenty meltwater ponds on the surface of the McMurdo Ice Shelf in January 2007, including some ponds with basal brines created by meromictic stratification. Primary production ranged from 1.07 to 65.72 mgC m<sup>−3</sup> h<sup>−1</sup> in surface waters. In stratified ponds primary production was always more than ten times higher in basal brines than in the corresponding mixolimnion. Regression tree analysis (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.80) identified inorganic nitrogen (as {\mathrm{NH}}_{4}^{+}) as the main factor limiting planktonic primary production. However, there was also evidence of inorganic carbon co-limitation of photosynthesis in some of the more oligotrophic waters. Neither C nor N limited carbon fixation at [NH<sub>4</sub>–N] &gt; 50 mg m<sup>−3</sup>, with photoinhibition the factor most likely limiting photosynthesis under such conditions. Primary production was the only factor significantly correlated to bacterial production and the relationship (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.56) was non-linear. Nitrogen limitation and tight coupling of planktonic primary and bacterial production is surprising in these ponds, as all have large pools of dissolved organic carbon (1.2–260 g m<sup>−3</sup>) and organic nitrogen (all &gt;130 mg m<sup>−3</sup>). The dissolved pools of organic carbon and nitrogen appear to be recalcitrant and bacterial production to be constrained by limited release of labile organics from phytoplankton.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011890.v1
title: Multiple linear regression statistics describing dependence of phytoplankton production and bacterial production rates on predictor variables

description: <b>Table 4.</b> Multiple linear regression statistics describing dependence of phytoplankton production and bacterial production rates on predictor variables. <strong>Abstract</strong> We compared planktonic primary and secondary production across twenty meltwater ponds on the surface of the McMurdo Ice Shelf in January 2007, including some ponds with basal brines created by meromictic stratification. Primary production ranged from 1.07 to 65.72 mgC m<sup>−3</sup> h<sup>−1</sup> in surface waters. In stratified ponds primary production was always more than ten times higher in basal brines than in the corresponding mixolimnion. Regression tree analysis (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.80) identified inorganic nitrogen (as {\mathrm{NH}}_{4}^{+}) as the main factor limiting planktonic primary production. However, there was also evidence of inorganic carbon co-limitation of photosynthesis in some of the more oligotrophic waters. Neither C nor N limited carbon fixation at [NH<sub>4</sub>–N] &gt; 50 mg m<sup>−3</sup>, with photoinhibition the factor most likely limiting photosynthesis under such conditions. Primary production was the only factor significantly correlated to bacterial production and the relationship (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.56) was non-linear. Nitrogen limitation and tight coupling of planktonic primary and bacterial production is surprising in these ponds, as all have large pools of dissolved organic carbon (1.2–260 g m<sup>−3</sup>) and organic nitrogen (all &gt;130 mg m<sup>−3</sup>). The dissolved pools of organic carbon and nitrogen appear to be recalcitrant and bacterial production to be constrained by limited release of labile organics from phytoplankton.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011891.v1
title: Regression tree threshold values, uncertainty estimates, and <em>P</em>-values for phytoplankton production and bacterial production

description: <b>Table 5.</b> Regression tree threshold values, uncertainty estimates, and <em>P</em>-values for phytoplankton production and bacterial production. <strong>Abstract</strong> We compared planktonic primary and secondary production across twenty meltwater ponds on the surface of the McMurdo Ice Shelf in January 2007, including some ponds with basal brines created by meromictic stratification. Primary production ranged from 1.07 to 65.72 mgC m<sup>−3</sup> h<sup>−1</sup> in surface waters. In stratified ponds primary production was always more than ten times higher in basal brines than in the corresponding mixolimnion. Regression tree analysis (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.80) identified inorganic nitrogen (as {\mathrm{NH}}_{4}^{+}) as the main factor limiting planktonic primary production. However, there was also evidence of inorganic carbon co-limitation of photosynthesis in some of the more oligotrophic waters. Neither C nor N limited carbon fixation at [NH<sub>4</sub>–N] &gt; 50 mg m<sup>−3</sup>, with photoinhibition the factor most likely limiting photosynthesis under such conditions. Primary production was the only factor significantly correlated to bacterial production and the relationship (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.56) was non-linear. Nitrogen limitation and tight coupling of planktonic primary and bacterial production is surprising in these ponds, as all have large pools of dissolved organic carbon (1.2–260 g m<sup>−3</sup>) and organic nitrogen (all &gt;130 mg m<sup>−3</sup>). The dissolved pools of organic carbon and nitrogen appear to be recalcitrant and bacterial production to be constrained by limited release of labile organics from phytoplankton.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011887.v1
title: Physicochemical variables of all ponds studied, and of the monimolimnion brines of the three meromictically stratified ponds

