Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Reporting Format”

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 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

RC-SFA Data Management Templates and Guidance for Standardized, Reusable AI-Ready Data Packages

This data package provides templates and supporting documentation developed by the River Corridor Science Focus Area (RC-SFA; https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/river-corridor) to communicate its approach to managing and publishing AI-ready data. The package is intended to help data users and data producers understand the structures, metadata practices, and quality-control approaches that support consistent, reusable, and machine-actionable data products across RC-SFA studies. Rather than focusing on a single experimental dataset, this package documents the data management framework used to make RC-SFA data easier to find, ingest, navigate, and interpret. The materials in this package reflect RC-SFA practices for standardized data package organization, including the use of a human- and machine-readable README, file-level metadata, data dictionaries, descriptive file naming, method identifiers, and automated and review-based quality assurance procedures. Together, these components illustrate how RC-SFA extends FAIR data principles toward AI-readiness by prioritizing deep metadata, consistency across data packages, and support for informed downstream reuse by both humans and computational tools. This dataset is comprised of (1) readme; (2) presentation slides with an overview of RC-SFA approach and guidance; (3) document of RC-SFA best practices; (4) data dictionary (dd); (5) file level metadata (flmd); and a subfolder containing templates for dd and flmd. All files are .csv and .pdf. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About.

AI-readiness↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi-resolution Arctic Shrub Cover Dataset Derived from UAS and Airborne SfM and LiDAR (2013-2025)

We synthesized 177 unoccupied aerial system flights and 77 airborne flights across the Arctic and created a multi-resolution benchmark data of low-to-tall shrub fractional cover leveraging Structure-from-Motion and Light Detection and Ranging. The resulting dataset covered a total of 1899 km2 across Alaska, Western Canada, Sweden, and Siberian Arctic, including key sites from the Oro Arctic to the High Arctic. The dataset is organized into 6 primary data collection directories (“Abisko,” “AWI,” “ERE,” “Fairbanks,” “NGEE,” “Toolik”), each containing site and flight subdirectories. Flight directories include shrub cover rasters (*.tifs) at 1 m, 5 m, and 30 m resolution, the canopy height model at 1 m resolution (*.tifs), and a bounding box *.kml file. For the AWI, Abisko, NGEE, and Fairbanks collections, we also include the GCC raster at 1 m resolution (*.tif). Files are organized by Collection > Site > Flight Name > Data Files. Flight rasters are in the local UTM zone and the .kml files are in the geographic coordinate system EPSG 4326. We also include a .csv file that details the source datasets for every flight. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments in the Arctic (NGEE Arctic) project is a research effort to reduce uncertainty in the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) by developing a predictive understanding of Arctic tundra ecosystems underlain by permafrost and to quantify feedbacks from the Arctic tundra to the Earth system. NGEE Arctic is supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Over Phases 1–3, observations made by the NGEE Arctic team across a gradient of permafrost landscapes in Arctic Alaska improved the representation of tundra processes in the land surface component of E3SM (the E3SM Land Model, ELM). Model improvements emphasized unique aspects of permafrost environments and explored reductions in model complexity while retaining predictive power. The Arctic-informed ELM developed by NGEE Arctic has been used to make novel predictions on processes ranging from permafrost thaw to soil biogeochemical cycling to Earth system feedbacks associated with the unique characteristics of tundra plants. In Phase 4, the NGEE Arctic team is evaluating our new predictive understanding under novel conditions across the Arctic domain. In collaboration with partners at long-term pan-Arctic research sites we are examining whether an Arctic-informed ELM can faithfully simulate interactions among surface and subsurface processes at site, regional, and pan-Arctic scales. In turn, we are using variety of tools to dynamically extend and evaluate ELM inference, with an emphasis on data synthesis and pan-Arctic model evaluation, reintegration of code with an evolving E3SM, scaling across heterogeneous Arctic landscapes, and the appropriate representation of the impacts of increasingly frequent Arctic disturbances.

