SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Land Access”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

210 records · Page 12

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes from topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The Watershed Function Science Focus Area (WF SFA) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is working to build a mechanistic understanding of the distribution and dynamics of biogeochemical processes in mountainous watersheds and their response to perturbation. In June 2018, the NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) Airborne Observatory Platform (AOP) performed a taskable airborne imaging campaign to collect visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR data across 330 km2 in the Upper East River at Crested Butte, CO. We conducted a parallel ground sampling campaign to sample vegetation traits, as well as soil physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics. We collected these samples from 438 sites across 12 locations spanning much of the elevation, topographic, and geologic variability across the study area. A subset of 250 samples were used for soil metagenomics which is presented here. In addition, at each site, vegetation samples were collected to measure species-specific leaf water content and leaf mass area, foliar elemental composition and foliar CN stable isotope ratios. Soil samples were collected to measure soil physical properties which include bulk density and soil texture analysis. A suite of soil chemical properties was measured from the samples collected at each site, including pH, organic matter, concentrations exchangeable cations, total elemental composition, and the concentrations of extractable N pools (e.g. total free amino acids, ammonium, nitrate, dissolved organic N, and total dissolved N). Additionally, we have measured soil microbial biomass CN stoichiometry. Here, we present 1982 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community from topsoil collected from during NEON 2018 campaign. All metagenomes were sequenced at JGI (Joint Genome Institute) (GOLD Study ID: Gs0149986). Metagenomes were assembled using JGI Metagenome Workflow (10.1128/mSystems.00804-20). The dataset includes (1) zip files for 1982 MAG fasta files (neon_genomes1-5.tar.gz, split into 5 tarballs to keep tarballs under 0.5 GB), (2) neon_Gs0149986_samples_soilproperties_metagenomes.csv: the sample information together with the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes and the associated soil physical and chemical measurements in NMDC (National Microbiome Data Collaborative) compliant format, (3) neon_Gs0149986.kml: location bounding box file for the sampled locations, (4) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register Internationall Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), (5) flmd.csv: file level metadata file, and (6) dd.csv: data dictionary file. 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.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes measured at 3 depths during snowmelt period in East River, CO (March, May, and June, September 2017)

Snowmelt is a critical biogeochemical period that accounts for large nitrogen (N) export events from high-elevation watersheds. Soil microbial populations bloom and immobilize N during snowmelt, yet the population size crashes in spring, which releases a pulse of soil N. We sought to discover the N sources fueling this microbial bloom and determine the fate of N following microbial die-off. Here, focusing on the snowmelt period within a headwater catchment of the Upper Colorado River Basin (East River, CO), we deployed strain-resolved metagenomics to identify the metabolic pathways and processes that mobilize soil N during and after snowmelt. Soil metagenome samples were taken from 6 snowpits from 3 depths (0-5cm, 5-15cm, >15cm) at 4 time points during snowmelt period (March 2017, May 2017, and June 2017, September 2017) generating 48 metagenomes. We reconstructed 474 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) across all metagenomes.All 48 metagenomes were sequenced at JGI and raw data can be found under JGI (Joint Genome Institute) GOLD Study Gs0135149. Metagenome assemblies from IMG under the same study were used for genome binning. This dataset (1) a zip file of 474 MAGs (as fasta files, Gs0135149_bins_tar.gz), (2) sample metadata file with sample IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), (3) bounding box coordinates for the sampled locations (Gs0135149.kml), (4) metagenome metadata file listing IMG/M (Integrated Microbial Genomes/Metagenomes) metagenome accessions linking samples to metagenomes (metagenomes.csv), (5) location metadata file (locations.csv), (6) file-level metadata file (flmd.csv) and (7) data dictionary (dd.csv) file.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↗

DOE OSTI2025

Five Years of Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Salinity, Depth, Weather Data from a Transitioning Wetland at Beaver Creek, Washington, USA

Groundwater dissolved oxygen (DO) variability in coastal system remains poorly understood despite its importance for biogeochemical cycling and ecosystem modeling. Here we investigate the temporal variability in groundwater DO and its hydro-climatic drivers across hourly to seasonal timescales in a transitioning wetland at Beaver Creek, Washington, USA. The site is transitioning from a freshwater forest to a brackish tidal wetland following removal of a barrier in 2014 that prevented tides from accessing the freshwater creek. By utilizing novel optical dissolved oxygen instrumentation (Opti O2, LLC) we obtained continuous, high-frequency (5-minute), in-situ measurements of DO from the flood-plain from June 26th, 2019 through September 30th, 2024. This 63 month dataset is comprised of groundwater dissolved oxygen, temperature, water level and salinity timeseries from the floodplain. This dataset also includes rainfall, air pressure, air temperature, and solar radiation data collected with a co-located Campbell ClimaVUE50 weather sensor. All data is contained within a single csv (2019-06-26 to 2024-09-30 Beaver Creek DO, saln, BGS, temp, weather.csv) that can easily be viewed either using software such as Excel or using any text editor.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Marine Algae Industrialization Consortium (MAGIC): Combining biofuel and high-value bioproducts to meet the RFS

