Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Sensor Metadata”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Data for "Depth of nutrient uptake by deep-rooted plants is regulated by water availability"

The data set consists of strontium (Sr) isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr), water isotopes, soil cation concentrations, soil water potential sensor data, and results of 87Sr/86Sr mixing model. The plant canopy size files include the dataset of canopy dimension of sagebrush, lupine, and sunflower. The soil and plant ICPMS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) data file includes both of 87Sr/86Sr, and cation concentration dataset from soil exchangeable pool, apatite pool, silicate extract, atmospheric rain deposition, and plant leaf and stem tissues. The plant dendrochronology file includes the dendrochronogical ring width of several sagebrush, and dendrochemical sample data includes the 87Sr/86Sr for each separated growth ring. The modeling result gives the proportion of nutrient sources of each plants (based on their 87Sr/86Sr in leaf tissues and growth rings) from atmospheric deposition and mineral weathering. Soil water potential data includes continuous collection of soil water potential dataset at 2 depths (30 cm and 60 cm, from Nov 24 - Jun 25) of the sampling site. All the samples were collected from 2 sampling campaign June and July 2023, and rain water is a separate sampling from Aug - Sept 2023, at north-facing hillslope near pumphouse site. The data showed that the depth of cation nutrient acquisition is thus tightly coupled with, and likely determined by, water availability in soil, saprolite and bedrock. The enhanced uptake of cations and water from regions of mineral weathering could confer plant and ecosystem resilience during low water years and may impact the rate of bedrock weathering and watershed chemistry during drought. This dataset includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; a location metadata file (locations.csv); and a samples metadata file (samples.csv). All files are provided as comma-separated values (CSV) files (.csv). This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2017

Astronaut Photography of the Earth: A Long-Term Dataset for Earth Systems Research, Applications, and Education

The NASA Earth observations dataset obtained by humans in orbit using handheld film and digital cameras is freely accessible to the global community through the online searchable database at https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov, and offers a useful compliment to traditional ground-commanded sensor data. The dataset includes imagery from the NASA Mercury (1961) through present-day International Space Station (ISS) programs, and currently totals over 2.6 million individual frames. Geographic coverage of the dataset includes land and oceans areas between approximately 52 degrees North and South latitudes, but is spatially and temporally discontinuous. The photographic dataset includes some significant impediments for immediate research, applied, and educational use: commercial RGB films and camera systems with overlapping bandpasses; use of different focal length lenses, unconstrained look angles, and variable spacecraft altitudes; and no native geolocation information. Such factors led to this dataset being underutilized by the community but recent advances in automated and semi-automated image geolocation, image feature classification, and web-based services are adding new value to the astronaut-acquired imagery. A coupled ground software and on-orbit hardware system for the ISS is in development for planned deployment in mid-2017; this system will capture camera pose information for each astronaut photograph to allow automated, full georegistration of the data. The ground system component of the system is currently in use to fully georeference imagery collected in response to International Disaster Charter activations, and the auto-registration procedures are being applied to the extensive historical database of imagery to add value for research and educational purposes. In parallel, machine learning techniques are being applied to automate feature identification and classification throughout the dataset, in order to build descriptive metadata that will improve search capabilities. It is expected that these value additions will increase interest and use of the dataset by the global community.

Stefanov, William L.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Surface water geochemistry along St. Louis River Estuary (Duluth/Superior, MN/WI)

This dataset is aimed at understanding changes in surface water chemistry associated with urbanization in the Great Lakes region. Surface water chemistry including cations, anions, organic and inorganic carbon, and nitrogen were collected from six locations along St. Louis River – a freshwater estuary entering Lake Superior (Duluth/Superior, MN/WI). The Duluth/Superior, MN/WI metropolitan area is the largest port on the United States side of Lake Superior. Samples were collected near different land uses every two weeks from late July 2023 to the onset of ice cover in November 2023. Water samples were analyzed using In-Situ AquaTroll 500 Multiparameter Sonde with Ammonium Ion Selective Electrode and Chlorophyll-a sensor (unfiltered), METTLER TOLEDO FiveEasy Plus FP20 and METTLER TOLEDO LE407 probe (unfiltered); HACH DR300 Pocket Colorimeter Iron FerroVer (filtered 0.22 μm in field); Shimadzu TOC-L Total Organic Carbon Analyzer with TNM-L Total Nitrogen Unit (filtered 0.22 μm in field); Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole ICP-MS (ICP-QQQ) (filtered 0.22 μm in field); and Dionex ICS-6000 HPIC System (filtered 0.22 μm in field).The data package is comprised of 5 files. dd.csv contains the description of columns in Geochemistry_LSNERR_water.csv and Sampling_sites.csv. flmd.csv contains descriptions of each file in the dataset. README.txt contains description of the dataset structure and file content. Geochemistry_LSNERR_water.csv contains geochemistry data for six sampling locations along the St. Louis River. Sampling_sites.csv contains latitude and longitude coordinates for each of the six sampling site locations along the St. Louis River.This data has not been previously published.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quality-Controlled Meteorological Data from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) Network, Phoenix, Arizona (1987-2024)