description: <b>Table 1.</b> Physicochemical variables of all ponds studied, and of the monimolimnion brines of the three meromictically stratified ponds. <strong>Abstract</strong> We compared planktonic primary and secondary production across twenty meltwater ponds on the surface of the McMurdo Ice Shelf in January 2007, including some ponds with basal brines created by meromictic stratification. Primary production ranged from 1.07 to 65.72 mgC m<sup>−3</sup> h<sup>−1</sup> in surface waters. In stratified ponds primary production was always more than ten times higher in basal brines than in the corresponding mixolimnion. Regression tree analysis (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.80) identified inorganic nitrogen (as {\mathrm{NH}}_{4}^{+}) as the main factor limiting planktonic primary production. However, there was also evidence of inorganic carbon co-limitation of photosynthesis in some of the more oligotrophic waters. Neither C nor N limited carbon fixation at [NH<sub>4</sub>–N] &gt; 50 mg m<sup>−3</sup>, with photoinhibition the factor most likely limiting photosynthesis under such conditions. Primary production was the only factor significantly correlated to bacterial production and the relationship (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.56) was non-linear. Nitrogen limitation and tight coupling of planktonic primary and bacterial production is surprising in these ponds, as all have large pools of dissolved organic carbon (1.2–260 g m<sup>−3</sup>) and organic nitrogen (all &gt;130 mg m<sup>−3</sup>). The dissolved pools of organic carbon and nitrogen appear to be recalcitrant and bacterial production to be constrained by limited release of labile organics from phytoplankton.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011888.v1
title: Photosynthetic and bacterial production rates of 20 study ponds

description: <b>Table 2.</b> Photosynthetic and bacterial production rates of 20 study ponds. Mean values (<em>n</em> = 4) with SD in brackets. <strong>Abstract</strong> We compared planktonic primary and secondary production across twenty meltwater ponds on the surface of the McMurdo Ice Shelf in January 2007, including some ponds with basal brines created by meromictic stratification. Primary production ranged from 1.07 to 65.72 mgC m<sup>−3</sup> h<sup>−1</sup> in surface waters. In stratified ponds primary production was always more than ten times higher in basal brines than in the corresponding mixolimnion. Regression tree analysis (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.80) identified inorganic nitrogen (as {\mathrm{NH}}_{4}^{+}) as the main factor limiting planktonic primary production. However, there was also evidence of inorganic carbon co-limitation of photosynthesis in some of the more oligotrophic waters. Neither C nor N limited carbon fixation at [NH<sub>4</sub>–N] &gt; 50 mg m<sup>−3</sup>, with photoinhibition the factor most likely limiting photosynthesis under such conditions. Primary production was the only factor significantly correlated to bacterial production and the relationship (<em>r</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.56) was non-linear. Nitrogen limitation and tight coupling of planktonic primary and bacterial production is surprising in these ponds, as all have large pools of dissolved organic carbon (1.2–260 g m<sup>−3</sup>) and organic nitrogen (all &gt;130 mg m<sup>−3</sup>). The dissolved pools of organic carbon and nitrogen appear to be recalcitrant and bacterial production to be constrained by limited release of labile organics from phytoplankton.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011882
title: Summary of key differences among electricity mix scenarios

description: <b>Table 1.</b> Summary of key differences among electricity mix scenarios. <strong>Abstract</strong> Recent studies on the relationship between thermoelectric cooling and water resources have been made at coarse geographic resolution and do not adequately evaluate the localized water impacts on specific rivers and water bodies. We present the application of an integrated electricity generation–water resources planning model of the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint (ACF) and Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa (ACT) rivers based on the regional energy deployment system (ReEDS) and the water evaluation and planning (WEAP) system. A future scenario that includes a growing population and warmer, drier regional climate shows that benefits from a low-carbon, electricity fuel-mix could help maintain river temperatures below once-through coal-plants. These impacts are shown to be localized, as the cumulative impacts of different electric fuel-mix scenarios are muted in this relatively water-rich region, even in a warmer and drier future climate.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011882.v1
title: Summary of key differences among electricity mix scenarios