canopy height model↗
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

Meteoric 10Be Flux Calibration Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

This data package contains tabular and geospatial data used to quantify and model meteoric beryllium-10 fluxes in the East River watershed, Colorado, USA. The tabular component includes calibration-site data from five glacial moraine sites and includes environmental variables used to evaluate spatial controls on meteoric 10Be delivery, including elevation, mean annual precipitation (MAP), mean snow depth, and mean snow water equivalent (SWE). These site-level data were used to compare observed fluxes with environmental gradients across the watershed and to evaluate the effects of erosion correction on flux estimates. The package also includes supporting slope and curvature values used to assess topographic inputs to the erosion analysis. A second component of the data package contains updated manuscript tables and regression outputs used to summarize the relationships between meteoric 10Be flux and environmental predictors. These tables include meteoric 10Be sample information and AMS results, site-level environmental values, site-level meteoric 10Be inventory and flux values, watershed-averaged predicted fluxes, soil bulk density measurements, fine-fraction values, soil pH measurements, and regression statistics including slope, intercept, coefficient of determination, and p-value. The regression products include both standard linear regressions and regressions in which the intercept is constrained to pass through zero, and they support the analyses presented in the companion manuscript. Together, these tabular files provide the numerical basis for the manuscript tables and the regression-based interpretation of meteoric 10Be flux variability in a snow-dominated mountain watershed. The geospatial component of the package consists of GeoTIFF raster files used to generate the map products presented in Figures 2 and 6 of the companion manuscript. These rasters represent watershed-scale spatial layers for environmental variables and regression-based predictions of meteoric 10Be flux. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), GeoTIFF raster files (.tif), and upporting metadata files, including CSV data dictionaries and readme text files (.csv, .txt). The tabular files can be opened with standard spreadsheet software, and the raster files can be viewed and analyzed in GIS software such as ArcGIS Pro or QGIS. Together, these files document the numerical and spatial datasets used to calibrate and predict meteoric 10Be delivery in the East River watershed.

East River↗
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 OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Crown polygons and extracted reflectance for field sampling sites

This dataset contains (1) crown polygons for each tree, meadow, and shrub site sampled in the 2025 Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (in geojson format, .geojson) and (2) extracted reflectance, uncertainty, and shade estimates for each crown polygon from the 2018 National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and 2025 CHESS campaigns. (in CSV format, .csv). Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). Crown polygons were manually delineated for each site in the 2025 campaign using a combination of field-collected GPS data (doi:10.15485/3022418), RGB (red, green, blue) and false color reflectance mosaics (doi:10.15485/3013535), and LiDAR-derived (Light Detection and Ranging) canopy height (CHM) and digital surface (DSM) models (DOI and citation to be added upon publication). Where there was misalignment between the spectrometer- and LiDAR-derived data products, polygons prioritized alignment with the spectrometer-derived data products. Polygons were delineated conservatively to only select pixels representative of vegetation samples collected in the field. Crown polygons for 2018 are published at (doi:10.15485/1618130) and were developed using the same protocol. For each polygon, all pixels from all flightlines were extracted where the pixel centroid was contained within the polygon. For each pixel, we extracted the surface reflectance, uncertainty, and shade estimates. Details on the extracted datasets are available at (doi:10.15485/3013527, doi:10.15485/3013535). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgment: This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004) and was funded by EMIT Extended Mission Phase E Science.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data and scripts associated with a manuscript modeling microbial regulation of priming effects