The Marine Algae Industrialization Consortium (MAGIC) was formed to address pressing challenges in the commercialization of microalgae as a source of biofuel. The “Marine Algae Industrialization Consortium (MAGIC): Combining biofuel and high-value bioproducts to meet the RFS” project formally addressed two US Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) goals: (1) Model the sustainable supply of 1 million metric tonnes ash free dry weight (AFDW) cultivated algal biomass and (2) Demonstrate valuable co-products produced along with biofuel intermediates to increase value of algal biomass by 30%. To achieve these goals, the project demonstrated and validated high-value co-products to drive down the cost of biofuel by increasing the value of algae “co-products” towards increasing the selling price of total algae biomass as one of the key drivers of economics and adoption. This was accomplished through five core, interdependent tasks including: (1) strain selection to identify and deliver strains for mass culture, (2) mass culture using a hybrid cultivation system and following key operating parameters for downstream applications to provide algae feedstock, (3) recovery and conversion to evaluate two alternative methods to separate dry algae biomass into oil and residuals for downstream testing, (4) product assessment to determine biofuel, aquafeed or poultry feed product efficacy using algae biomass fractions as well as to provide critical performance data for valuation and (5) commercialization to use technoeconomic and life cycle assessments (TEA/LCA) as iterative design and assessment tools including consideration of target markets, competitors, and distribution channels to guide product assessment, development and valuation. A total of 46 peer-review publications, many open-access, provide detail of much of the work carried out and the results of the tasks. Additional reports and presentations provide other technical and public engagement material. At a high level, using a variety of approaches, more than 1000 marine microalgae strains were evaluated to ultimately identify the seven winners that were down-selected to be grown in mass culture. Strain selection demonstrated that there were no ‘super strains’ and that each candidate had strengths and limitations for specific products, growth conditions or operational considerations. Mass culture growth of these seven strains at >5000 L / 29 m 2 scale found that four them were suitable for product assessment. More than 250 kg of biomass was produced across hundreds of pond runs along with thousands of cultivation entries on the growth and biomass characteristics as well as environmental parameters. In the process, dozens of standard operating procedures were generated as was custom software to process and analyze cultivation data. Recovery and conversion of algae biomass demonstrated that a hexane solvent based extraction protocol was most effective at recovering oil (biocrude) from algae and four strains were processed to produce oil and lipid extracted algae (residuals) for downstream testing. Membrane-based oil separation was less successful, but may still be applicable to other commercial applications in the future. Product testing demonstrated that algae biocrude is of high quality and hydrotreating generated numerous fractions of high quality composition for fuel and lubricate based applications. Aquafeed studies performed at a variety of scales showed that both whole and defatted (lipid extracted algae) microalgae were suitable as a feed ingredient, but that the specifics of the fed animal and biochemical composition of the algae are critical factors when determining formulation. Similarly, poultry studies on whole and defatted microalgae generally showed positive outcomes on animal growth and health, with some microalgae providing enhanced nutritional composition of the animal product. Economic and life cycle assessments covered a wide range of possible commercialization and sustainability scenarios. Replacement value, improved product value added, consumer values marketing added valuation and improved animal health were considered as alternatives for microalgae valuation. Using the open pond system, algae productivity was identified as the key driver of commercialization economics, but combination of co-products (e.g. animal feed) with biofuel production substantially increased the total selling price of algae. Modeled microalgae selling price exceeded $\$$1500/tonne and could generate competitive biofuel selling prices below $\$$5 gallon gas equivalents using realistic algal productivities. Short (process scale) and longer (decadal trends) sustainability assessments show that marine microalgae can enhance the sustainability of energy production and lead to other realized benefits in water, fertilizer and land use for other sectors (e.g. agriculture). This project successfully demonstrated all of the components of an end-to-end process from mass microalgae cultivation and dewatering, to recovery and conversion of algae biomass components, to final product demonstration and process valuation; the combined results provide a framework for future commercialization of algae based biofuels.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Advancing ocean monitoring and knowledge for societal benefit: the urgency to expand Argo to OneArgo by 2030