description: <b>Table 1.</b> Summary of key differences among electricity mix scenarios. <strong>Abstract</strong> Recent studies on the relationship between thermoelectric cooling and water resources have been made at coarse geographic resolution and do not adequately evaluate the localized water impacts on specific rivers and water bodies. We present the application of an integrated electricity generation–water resources planning model of the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint (ACF) and Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa (ACT) rivers based on the regional energy deployment system (ReEDS) and the water evaluation and planning (WEAP) system. A future scenario that includes a growing population and warmer, drier regional climate shows that benefits from a low-carbon, electricity fuel-mix could help maintain river temperatures below once-through coal-plants. These impacts are shown to be localized, as the cumulative impacts of different electric fuel-mix scenarios are muted in this relatively water-rich region, even in a warmer and drier future climate.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011869
title: Regional population, agricultural areas, and water use by sector for the ACF and ACT basins

description: <b>Table 3.</b> Regional population, agricultural areas, and water use by sector for the ACF and ACT basins. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) indoor per-capita rates are 473 l per day (LPD) (125 gallons per day (GPD)). <strong>Abstract</strong> Electric power generation often involves the use of water for power plant cooling and steam generation, which typically involves the release of cooling water to nearby rivers and lakes. The resulting thermal pollution may negatively impact the ecosystems of these water bodies. Water resource systems models enable the examination of the implications of alternative electric generation on regional water resources. This letter documents the development, calibration, and validation of a climate-driven water resource systems model of the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint, the Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa, and the Tombigbee River basins in the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in the southeastern US. The model represents different water users, including power plants, agricultural water users, and municipal users. The model takes into account local population, per-capita use estimates, and changes in population growth. The water resources planning model was calibrated and validated against the observed, managed flows through the river systems of the three basins. Flow calibration was performed on land cover, water capacity, and hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons; river water temperature calibration was performed on channel width and slope properties. Goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that under 1980–2010 levels of water use, the model robustly represents major features of monthly average streamflow and water temperatures. The application of this integrated electricity generation–water resources planning model can be used to explore alternative electric generation and water implications. The implementation of this model is explored in the companion paper of this focus issue (Yates <em>et al</em> 2013 <em>Environ. Res. Lett.</em> <strong>8</strong> 035042).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011870
title: Parameters used on the WEAP-SE model

description: <b>Table 4.</b> Parameters used on the WEAP-SE model. (Note: PFD—preferred flow direction (from 0.0, vertical to 1.0, horizontal); SSC—shallow soil capacity in mm; <em>K</em>—hydraulic conductivity (mm/month); SV—single value, not distributed by land class; RRF—runoff resistance factor—smaller values of RRF lead to greater component of surface runoff.) <strong>Abstract</strong> Electric power generation often involves the use of water for power plant cooling and steam generation, which typically involves the release of cooling water to nearby rivers and lakes. The resulting thermal pollution may negatively impact the ecosystems of these water bodies. Water resource systems models enable the examination of the implications of alternative electric generation on regional water resources. This letter documents the development, calibration, and validation of a climate-driven water resource systems model of the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint, the Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa, and the Tombigbee River basins in the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in the southeastern US. The model represents different water users, including power plants, agricultural water users, and municipal users. The model takes into account local population, per-capita use estimates, and changes in population growth. The water resources planning model was calibrated and validated against the observed, managed flows through the river systems of the three basins. Flow calibration was performed on land cover, water capacity, and hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons; river water temperature calibration was performed on channel width and slope properties. Goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that under 1980–2010 levels of water use, the model robustly represents major features of monthly average streamflow and water temperatures. The application of this integrated electricity generation–water resources planning model can be used to explore alternative electric generation and water implications. The implementation of this model is explored in the companion paper of this focus issue (Yates <em>et al</em> 2013 <em>Environ. Res. Lett.</em> <strong>8</strong> 035042).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011869.v1
title: Regional population, agricultural areas, and water use by sector for the ACF and ACT basins