This data package is associated with the publication “Modeling Microbial Regulatory Feedback in Organic Matter Decomposition Identifies Copiotrophic Traits as Key Drivers of Positive Priming” published as a preprint on BioRXiv by Ahamed et al. (2026); https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.11.607483. The package contains MATLAB scripts and saved simulation outputs used to implement a cybernetic model of microbial regulation during complex organic matter (OM) decomposition governing priming effects. It includes models of (i) single microbial functional groups (copiotrophic or oligotrophic degraders) and (ii) binary consortia composed of degraders and non-degraders with contrasting or common growth traits. Simulation results were generated using Monte Carlo analyses, with randomized key model parameters across a range of environmental mixing fractions of complex and labile OM. The dataset was created to provide a transparent and reusable computational framework for systematically exploring how microbial growth traits, metabolic regulation, and community composition influence OM decomposition dynamics and priming effects. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes the variable definitions. This package includes: (1) annotated MATLAB code implementing the system of ordinary differential equations and cybernetic control laws; (2) saved output files containing data (e.g., biomass, substrates, enzyme levels, priming metrics); and (3) scripts for processing saved outputs and regenerating figures. Specifically, the data package contains three main MATLAB scripts: runPrimingModel.m, runPlotData.m, and runPlotSuppFigS1.m, along with this readme and supporting documentation. Users should begin with runPrimingModel.m, which contains the annotated code implementing the system of ordinary differential equations and cybernetic control laws. This script runs the Monte Carlo simulations of microbial OM decomposition and allows users to modify microbial trait definitions, adjust parameter distributions, or define new community configurations. Simulation outputs are automatically saved as .mat files in the folder named SavedData, which stores all pre-generated results included in this package. The second script, runPlotData.m, reads files from the SavedData folder and processes them to regenerate the figures presented in the manuscript. The third script, runPlotSuppFigS1.m, specifically generates Figure S1 in the Supplementary Material of the manuscript. The package also includes the aforementioned files in non-proprietary .txt format. If users intend to use them, they should first save the files in their respective .m or .mat formats prior to execution in MATLAB.

Biomass concentration↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Zheng et al. (2025), "AquaMEND: Reconciling multiple impacts of salinization on soil carbon biogeochemistry"

Soil salinization, exacerbated by climate change, poses a global threat to coastal ecosystems and soil function. Salinity affects soil carbon cycling by directly impacting microbial activity and indirectly altering soil physicochemical properties, but current models inadequately represent these complexities. This dataset contains the observational and modeling data from Zheng et al. (2025), which described a process-based modeling framework that couples soil solution chemistry with microbial carbon cycling reactions to study the impacts of soil salinization. This conceptual model is implemented numerically into the open-source geochemical program PHREEQC 3.0 (Parkhurst and Appelo, 2013). This dataset consists of: - Figure2_AquaMEND_salinity_buffer: Contains model simulation outputs to assess the impact of three different cation exchange and surface complexation processes on salinity buffering (Fig. 2 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure3_Salinity_function: Contains salinity function fitting for literature data (Fig. 3 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure4_AquaMEND_microbial_mechanisms: Contains model simulation outputs for testing various microbial process-based hypotheses related to soil salinization, including microbial mortality, carbon use efficiency (CUE), extracellular enzyme activity, and other microbial mechanisms (Fig. 4 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure5_AquaMEND_Redox: Contains on model simulation outputs to evaluate shifts among key redox processes, such as aerobic respiration, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis (Fig.5 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure6_AquaMEND_sorption: Contains on model simulation outputs for investigating the effects of salinity on dissolved organic matter (DOM) sorption and desorption processes (Fig. 6 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure7_AquaMEND_process_couple: Contains on model simulation outputs for exploring coupled biotic-abiotic processes and their interactions (Fig. 7 from Zheng et al. 2025). - data: Includes datasets used to develop salinity response functions and evaluate salinity buffering capacity. Datasets for MEND model calibration. - database: Contains the `.dat` file required by PHREEQC for model execution. - README.md: A Markdown plain text file describing the computational tools and directories. Files are a mixture of plain text CSV (comma-separated value) and plain text *.dat files written by the model; no special software is required to read them.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL SALINIT↗
DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE Wood Anatomy of Picea mariana and Larix laricina in SPRUCE Experimental Plots, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, July 2023

