Eta Carinae: An Observational Testbed for 3-D Interacting Wind Modeling

Eta Car, with its very massive interacting winds, provides shocked arc-like structures dense enough to trace in forbidden emission lines out to 0.7" (1700 AU). As the massive binary is in a very elliptical orbit (e approx. 0.9), the spatial and velocity structures of these winds change over the 5.54 year period. We can tract ionization structures by several forbidden emission lines. With the addition of radiative transfer on a time-step frame-by-frame basis, we are learning much new information on the ballistic structures, and may gain insight on how molecules and dust might form in these very massive systems

Multiple Absorption Components in the Post-Periastron He I P Cygni Absorption Troughs of Eta Carinae

We have obtained more than 100 high spectral resolution (R approx. 90,000) spectra of the massive binary star eta Carinae since 2012 in an effort to continue our orbital and long-term echelle monitoring of this extreme binary (Richardson et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1534) with the CHIRON spectrograph on the CTIO 1.5 m telescope (Tokovinin et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1336) in the 4550-7500A region. We increased our monitoring efforts and observation frequency as the periastron event of 2014 has approached, and resumed observations in October. We note that since mid-October, we have observed unusual multiple absorption components in the P Cygni troughs of the He I lines (4714, 5876, 6678, and 7065; 4921 and 5015 are blended with Fe II). In particular, we note that these components extend to -700 km/s, well beyond the terminal wind speed of the primary. These absorptions are likely related to clumps and turbulence in the wind-wind collision region and bow shock, as suggested by the high-velocity absorption observed by Groh et al. (2010, A&A, 519, 9) in the He I 10830A transition and our pre-periastron observations (Richardson et al. 2014, ATel #6336). In these cases, we suspect that we look along an arm of the shock cone and that we see a fast absorption change from the other collision region shortly after periastron. Further, high spectral resolution data are highly encouraged, especially for resolving powers greater than 50,000. These observations were obtained with the CTIO 1.5 m telescope, operated by the SMARTS Consortium, and were obtained through both SMARTS and NOAO programs 2012A-0216, 2012B-0194, and 2013b-0328. We thank Emily MacPherson (Yale) for her efforts in scheduling the observations that we have and will obtain in the coming weeks and months

Sustainable lake restoration: from challenges to solutions

Sustainable management of lakes requires us to overcome ecological, economic, and social challenges. These challenges can be addressed by focusing on achieving ecological improvement within a multifaceted, co-beneficial context. In-lake restoration measures may promote more rapid ecosystem responses than is feasible with catchment measures alone, even if multiple interventions are needed. In particular, we identify restoration methods that support the overarching societal target of a circular economy through the use of nutrients, sediments, or biomass that are removed from a lake, in agriculture, as food, or for biogas production. In this emerging field of sustainable restoration techniques, we show examples, discuss benefits and pitfalls, and flag areas for further research and development. Each lake should be assessed individually to ensure that restoration approaches will effectively address lake-specific problems, do not harm the target lake or downstream ecosystems, are cost-effective, promote delivery of valuable ecosystem services, minimize conflicts in public interests, and eliminate the necessity for repeated interventions. Achieving optimal, sustainable results from lake restoration relies on multidisciplinary research and close interactions between environmental, social, political, and economic sectors

Sustainable lake restoration: From challenges to solutions

Sustainable management of lakes requires us to overcome ecological, economic, and social challenges. These challenges can be addressed by focusing on achieving ecological improvement within a multifaceted, co‐beneficial context. In‐lake restoration measures may promote more rapid ecosystem responses than is feasible with catchment measures alone, even if multiple interventions are needed. In particular, we identify restoration methods that support the overarching societal target of a circular economy through the use of nutrients, sediments, or biomass that are removed from a lake, in agriculture, as food, or for biogas production. In this emerging field of sustainable restoration techniques, we show examples, discuss benefits and pitfalls, and flag areas for further research and development. Each lake should be assessed individually to ensure that restoration approaches will effectively address lake‐specific problems, do not harm the target lake or downstream ecosystems, are cost‐effective, promote delivery of valuable ecosystem services, minimize conflicts in public interests, and eliminate the necessity for repeated interventions. Achieving optimal, sustainable results from lake restoration relies on multidisciplinary research and close interactions between environmental, social, political, and economic sectors