This dataset contains 15- or 30-minute interval meteorological data from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), Arizona, USA, covering eight key variables across multiple sensor stations between 1987 and 2024. Each variable is stored as a separate CSV file, containing time-series data that have undergone rigorous quality control (QC) procedures and, where appropriate, short-gap interpolation for consistency. The quality control (QC) pipeline consisted of four sequential tests: (1) a range test to ensure all values fall within physically realistic limits, (2) a step test to identify abrupt and implausible changes between consecutive records, (3) a proximity test that validates flagged values from step test using data from nearby stations and exceedance probability thresholds, and (4) a persistence test to detect and remove periods of unrealistically constant readings. These thresholds were calibrated to Arizona’s environmental conditions and sensor specifications. After QC, short gaps (≤2 hours) were linearly interpolated to ensure consistent temporal resolution, except for wind variables. Due to a major upgrade in FCDMC’s data transmission system, only ALERT-2 protocol data (2016–2024) for wind variables are included; earlier ALERT-1 data were excluded because of irregular sampling and high missing rates. This dataset supports regional climate and infrastructure resilience studies by providing standardized, high-resolution meteorological data for the greater Phoenix metropolitan area.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

iButton snow-ground interface temperature measurements in Los Alamos, New Mexico from 2023-2024

Snow/ground interface temperature measurements were collected at two sites in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Data were collected from November 29, 2023 to April 8, 2024 using iButton Link DS1921G-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g). These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snowpack temperatures at a higher spatial resolution than what is normally achieved. iButton data were collected every 3 hours from a total of 19 iButtons. iButtons were placed in pairs, with one iButton placed at the ground surface and another buried 1 - 5 cm below the ground surface. One buried iButton did not successfully collect data, and therefore was excluded from this dataset. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Specifically, this dataset was used as a validation source for a novel machine learning approach to estimating snow depth (see related publication). Sensors were placed in areas with bare ground or minimal grass coverage, located away from any large vegetation. At Site A (TA51), manual snow depths were collected as validation data. These measurements were taken next to iButtons periodically throughout the winter, and notes on other precipitation types were also recorded. At Site B (TA6 Meteorological Station), a nearby sensor collected snow depths throughout the winter. This dataset contains one *.csv file of snow/ground interface temperatures at two sites, one *.csv file of manually collected snow depths, and one *.kml file of sensor locations. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic) was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy’s Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Volumetric Soil Moisture Measurements at the Teller 27 Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2022-2023

The Teller 27 watershed on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, has been well characterized by the NGEE Arctic project. The study site is underlain by discontinuous permafrost that is thawing as the climate warms. As a result, the site is experiencing a short-term wetting trend as a perched water table above the remaining permafrost provides plant available water during the growing season. Soil moisture patterns drive microbial activity and plant species compositions including plant density and height. This study aimed to understand how soil moisture patterns were influenced by tundra microtopography. To accomplish this, we placed a strategic network of soil moisture sensors in micro-highs, micro-lows, and control areas under different vegetation types within the Teller 27 watershed from summer of 2022 through fall of 2023. This data was used in conjunction with other soil data from the Teller 27 watershed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of soil moisture patterns in a rapidly thawing discontinuous permafrost region. This dataset includes six *.csv files: four of time series soil moisture data, one of field soil moisture data, and one of site conditions. The dataset also includes one *.kml file of the watershed and the soil moisture sensor sites as well as this user guide to provide details on data collection and processing methods. NGEE Arctic Project Summary The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy’s Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

iButton and Tinytag snow/ground interface temperature measurements at Teller 27 and Kougarok 64 from 2022-2023, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

Snow/ground interface temperature measurements were collected at the NGEE Arctic Teller Road Site at mile marker 27 (TL_MM27) and at the Kougarok Road Site at mile marker 64 (KG_MM64) on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Data were collected between October 1, 2022 to September 18, 2023 using iButton Link DS1921G-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g) and Tinytag TGP-4017 internal sensors (https://www.micronmeters.com/product/tgp-4017-internal-sensor-40-to-85-c-40-f-to-185-f) deployed across the Kougarok and Teller sites. These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snowpack temperatures at a higher spatial resolution than what is normally achieved. iButton data were collected every 4 hours, while Tinytag data were collected every 30 minutes. In total, data were collected from 196 iButtons and 26 Tinytags. This dataset contains four *.csv files of near-ground surface temperatures at various locations throughout each study site and two *.kml files of sensor locations. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Sensors were placed both inside and outside of vegetation to better capture the spatial variability of snow properties across each domain.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic) was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy’s Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Shrub Heights at the Teller 27 and Kougarok 64 Field Sites, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021