The ocean plays an essential role in regulating Earth’s climate, influencing weather conditions, providing sustenance for large populations, moderating anthropogenic climate change, encompassing massive biodiversity, and sustaining the global economy. Human activities are changing the oceans, stressing ocean health, threatening the critical services the ocean provides to society, with significant consequences for human well-being and safety, and economic prosperity. Effective and sustainable monitoring of the physical, biogeochemical state and ecosystem structure of the ocean, to enable climate adaptation, carbon management and sustainable marine resource management is urgently needed. The Argo program, a cornerstone of the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), has revolutionized ocean observation by providing real-time, freely accessible global temperature and salinity data of the upper 2,000m of the ocean (Core Argo) using cost-effective simple robotics. For the past 25 years, Argo data have underpinned many ocean, climate and weather forecasting services, playing a fundamental role in safeguarding goods and lives. Argo data have enabled clearer assessments of ocean warming, sea level change and underlying driving processes, as well as scientific breakthroughs while supporting public awareness and education. Building on Argo’s success, OneArgo aims to greatly expand Argo’s capabilities by 2030, expanding to full-ocean depth, collecting biogeochemical parameters, and observing the rapidly changing polar regions. Providing a synergistic subsurface and global extension to several key space-based Earth Observation missions and GOOS components, OneArgo will enable biogeochemical and ecosystem forecasting and new long-term climate predictions for which the deep ocean is a key component. Driving forward a revolution in our understanding of marine ecosystems and the poorly-measured polar and deep oceans, OneArgo will be instrumental to assess sea level change, ocean carbon fluxes, acidification and deoxygenation. Emerging OneArgo applications include new views of ocean mixing, ocean bathymetry and sediment transport, and ecosystem resilience assessment. Implementing OneArgo requires about $100 million annually, a significant increase compared to present Argo funding. OneArgo is a strategic and cost-effective investment which will provide decision-makers, in both government and industry, with the critical knowledge needed to navigate the present and future environmental challenges, and safeguard both the ocean and human wellbeing for generations to come.

ARGO↗

DOE OSTI2025

Soil Temperature and Moisture within the Kougarok Fire Complex, Kougarok Road Mile Marker 86, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019-2023

Daily averages of soil temperature and moisture measured once every hour at different heights located at Intensive Monitoring Stations within the Kougarok Fire Complex, Kougarok Road Mile Marker 86 site. Data were retrieved annually from 2019-2023. Package contains 21 *.CSV data files plus a file level metadata *.CSV, data dictionary *.CSV, data file inventory *.CSV, and sensor location site map *.JPG. Data files have header rows, NaN fields indicate invalid or missing data, and negative vertical offsets are above ground.The Kougarok tundra fire complex (KFC) is located north of Nome and the Kigluaik Mountains, near Quartz Creek and the Kougarok River. The site is accessed by foot from the end of the Nome-Taylor Highway (mile marker 86; also called the Kougarok or Beam Road). The KFC burned in six major fires in the decades since 1950 (Alaska Interagency Coordination Center, unpublished data). Lightning ignited five of these fires (1971, 1997, 2015, and 2019) and one was human caused (2002). The mosaic of overlapping fire scars allows for the study of repeat fires in the tundra which, until recently, was not a common phenomenon outside the boreal forest in Alaska. Our reference unburned tundra fire site is south of the KFC located at mile marker 80 of the Nome-Taylor Highway.The two most recent fires are the Mingvk Lake (2015; 21,698 acres burned from 7/27/2015 to 9/28/2015) and Garfield Creek (2019; 422 acres burned from 7/31/2019 to 8/20/19). The Mingvk Lake fire scar includes areas that burned 1-4x (1971, 1997, 2002), while the entirety of the Garfield Creek fire scar has burned 2x previously (1971, 2002).Previous research at the KFC focused on permafrost (Liljedahl et al. 2007; Narita et al. 2015; Iwahana et al. 2016; Tsuyuzaki, Iwahana, and Saito 2017) and vegetation (Narita et al. 2015; Hollingsworth et al. 2021) response to fire. The central Seward Peninsula is characterized by continuous permafrost with a thickness of 15 to 30 m and a mean active layer thickness of 56 cm (Hinzman et al. 2003). Sloping hills with mixed shrub–tussock tundra and tussock tundra vegetation in the uplands are characteristic of the region. Three micrometeorological towers near the Kougarok field site recorded a mean annual temperature of −2.4°C, mean January temperature of −23.1°C, mean July temperature of +11°C, and mean summer rainfall (June–August) of 94 mm from 2000 to 2006 (Liljedahl et al. 2007).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 OSTI2025

