Geology topics

Chaopeng Shen

Publications and source records attributed to Chaopeng Shen.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning to advance Chesapeake Bay research and management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities

The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed (hereafter “Chesapeake Bay region”) have been the focus of extensive restoration efforts for several decades. These restoration efforts are guided by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (Chesapeake Executive Council 2014) which outlines 10 goals and 31 measurable outcomes. The Chesapeake Bay is globally recognized as a model for coastal restoration due to long-term investments in monitoring, modeling, implementation and research by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership. These monitoring network spans tidal and non-tidal regions and provides data across multiple scales. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine-learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), has emerged as a powerful tool for analyzing large, complex datasets. These techniques have gained widespread adoption across various disciplines, including ecology, hydrology, and environmental science. In the Bay context, AI/ML is increasingly being used to explore drivers of environmental change, analyze system dynamics, and predict conditions in areas with limited monitoring. The CBP partnership, particularly its Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), has increasingly recognized the growing role of AI/ML in watershed and estuarine management. Recent Chesapeake Community Research Symposium sessions and initiatives such as the Chesapeake Global Collaboratory highlight increasing regional momentum to apply big data and AI/ML for environmental solutions. Together, these developments underscore the timely need to explore how AI/ML can help advance Chesapeake Bay restoration and management. This STAC workshop, titled “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning to Advance Chesapeake Bay Research and Management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities,” was held from February 24-25, 2025, in Edgewater, Maryland to bring together over 50 federal, state, and academic scientists and partners to synthesize the current state of AI/ML applications and identify research gaps in Chesapeake Bay research and management. The workshop focused on three main objectives: 1. Summarize recent AI/ML applications and lessons learned in both tidal and nontidal areas of the Chesapeake Bay region. 2. Identify challenges and gaps in applying AI/ML approaches to Chesapeake Bay data. Such challenges and gaps may include data limitations, harmonization issues, ineffective communication of AI/ML insights, and a lack of coordination among research and management institutions. 3. Develop recommendations and identify opportunities for leveraging AI/ML to address issues across the Chesapeake Bay region. Key areas of focus may include generating new information to support watershed management, delivering AI/MLgenerated insights to managers in a clear and actionable way, and fostering greater collaboration among stakeholders within the CBP Partnership. Workshop participants engaged in science presentations and breakout sessions to develop recommendations for advancing the integration of AI/ML techniques into research and management across the Chesapeake Bay region. By synthesizing current applications, identifying challenges, and exploring new opportunities, the workshop has provided valuable insights and recommendations for better leveraging AI/ML approaches to support the success of Bay restoration efforts. Together, these recommendations provide a roadmap for enhancing data-driven, science-based decision making aligned with the goals and outcomes of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2024

Increasing phosphorus loss despite widespread concentration decline in US rivers

The loss of phosphorous (P) from the land to aquatic systems has polluted waters and threatened food production worldwide. Systematic trend analysis of P, a nonrenewable resource, has been challenging, primarily due to sparse and inconsistent historical data. Here, we leveraged intensive hydrometeorological data and the recent renaissance of deep learning approaches to fill data gaps and reconstruct temporal trends. We trained a multitask long short-term memory model for total P (TP) using data from 430 rivers across the contiguous United States (CONUS). Trend analysis of reconstructed daily records (1980–2019) shows widespread decline in concentrations, with declining, increasing, and insignificantly changing trends in 60%, 28%, and 12% of the rivers, respectively. Concentrations in urban rivers have declined the most despite rising urban population in the past decades; concentrations in agricultural rivers however have mostly increased, suggesting not-as-effective controls of nonpoint sources in agriculture lands compared to point sources in cities. TP loss, calculated as fluxes by multiplying concentration and discharge, however exhibited an overall increasing rate of 6.5% per decade at the CONUS scale over the past 40 y, largely due to increasing river discharge. Results highlight the challenge of reducing TP loss that is complicated by changing river discharge in a warming climate.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2023

Identifying structural priors in a hybrid differentiable model for stream water temperature modeling