As shrubs become more widespread across the Arctic, there is increasing focus on their influence over snow accumulation and soil moisture. To better characterize shrub heights based on landscape position, proximity to surface waters, and species, shrub heights were measured with a differential GPS (dGPS) at the Teller 27 and Kougarok 64 field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Measurements were collected between September 12th through 16th, 2021. Shrub heights were calculated by subtracting the maximum height of the canopy from the ground elevation. Some of the shrub heights collected were co-located with iButton (i.e., K45, B8) and Tiny Tag (i.e., TT10) sensors in dataset NGA296. Other shrub heights and species were measured in a dense 20 m x 20 m plot to understand shrub density, species composition, and heights. This dataset contains a .csv file of ground elevations and shrub heights of shrubs throughout the Teller 27 and Kougarok 64 sites.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy’s Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Probabilistic estimation of depth-resolved profiles of soil thermal diffusivity from temperature time series: Supporting Data

This dataset consists of soil temperature time series that were used to estimate soil thermal diffusivity and its uncertainty trough the probabilistic modelling approach developed and presented in the article named "Probabilistic estimation of depth-resolved profiles of soil thermal diffusivity from temperature time series" and published in Earth Surface Dynamics. There are two compressed (.zip) files that contains synthetic (Synthetic_soiltemp_Teller.zip) and field (Field_soiltemp_Teller.zip) data. There is one MATLAB file that requires MATLAB to execute but any text editor can open it. The Synthetic_soiltemp_Teller.zip file includes 5 comma-delimited data files (.csv) each of which contains soil temperature time series generated through forward modeling (i.e., heat-conduction process in a heterogeneous medium using an explicit finite difference method) to mimic various types of temperature gradients, trend and fluctuations. These synthetic soil temperatures were used to investigate the impact of different environmental conditions on the uncertainty of thermal diffusivity estimates. The Field_soiltemp_Teller.zip file contains 28 comma-delimited data files (.csv) out of which (a) 27 files includes soil temperature time series recorded from 27 temperature probes located in a site along Teller Road about 40 km northwest of Nome, Alaska (64.72°N, 165.94°W), (b) one includes the name and coordinates of the 27 probes. These field soil temperatures were used to infer soil thermal diffusivity at numerous locations and depths in a discontinuous permafrost environment, and to evaluate the links between the estimated soil thermal diffusivity values and soil physical properties. The comma-delimited data files (.csv) of the synthetic and field soil temperature time series includes date and time (UTC) in the first column and soil temperature from 5 cm below the ground surface to 1.05 m depth (with 5 or 10 cm spacing between sensors) in the other columns. The measurements were acquired every 15 minutes. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

iButton snow temperature measurements at Teller 27 and Kougarok 64, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019-2020

Snow temperature measurements were collected at the NGEE Arctic Teller Road Site at mile marker 27 (TL_MM27) and at the Kougarok Road Site at mile marker 64 (KG_MM64) on the Seward Peninsula. Data were collected from October 1, 2021 to August 16, 2022 using iButton Link DS1926-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g) and Tinytag TGP-4017 internal sensors (https://www.micronmeters.com/product/tgp-4017-internal-sensor-40-to-85-c-40-f-to-185-f) deployed across the Kougarok and Teller sites. These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snowpack temperatures at a higher spatial resolution than what is normally achieved. iButton data were collected every 4 hours beginning on October 1, 2021. Tinytag data collection began between October 9, 2021 and October 12, 2021 depending on the specific Tinytag and data were collected every 30 minutes. In total, data were collected from 236 iButtons and 30 Tinytags. This dataset contains four *.csv files of near-ground surface temperatures at various locations throughout each study site and four *.shp files of sensor locations. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Sensors were placed both inside and outside of vegetation to better capture the spatial variability of snow properties across each domain.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Forced Diffusion Chamber Monitoring of Soil CO2 Fluxes from 2019 to Present at NGEE Arctic Teller Site, Mile Marker 27, Alaska

Soil CO2 efflux was monitored at the NGEE Arctic Teller Site, Mile Marker 27, in Alaska. Monitoring was performed beginning in June 2019 using EOSense forced diffusion soil CO2 flux sensors at up to six sites characterized by varying vegetation cover, topographic position, and soil temperature and moisture. Dataset includes measurements of soil CO2 flux and chamber temperature. Time interval between measurements ranges from 5 minutes to 3 hours. Included are EOSense chamber locations as *.kml and *.png files, six *.csv files with measurements, and two *.csv reporting format files.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

iButton and Tinytag snow temperature measurements at Teller 27 and Kougarok 64, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021-2022