Branch samples were collected in July 2023 to measure wood anatomical traits on two dominant conifer species, Picea mariana and Larix laricina, in a bog forest at the SPRUCE (Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments) experiment in northern Minnesota. Anatomical measurements were made on the annual rings of those branches with dates ranging from 2011-2023. Wood anatomical measurements include annual tracheid diameter, tracheid density, cell wall thickness, thickness-to-span-ratio, and conduit lumen fraction in both earlywood and latewood. Wood anatomical samples were prepared using a portable sliding microtome (G.S.L.-1 lightweight microtome, WSL) and a light microscope (Leica DM2500). This dataset spans 2011–2023, with full branch-level coverage for 2020–2023, whereas some thinner branches formed only in recent years and therefore do not contain rings from earlier years. By providing annual, treatment-specific anatomical measurements, this dataset can help quantify structural acclimation to global change, clarify links among phenology, wood formation, and hydraulic traits, and improve predictions of forest growth response under future climates. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

annual tracheid diameter↗
DOE OSTI2026

EXCHANGE Campaign 2 - Microbial Biomass Collapse (EC2-MBC): Carbon Availability Under Prolonged Flooding in Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystems

Our collective research focus is on investigating the interaction between carbon availability and microbial demands during prolonged flooding. Through laboratory experiments utilizing freshly collected soil samples from diverse transition zone environments, we aim to simulate flooding and understand the mechanisms governing carbon cycling under anoxic conditions. Our primary objective is to elucidate how carbon becomes available to microbes and how they utilize it, discerning between maintenance and investment processes. By examining soils from regions with differing native redox conditions, our aim is to gain comprehensive insights into carbon dynamics across various soil types. Future data types will be added to the ESS-DIVE data package as they are completed and will be version-controlled in the Change History section of EC2_MBC_README.pdf. This data package includes: EC2_MBC_README.pdf flmd.csv dd.csv EC2_SampleIdentificationKey.csv EC2_SoilMoistureKey.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Entisols.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Inceptisols.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Ultisols.csv Processed_Porewater_Iron_II.csv Processed_Porewater_Nutrients.csv Processed_Porewater_Sulfate.csv Processed_Probe_Measurements.csv Processed_Soil_HydrolyticEnzymes.csv Processed_Soil_MicrobialCN.csv Processed_Soil_NPOC_TN_SaltExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_NPOC_TN_WaterExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_OlsenPExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_SaltExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_WaterExtracted.csv Processed_DO_Probe.zip Processed_Temperature_Probe.zip

Carbon Cycling↗
DOE OSTI2026

EXCHANGE Campaign Degradation (ECD): Understanding Decomposition Dynamics Across Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystems

The EXploration of Coastal Hydrobiogeochemistry Across a Network of Gradients and Experiments (EXCHANGE) Degradation Experiment (EXCHANGE-D) is an in situ experiment designed to assess organic matter decomposition rates across coastal terrestrial-aquatic interfaces (TAIs), from coastal uplands through transition zones to wetlands. Through a network of partner scientists and coastal sites, we are testing how environmental gradients shape decomposition and carbon dynamics across terrestrial-aquatic interfaces. Using standardized tea bag substrates deployed across a network of diverse coastal sites, we compare decomposition rates at different fresh- and salt-water TAIs to develop transferable knowledge that improves the representation of organic matter degradation in coastal ecosystem models. For more information, please see https://compass.pnnl.gov/FME/EXCHANGE. This is Version 1 of the data package, which includes: ecd_README.pdf flmd.csv dd.csv ecd_soil_weom_L2.csv ecd_soil_ph_conductivity_L2.csv ecd_soil_gwc_L2.csv ecd_soil_teabag_degradation_L2.csv ecd_readme.pdf

coastal soils↗
DOE OSTI2026

Synoptic NO3 in Slate River Watershed, Colorado (2022)