Although deep learning models for stream temperature ( T s ) have recently shown exceptional accuracy, they have limited interpretability and cannot output untrained variables. With hybrid differentiable models, neural networks (NNs) can be connected to physically based equations (called structural priors) to output intermediate variables such as water source fractions (specifying what portion of water is groundwater, subsurface, and surface flow). However, it is unclear if such outputs are physically meaningful when only limited physics is imposed, and if structural priors have enough impacts to be identifiable from data. Here, we tested four alternative structural priors describing basin-scale water temperature memory and instream heat processes in a differentiable stream temperature model where NNs freely estimate the water source fractions. We evaluated models’ abilities to predict T s and baseflow ratio. The four priors exhibited noticeably different behaviors in these two metrics and their tradeoffs, with some dominating others. Therefore, the better structural priors can be identified. Moreover, testing different priors yielded valuable insights: having a separate shallow subsurface flow component better matches observations, and a recency-weighted averaging of past air temperature for calculating source water temperature resulted in better T s and baseflow prediction than traditionally employed simple averaging. However, we also highlight the limitations when insufficient physical constraints are implemented: the internal variables (water source fractions) may not be adequately constrained by a single target variable (stream temperature) alone. To ensure the physical significance of the internal fluxes, one can either employ multivariate data for model selection, or include more physical processes in the priors.

Water Resources Research↗

USGS2023

Differentiable modelling to unify machine learning and physical models for geosciences

Process-based modelling offers interpretability and physical consistency in many domains of geosciences but struggles to leverage large datasets efficiently. Machine-learning methods, especially deep networks, have strong predictive skills yet are unable to answer specific scientific questions. In this Perspective, we explore differentiable modelling as a pathway to dissolve the perceived barrier between process-based modelling and machine learning in the geosciences and demonstrate its potential with examples from hydrological modelling. ‘Differentiable’ refers to accurately and efficiently calculating gradients with respect to model variables or parameters, enabling the discovery of high-dimensional unknown relationships. Differentiable modelling involves connecting (flexible amounts of) prior physical knowledge to neural networks, pushing the boundary of physics-informed machine learning. It offers better interpretability, generalizability, and extrapolation capabilities than purely data-driven machine learning, achieving a similar level of accuracy while requiring less training data. Additionally, the performance and efficiency of differentiable models scale well with increasing data volumes. Under data-scarce scenarios, differentiable models have outperformed machine-learning models in producing short-term dynamics and decadal-scale trends owing to the imposed physical constraints. Differentiable modelling approaches are primed to enable geoscientists to ask questions, test hypotheses, and discover unrecognized physical relationships. Future work should address computational challenges, reduce uncertainty, and verify the physical significance of outputs.

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment↗

USGS2022

Constructing a large-scale landslide database across heterogeneous environments using task-specific model updates

Preparation and mitigation efforts for widespread landslide hazards can be aided by a large-scale, well-labeled landslide inventory with high location accuracy. Recent smallscale studies for pixel-wise labeling of potential landslide areas in remotely-sensed images using deep learning (DL) showed potential but were based on data from very small, homogeneous regions with unproven model transferability. In this paper we consider a more realistic and practical setting for large-scale heterogeneous landslide data collection and DL-based labeling. In this setting, remotely sensed images are collected sequentially in temporal batches, where each batch focuses on images from a particular ecoregion, but different batches can focus on different ecoregions with distinct landscape characteristics. For such a scenario, we study the following questions: (1) How well do DL models trained in homogeneous regions perform when they are transferred to different ecoregions, (2) Does increasing the spatial coverage in the data improve model performance in a given ecoregion (even when the extra data do not come from the ecoregion), and (3) Can a landslide pixel labeling model be incrementally updated with new data, but without access to the old data and without losing performance on the old data (so that researchers can share models obtained from proprietary datasets)' We address these questions by extending the Learning without Forgetting framework, which is used for incremental training of image classification models, to the setting of incremental training of semantic segmentation models (e.g., identifying all landslide pixels in an image). We call the resulting extension Task-Specific Model Updates (TSMU). TSMU semantic segmentation framework consists of an encoder shared by all ecoregions to capture the similarities between them, and ecoregion-specific decoders to capture the nuances of each ecoregion. This framework is continually updated using a threestage training procedure for each new addition of an ecoregion without having to revisit data from old ecoregions and without losing performance on them.

IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth O↗

USGS2021

Deep learning approaches for improving prediction of daily stream temperature in data-scarce, unmonitored, and dammed basins

Basin-centric long short-term memory (LSTM) network models have recently been shown to be an exceptionally powerful tool for stream temperature (T s ) temporal prediction (training in one period and predicting in another period at the same sites). However, spatial extrapolation is a well-known challenge to modelling T s and it is uncertain how an LSTM-based daily T s model will perform in unmonitored or dammed basins. Here we compiled a new benchmark dataset consisting of >400 basins across the contiguous United States in different data availability groups (DAG, meaning the daily sampling frequency) with and without major dams, and studied how to assemble suitable training datasets for predictions in basins with or without temperature monitoring. For prediction in unmonitored basins (PUB), LSTM produced a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 1.129°C and an R 2 of 0.983. While these metrics declined from LSTM's temporal prediction performance, they far surpassed traditional models' PUB values, and were competitive with traditional models' temporal prediction on calibrated sites. Even for unmonitored basins with major reservoirs, we obtained a median RMSE of 1.202°C and an R 2 of 0.984. For temporal prediction, the most suitable training set was the matching DAG that the basin could be grouped into (for example, the 60% DAG was most suitable for a basin with 61% data availability). However, for PUB, a training dataset including all basins with data was consistently preferred. An input-selection ensemble moderately mitigated attribute overfitting. Our results indicate there are influential latent processes not sufficiently described by the inputs (e.g., geology, wetland covers), but temporal fluctuations can still be predicted well, and LSTM appears to be a highly accurate T s modelling tool even for spatial extrapolation.

Hydrological Processes↗

USGS2020

Exploring the exceptional performance of a deep learning stream temperature model and the value of streamflow data

Stream water temperature ( T s ) is a variable of critical importance for aquatic ecosystem health. T s is strongly affected by groundwater-surface water interactions which can be learned from streamflow records, but previously such information was challenging to effectively absorb with process-based models due to parameter equifinality. Based on the long short-term memory (LSTM) deep learning architecture, we developed a basin-centric lumped daily mean T s model, which was trained over 118 data-rich basins with no major dams in the conterminous United States, and showed strong results. At a national scale, we obtained a median root-mean-square error of 0.69°C, Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient of 0.985, and correlation of 0.994, which are marked improvements over previous values reported in literature. The addition of streamflow observations as a model input strongly elevated the performance of this model. In the absence of measured streamflow, we showed that a two-stage model could be used, where simulated streamflow from a pre-trained LSTM model ( Q sim ) still benefited the T s model even though no new information was brought directly into the inputs of the T s model. The model indirectly used information learned from streamflow observations provided during the training of Q sim , potentially to improve internal representation of physically meaningful variables. Our results indicate that strong relationships exist between basin-averaged forcing variables, catchment attributes, and T s that can be simulated by a single model trained by data on the continental scale.

Environmental Research Letters↗

USGS2016

An overview of current applications, challenges, and future trends in distributed process-based models in hydrology

Process-based hydrological models have a long history dating back to the 1960s. Criticized by some as over-parameterized, overly complex, and difficult to use, a more nuanced view is that these tools are necessary in many situations and, in a certain class of problems, they are the most appropriate type of hydrological model. This is especially the case in situations where knowledge of flow paths or distributed state variables and/or preservation of physical constraints is important. Examples of this include: spatiotemporal variability of soil moisture, groundwater flow and runoff generation, sediment and contaminant transport, or when feedbacks among various Earth’s system processes or understanding the impacts of climate non-stationarity are of primary concern. These are situations where process-based models excel and other models are unverifiable. This article presents this pragmatic view in the context of existing literature to justify the approach where applicable and necessary. We review how improvements in data availability, computational resources and algorithms have made detailed hydrological simulations a reality. Avenues for the future of process-based hydrological models are presented suggesting their use as virtual laboratories, for design purposes, and with a powerful treatment of uncertainty.

Journal of Hydrology↗