description: <b>Table 3.</b> Regional population, agricultural areas, and water use by sector for the ACF and ACT basins. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) indoor per-capita rates are 473 l per day (LPD) (125 gallons per day (GPD)). <strong>Abstract</strong> Electric power generation often involves the use of water for power plant cooling and steam generation, which typically involves the release of cooling water to nearby rivers and lakes. The resulting thermal pollution may negatively impact the ecosystems of these water bodies. Water resource systems models enable the examination of the implications of alternative electric generation on regional water resources. This letter documents the development, calibration, and validation of a climate-driven water resource systems model of the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint, the Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa, and the Tombigbee River basins in the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in the southeastern US. The model represents different water users, including power plants, agricultural water users, and municipal users. The model takes into account local population, per-capita use estimates, and changes in population growth. The water resources planning model was calibrated and validated against the observed, managed flows through the river systems of the three basins. Flow calibration was performed on land cover, water capacity, and hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons; river water temperature calibration was performed on channel width and slope properties. Goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that under 1980–2010 levels of water use, the model robustly represents major features of monthly average streamflow and water temperatures. The application of this integrated electricity generation–water resources planning model can be used to explore alternative electric generation and water implications. The implementation of this model is explored in the companion paper of this focus issue (Yates <em>et al</em> 2013 <em>Environ. Res. Lett.</em> <strong>8</strong> 035042).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011870.v1
title: Parameters used on the WEAP-SE model

description: <b>Table 4.</b> Parameters used on the WEAP-SE model. (Note: PFD—preferred flow direction (from 0.0, vertical to 1.0, horizontal); SSC—shallow soil capacity in mm; <em>K</em>—hydraulic conductivity (mm/month); SV—single value, not distributed by land class; RRF—runoff resistance factor—smaller values of RRF lead to greater component of surface runoff.) <strong>Abstract</strong> Electric power generation often involves the use of water for power plant cooling and steam generation, which typically involves the release of cooling water to nearby rivers and lakes. The resulting thermal pollution may negatively impact the ecosystems of these water bodies. Water resource systems models enable the examination of the implications of alternative electric generation on regional water resources. This letter documents the development, calibration, and validation of a climate-driven water resource systems model of the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint, the Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa, and the Tombigbee River basins in the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in the southeastern US. The model represents different water users, including power plants, agricultural water users, and municipal users. The model takes into account local population, per-capita use estimates, and changes in population growth. The water resources planning model was calibrated and validated against the observed, managed flows through the river systems of the three basins. Flow calibration was performed on land cover, water capacity, and hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons; river water temperature calibration was performed on channel width and slope properties. Goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that under 1980–2010 levels of water use, the model robustly represents major features of monthly average streamflow and water temperatures. The application of this integrated electricity generation–water resources planning model can be used to explore alternative electric generation and water implications. The implementation of this model is explored in the companion paper of this focus issue (Yates <em>et al</em> 2013 <em>Environ. Res. Lett.</em> <strong>8</strong> 035042).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1011867
title: Sources of digital data used for building the WEAP-SE model

description: <b>Table 1.</b> Sources of digital data used for building the WEAP-SE model. <strong>Abstract</strong> Electric power generation often involves the use of water for power plant cooling and steam generation, which typically involves the release of cooling water to nearby rivers and lakes. The resulting thermal pollution may negatively impact the ecosystems of these water bodies. Water resource systems models enable the examination of the implications of alternative electric generation on regional water resources. This letter documents the development, calibration, and validation of a climate-driven water resource systems model of the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint, the Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa, and the Tombigbee River basins in the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in the southeastern US. The model represents different water users, including power plants, agricultural water users, and municipal users. The model takes into account local population, per-capita use estimates, and changes in population growth. The water resources planning model was calibrated and validated against the observed, managed flows through the river systems of the three basins. Flow calibration was performed on land cover, water capacity, and hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons; river water temperature calibration was performed on channel width and slope properties. Goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that under 1980–2010 levels of water use, the model robustly represents major features of monthly average streamflow and water temperatures. The application of this integrated electricity generation–water resources planning model can be used to explore alternative electric generation and water implications. The implementation of this model is explored in the companion paper of this focus issue (Yates <em>et al</em> 2013 <em>Environ. Res. Lett.</em> <strong>8</strong> 035042).