The synoptic nitrate (NO3) dataset in the Slate River Watershed, Colorado consists of NO3 data collected at 19 locations three times during the summer of 2022. Stream samples were collected in early summer (early July), mid summer (late August), and late summer (late September). The samples include mainstem, tributary, and point source input water samples. These data were collected to evaluate spatiotemporal variability in stream NO3 during the summer, and evaluate anthropogenic controls on stream NO3 dynamics. This data package contains: (1) a csv of all NO3 samples and (2) a csv of locations for each sampling site. The dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. 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 > BIOSPHERE > ECOSYSTEMS > FRESHWATE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Effects of 9.5 Years of Whole-Soil Warming on the Fatty Acid and n-Alkanes Composition in Bulk Soil and Density Fractions at Blodgett Experimental Forest, California, USA

Original data of molecular data (fatty acids and n-alkanes) including concentrations and calculated molecular proxies in a whole-soil warming experiment at the Blodgett Forest Research Station after 9.5 years of warming. The study site has a Mediterranean climate with annual average temperature of 12.5 ℃ and annual average precipitation of 1774 mm. The study site is characterized by a mesic Ultic Alfisol formed from granitic parent material, corresponding to a Dystric Cambisol under the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) classification system. Experimental warming is applied throughout the soil profile to a depth of 1 m using vertically embedded heating cables that raise soil temperature by 4 °C relative to ambient conditions. Soil samples were collected on 1 May 2023, after the experiment had been operating continuously for about 9.5 years since its initiation in January 2014.The data has been processed from raw data and cross-validated by other peers. The dataset includes: - Bulk_Fattyacid_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: fatty acid concentrations and proxies including Carbon Preference Index (CPI) and Average Chain Length (ACL) of bulk soil organic carbon; - Fractions_Fattyacid_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: fatty acid concentrations and proxies including CPI and ACL of free particulate organic matter (fPOM) and mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM); - Bulk_Alkanes_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: n-alkanes concentrations and proxies including CPI and ACL of bulk soil organic carbon; - Fractions_Alkanes_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: n-alkanes concentrations and proxies including CPI and ACL of fPOM and MAOM; - n-Alkanes_All_Monomer_Concentration_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: concentration of all the n-alkane monomers identified and integrated for bulk soil, fPOM and MAOM; - Fattyacid_All_Monomer_Concentration_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: concentration of all the fatty acid monomers including diacids identified and integrated for bulk soil, fPOM, and MAOM. All data are provided in CSV format and can be viewed using Microsoft Excel. We specifically look at fatty acids (FA) and n-alkanes in bulk soil, fPOM and MAOM and calculated molecular proxies such as CPI and ACL to understand the source of oragnic carbon (with ACL) and degree of decomposition (CPI) of each soil fraction. Due to lack of long-chain fatty acids (carbon number ⩾ 20), microorganism-derived organic carbon is characterized by shorter ACL in comparison to plant-derived organic carbon. Fresh SOC is characterized by even-over-odd dominance for fatty acids and odd-over-even dominance for n-alkanes. Therefore, CPI indicates whether soil organic carbon (SOC) represents fresh input (CPI > 10) or is strongly decomposed (close to 1). The research questions should be then, after 9.5-year warming: 1. whether the relative contribution between microorganism-derived and plant-derived SOC in each soil fraction? 2. whether fPOM became more decomposed whereas MAOM remained relatively persistent in each soil fraction across the soil depth?

Carbon↗
DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE FT-ICR MS, Bulk Chemistry, and Mass Loss from Litter Decomposition Study in Experimental Plots, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, 2015-2017

