Grant discussion
N and C cycling

Steve Hart – elevation gradient and C cycling
o
Problems with infrastructure at high elevations
o
Use Bull as another site to measure soil moisture, sap flow

Roger - Can we use existing NEON sites to provide an elevational context?

Cliff – How will ecosystems respond (laterally) to changes in soil depth (bald rock areas in Prov and
Bull). Second tower at same elevation – NEON at Soaproot.

Jan – Hillslope scale processes in existing areas, possibly at an elevation gradient.

Portable flux tower?

Sublimation is not measured – but is it an important part of the water balance picture

C and N processes at depth - possibly do a fertilization study

Asmeret – interested in mineral associations and how OM will change with climate, chemical
composition of minerals

Roger - What are the major questions to be answered with regards to C storage?

Missing groundwater component, subsurface flow patterns

Use geophysics to couple with subsurface C exploration

DOSECC drilling program
o
Surface/subsurface connection

Isotopic fractionation

Will scheduled treatments provide insight to C and N cycling

Could imagine a whole renewal around planned forest treatments
o
Collision between scientifically smart and what will get you funded

Already has been delayed on a decadal scale

Perhaps fire as a driver for science behind renewal theme?

Treatments will change the systems that we are studying already; focus on closing questions that we
are investigating. => better information => address affects from treatment
Come up with some general areas of research and then expand to fit our individual goals
Modeling

Develop groundwater model to start understanding other processes (Martha)

Intermediate scale modeling – Apply Penn State model

Looking across an elevational transect and a more sophisticated hillslope model both serve CZO
interests. This is especially so for better characterization of sub surface hydrologic processes and
geochemical cycling.

o
Will the Penn State model be capable of doing both?
o
Can the Penn State model also help to better characterize vegetative heterogeneity?
Roger has avoided hillslope scale science in the Sierra because has tried before and failed in the
Sierra

We can process level questions at hillslope but may not be able to close the water balance at
hillslope scale

KREW catchments are the smallest scale Roger wants to close a water balance on

ParFlow, Penn State Model, Modflow-PRMS models => GS-Flow, Rhessys

Need a richer subsurface model than Rhessys can provide
General Discussion

Treatments are happening
o

Treatments provide a vehicle for asking and answering new questions
Cliff is guest editing issue on deep CZ processes
o
Is this a vehicle for some of our findings, publish and have as reference for new proposal
Potential Organizing Themes – Mike suggests that we build on strengths

Elevational Transect

Better defining subsurface processes
o
This was asked to some extent in the original proposal
o
Saprock and saprolite flow is a big finding and a better question regarding this could
make it an organizing theme
o
Opportunistic on growing interest from sub0surface community – Cliff
o
Within in this guideline, expand that we are going to expand into elevation transect and
use climate change driven questions. Use treatments in opportunistic fashion

KREW Treatments
o
Driver of new questions
o
Wary of historical delay of treatments +. Opens up to criticism from reviewers

Can we mention them as a vehicle for providing insight into our science
questions

Don’t have to be emphasis or guiding theme, but can be used as a strength
builder

Roger has working 5 question for framework for framing new proposal