COMPASS-FME Synoptic Site Characterization

This dataset contains soil biogeochemical and physicochemical characterization data for the COMPASS-FME synoptic sites.This dataset also contains data for the paper Patel et al. 2025 "Transition zones at the changing coastal terrestrial-aquatic interface", https://doi.org/10.1029/2025JG008978.Coastal soils are a significant but highly uncertain component of global biogeochemical cycles. These systems experience unique spatial and temporal variability in biogeochemical processes, driven by wetland-to-upland gradients and hydrological fluctuations. We studied drivers of coastal soil variability (a) at regional scales and (b) across transects from upland forest to wetland, in two contrasting regions — Lake Erie, a freshwater lacustrine system, and Chesapeake Bay, a saltwater estuarine system. Salinity-related analytes were a key driver of soil variability, not just in the saltwater system, but surprisingly, also in the freshwater system. We had hypothesized linear trends in biogeochemical parameters along the TAI – however, contrary to expectations, transition soils were not consistently intermediate between upland and wetland endmembers; the non-monotonic trends of carbon, phosphorus, iron along our transects suggest that these are key analytes to study in our regions. Rapidly changing soil factors across coastal gradients provide insights into which soil processes may act as precursors to ecosystem shifts. Our comprehensive soil characterization across the coastal transects provides essential data for mechanistic modeling of ecosystem dynamics.The data are provided as processed, csv files. Raw data and processing scripts can be accessed on GitHub (https://github.com/COMPASS-DOE/cmps-soil_characterization).A note on the nomenclature: the experimental design represents three points along the coastal gradient -- upland, transition, and wetland. "wetland" is referred to as "marsh" in the corresponding paper. The two terms can be used interchangeably for the sites in this study.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2021

Daily grass reference evapotranspiration with Meteosat Second Generation shortwave radiation and reference ET products

Here we assess the accuracy of estimating daily grass reference evapotranspiration (PM-ET o ) using daily shortwave radiation (R s ) and reference evapotranspiration (ET REF ) products provided by the Meteosat Second Generation (MSG) geostationary satellite delivered by the Satellite Applications Facility on Land Surface Analysis (LSA-SAF) framework. The accuracy of using reanalysis ERA5 shortwave radiation data (R s ERA5 ) provided by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) is also evaluated. The assessments were performed using observed weather variables at 37 weather stations distributed across continental Portugal, where climate conditions range from semi-arid to humid, and 12 weather stations located in Azores islands, characterized by humid, windy and often cloudy conditions. This study's use of data from a variety of climate conditions contributed to a unique and innovative assessment of the usability of LSA-SAF and ERA5 products for ET o estimation. The first assessment focused on comparing LSA-SAF estimates of R s (R s LSA-SAF ) against ground stations (R s ground ). The results showed a good matching between the two R s data sets for continental Portugal but a tendency for R s LSA-SAF to under-estimate R s ground in the cloudy islands of Azores. ET o values computed using R s LSA-SAF data and observed temperature, humidity and wind speed (ET o LSA-SAF ) were then compared with PM-ET o estimates with ground-based data, which were used as benchmark; input data of temperature and humidity needed for PM-ET o were quality checked for surface aridity effects. It was observed that ET o LSA-SAF is strongly correlated with PM-ET o (R 2 > 0.97) for most locations in continental Portugal, with regression coefficient of a linear regression forced to the origin ranging between 0.95 and 1.05, mean root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.13 mm d –1 , and Nash and Sutcliff efficiency of modeling (EF) above 0.95. For most Azores locations, ET o LSA-SAF over-estimated PM-ET o . This is likely a consequence of the high spatio-temporal heterogeneity of weather conditions that occur in these oceanic islands together with the different footprints of satellite (averaged over the pixel) and station observations. Reanalysis ERA5 shortwave radiation data presented similar behavior to the LSA-SAF products, however with slightly lower accuracy. The daily LSA-SAF ET REF product (ET REF LSA-SAF ) was assessed and results have shown a good accuracy of this product, with acceptable RMSE and high EF values, for continental Portugal but a low accuracy for the Azores islands. A simplified bias correction approach was shown to improve both ET o derived from the LSA-SAF products, namely for Azores stations, which seem to be representative of smaller areas. The use of the FAO-PM temperature approach (PMT) was also assessed using the R s LSA-SAF and R s ERA5 data, which showed a superiority of the LSA-SAF product for ET o estimations (ET o PMT LSA-SAF ). No significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in terms of the median value of the RMSE when adopting ET o PMT and ET REF LSA-SAF . Differently, results showed that using the R s LSA-SAF in the PMT approach (ET o PMT LSA-SAF ) produces significantly better RMSE results than ET o PMT and ET REF LSA-SAF . Overall, the performed assessment allows concluding that the use of R s LSA-SAF, and to a lesser extent the use of the R s ERA5 , highly improves the accuracy of computation of ET o when R s observations are not available, including when only temperature data are accessible. The use of the ET REF LSA-SAF product is a good alternative when observed weather data are not available.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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 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 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↗