Snow temperature measurements were collected at the NGEE Arctic Teller Road Site at mile marker 27 (TL_MM27) and at the Kougarok Road Site at mile marker 64 (KG_MM64) on the Seward Peninsula. Data were collected from October 1, 2021 to August 16, 2022 using iButton Link DS1926-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g) and Tinytag TGP-4017 internal sensors (https://www.micronmeters.com/product/tgp-4017-internal-sensor-40-to-85-c-40-f-to-185-f) deployed across the Kougarok and Teller sites. These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snowpack temperatures at a higher spatial resolution than what is normally achieved. iButton data were collected every 4 hours beginning on October 1, 2021. Tinytag data collection began between October 9 and October 12, 2021 depending on sensor installation date. Tinytag data were collected every 30 minutes. In total, data were collected from 236 iButtons and 30 Tinytags. This dataset contains four *.csv files of near-ground surface temperatures at various locations throughout each study site and four *.shp files of sensor locations. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Sensors were placed both inside and outside of vegetation to better capture the spatial variability of snow properties across each domain. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Elemental Analysis and Middle Infrared Spectroscopy from the Kougarok Fire Complex, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2022

In September and October of 2022, soil samples were collected at the Kougarok Fire Complex near mile marker 86 of the Nome-Taylor Highway on the Seward Peninsula of Alaska. This study site was chosen due to its unique fire history, as the Kougarok Fire Complex has experienced multiple wildfires since 1971. As the Arctic warms, the risk of Arctic tundra fires continues to increase due to warmer summer temperatures and higher frequency of lightning. Burned soil carbon or pyrogenic carbon (PyC) is an important component of C cycling after wildfire, and one that is often overlooked in tundra systems where wildfires are historically rare. To better understand PyC signatures and quantify PyC presence in post-regeneration permafrost regions, soils were sampled from soil pits within the 1971, 2002, and 2019 burn sites, as well as two unburned control sites. At each site, three soil pits were dug to the permafrost table. Soil samples were collected with a trowel from the face of each pit at 10 cm increments down to the permafrost table. Thaw depth, maximum vegetation height, vegetation species composition, and O horizon depth were also collected at each soil pit. An HS2 Hydrosense II Handheld Soil Moisture Sensor was used to collect volumetric soil moisture content at each 10 cm sampling increment. This dataset includes one *.csv of middle infrared spectroscopy measurements of soil samples, one *.csv of field observations, one *.csv of carbon and nitrogen analysis of soil samples, and one *.kml of sampling locations.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic) was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy’s Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

TEMPEST3 surface runoff water chemistry and organic matter composition

Coastal flooding, driven by storm surges and sea level rise, can mobilize organic matter (OM) via runoff, while introducing compositionally distinct OM (e.g., estuarine OM) into the system. To understand event-scale OM dynamics, we monitored source waters and surface runoff during an ecosystem-scale field manipulation experiment, TEMPEST (Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments), in June 2024. The TEMPEST experiment is part of the COMPASS-FME (Coastal Observations, Mechanisms, and Predictions Across Systems and Scales – Field, Measurements, and Experiments) project and designed to investigate biogeochemical and ecological impacts of freshwater and seawater flooding on coastal terrestrial-aquatic interface ecosystems by simulating freshwater and seawater storm events in two 2000m2 coastal upland forest plots (freshwater and brackish seawater plots). The temporal coverage of this dataset is during the TEMPESTⅢ event (June 11-13, 2024). This dataset contains: - Surface runoff discharge measured by flumes - Sensor data (specific conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) - Particle size distribution - Total suspended sediment concentrations (TSS), particulate and dissolved organic carbon (POC, DOC) concentrations, total nitrogen and total dissolved nitrogen (TN, TDN) concentrations - Bulk particulate and dissolved OM compositions (stable C and N isotopes of particulates and optical measurements of chromophoric dissolved OM) - High resolution mass spectrometry analysis data - Water isotope data All data files are plain-text CSV (comma-separated value), and no special software is required to read them.

COMPASS-FME↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Environmental monitoring data from the 2022-2023 field experiment at Game Ridge, Missoula County, Montana, USA

This dataset contains sensor data from programmed loggers as well as handheld moisture probes, including weather data, air and soil temperature, and soil volumetric water content. Data files and data dictionary(ies) are uploaded as .csv files. The Users Guide is a .pdf file. Location data can be found in the Google Earth file GameRidge_SitePlotCoordinates.kmz.kml included here. These datasets were collected for Plant Carbohydrate Depletion, Mycorrhizal Networks, and Vulnerability to Drought: An Experimental Test in the Field. This experiment examined the interdependency between plant hydraulics and carbohydrate availability and sought to develop ways to incorporate interactions with below ground symbiotic organisms to better model and quantify forest response to drought. This environmental data was collected to provide context for the fungal community data and Pinus ponderosa physiological data.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