This dataset contains molecular, bulk chemical, and mass loss measurements from a litter decomposition study at the Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments (SPRUCE) experimental site within the Marcell Experimental Forest in northern Minnesota, USA. This site is in a Sphagnum spp. ombrotrophic bog forest. Litterbags were deployed into the peat in September 2015 across three warming levels (+0, +4.5, and +9°C) under ambient and elevated carbon dioxide (CO₂ - +500 ppm) and retrieved after roughly 0.5, 1, and 2 years of field incubation (2015-09-23 to 2017-08-02). Litterbags containing six peatland litter types: black spruce needles (Picea mariana - SPL), spruce fine roots (SPR), Sphagnum angustifolium (ANG), Sphagnum magellanicum (MAG), Labrador tea leaves (Rhododendron groenlandicum - LTL), and Labrador tea roots (LTR). Molecular composition of water-soluble organic matter extracts was characterized using Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FT-ICR MS) at 9.4 Tesla, operated in negative ion mode with electrospray ionization, providing molecular formula assignments and compound-class distributions across the decomposition time series. Bulk chemical characterization included elemental analysis (percent carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) to quantify functional group composition. Litter mass loss was tracked gravimetrically at each retrieval interval, expressed as percent mass remaining relative to initial dry mass for each litter type and treatment combination. These data are valuable for understanding how vegetation shifts driven by increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature in peatlands alter litter inputs and organic matter stabilization trajectories, with implications for projecting and modeling peatland carbon cycling. This dataset contains two data files in comma-separated value (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: two data dictionaries and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

decomposition↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Induction (EMI) Data, 2024, Trail Creek, Colorado

This dataset contains Electromagnetic Induction (EMI) data collected at Trail Creek, Colorado, in 2024. EMI surveys were conducted to investigate the spatial distribution of electrical conductivity in the subsurface, providing insights into soil moisture and subsurface geological features. The surveys were performed along multiple transects to capture variations in conductivity influenced by changes in soil composition, moisture content, and underlying geological structures. This dataset complements other geophysical data collected in the region, including Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and Terrestrial LiDAR Scanning (TLS), providing a detailed understanding of the subsurface and its impact on surface vegetation and hydrological processes. The data are valuable for environmental geophysics, ecological research, and hydrological modeling in mountainous ecosystems. The files include: - data.zip: the raw EMI data (.csv) - inversion.zip: the inverted resistivity model (.csv and .kml) - kriging.zip: the kriging resistivity model (.csv, .tif, .kmz) - flmd.csv: file level metadata file describing all files within this dataset - dd.csv: data dictionary file describing the column headers within CSV 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.

CMD Mini-Explorer↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data from: "Towards CONUS-Wide ML-Augmented Conceptually-Interpretable Modeling of Catchment-Scale Precipitation-Storage-Runoff Dynamics"

This data package was generated to support the manuscript “Towards CONUS-Wide Machine Learning-Augmented Conceptually Interpretable Modeling of Catchment-Scale Precipitation-Storage-Runoff Dynamics.” It provides input files, model outputs, plotting data, scripts, notebooks, and documentation used to develop, evaluate, and reproduce Mass-Conserving Perceptron (MCP)-based hydrologic modeling experiments across 513 selected Catchment Attributes and Meteorology for Large-sample Studies in the United States (CAMELS-US) basins. The files are organized by modeling component and analysis purpose, including rainfall–runoff experiments, snow module experiments, coupled hydrologic-snow experiments, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) benchmark results, model skill metrics, initialization and epoch records, cell-state normalization files, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)-based model comparison files, and data used to generate manuscript figures. Tabular files can be opened using standard spreadsheet software or Python/R data-analysis tools. Python scripts, Jupyter notebooks, and selected MATLAB scripts are included for model execution, postprocessing, plotting, and statistical analysis. Quality assurance and quality control were conducted through the source-data selection and modeling workflow. Meteorological forcing, streamflow, and static catchment attributes were derived from the CAMELS-US dataset, and snow water equivalent data were derived from the University of Arizona (UA) Snow Water Equivalent dataset. Selected basins and time periods were screened during the associated research workflow to avoid missing observations or poor-quality cases. Static geospatial features were processed primarily using Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS) and Geospatial Data Abstraction Library (GDAL) workflows. Additional details are provided in the associated manuscript and documentation.

ESS-DIVE CSV File Formatting Guidelines Reporting ↗