Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Unsaturated soil”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2000

BOREAS TF-4 CO2 and CH4 Soil Profile Data from the SSA

The BOReal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study Tower Flux (BOREAS TF-4) team measured distributions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) concentrations for the upper 5 m of soil and unsaturated zone at the mature stand, upper 6 m at the 20-year-old stand, and the upper 1 m at the 8-year-old stand and clear cut area at the BOREAS Southern Study Area (SSA) during August 1993 to March 1995. Particle size and carbon content of the unsaturated deposits, precipitation, soil temperature and moisture, carbon and oxygen isotopes of soil CO2, and soil water chemistry are also presented. The data are stored in tabular ASCII files.

Striegl, Robert↗
DOE OSTI2021

Arsenic hyperaccumulator Pteris vittata shows reduced biomass in soils with high arsenic and low nutrient availability, leading to increased arsenic leaching from soil

Plant-soil interactions affect arsenic and nutrient availability in arsenic-contaminated soils, with implications for arsenic uptake and tolerance in plants, and leaching from soil. In 22-week column experiments, we grew the arsenic hyperaccumulating fern Pteris vittata in a coarse- and a medium-textured soil to determine the effects of phosphorus fertilization and mycorrhizal fungi inoculation on P. vittata arsenic uptake and arsenic leaching. We investigated soil arsenic speciation using synchrotron-based spectromicroscopy. Greater soil arsenic availability and lower nutrient content in the coarse-textured soil were associated with greater fern arsenic uptake, lower biomass (apparently a metabolic cost of tolerance), and arsenic leaching from soil, due to lower transpiration. P. vittata hyperaccumulated arsenic from coarse- but not medium-textured soil. Mass of plant-accumulated arsenic was 1.2 to 2.4 times greater, but aboveground biomass was 74% smaller, in ferns growing in coarse-textured soil. In the presence of ferns, mean arsenic loss by leaching was 195% greater from coarse- compared to the medium-textured soil, and lower across both soils compared to the absence of ferns. In the medium-textured soil arsenic concentrations in leachate were higher in the presence of ferns. Fern arsenic uptake was always greater than loss by leaching. Most arsenic (>66%) accumulated in P. vittata appeared of rhizosphere origin. In the medium-textured soil with more clay and higher nutrient content, successful iron scavenging increased arsenic release from soil for leaching, but transpiration curtailed leaching.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluating simplifications of subsurface process representations for field-scale permafrost hydrology models

Abstract. Permafrost degradation within a warming climate poses a significant environmental threat through both the permafrost carbon feedback and damage to human communities and infrastructure. Understanding this threat relies on better understanding and numerical representation of thermo-hydrological permafrost processes and the subsequent accurate prediction of permafrost dynamics. All models include simplified assumptions, implying a tradeoff between model complexity and prediction accuracy. The main purpose of this work is to investigate this tradeoff when applying the following commonly made assumptions: (1) assuming equal density of ice and liquid water in frozen soil, (2) neglecting the effect of cryosuction in unsaturated freezing soil, and (3) neglecting advective heat transport during soil freezing and thaw. This study designed a set of 62 numerical experiments using the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS v1.2) to evaluate the effects of these choices on permafrost hydrological outputs, including both integrated and pointwise quantities. Simulations were conducted under different climate conditions and soil properties from three different sites in both column- and hillslope-scale configurations. Results showed that amongst the three physical assumptions, soil cryosuction is the most crucial yet commonly ignored process. Neglecting cryosuction, on average, can cause 10 %–20 % error in predicting evaporation, 50 %–60 % error in discharge, 10 %–30 % error in thaw depth, and 10 %–30 % error in soil temperature at 1 m beneath the surface. The prediction error for subsurface temperature and water saturation is more obvious at hillslope scales due to the presence of lateral flux. By comparison, using equal ice–liquid density has a minor impact on most hydrological metrics of interest but significantly affects soil water saturation with an averaged 5 %–15 % error. Neglecting advective heat transport presents the least error, 5 % or even much lower, in most metrics of interest for a large-scale Arctic tundra system without apparent influence caused by localized groundwater flow, and it can decrease the simulation time at hillslope scales by 40 %–80 %. By challenging these commonly made assumptions, this work provides permafrost hydrology scientists an important context for understanding the underlying physical processes, including allowing modelers to better choose the appropriate process representation for a given modeling experiment.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Democratization of fungal highway columns as a tool to investigate bacteria associated with soil fungi

ABSTRACT Bacteria–fungi interactions (BFIs) are essential in ecosystem functioning. These interactions are modulated not only by local nutritional conditions but also by the physicochemical constraints and 3D structure of the environmental niche. In soils, the unsaturated and complex nature of the substrate restricts the dispersal and activity of bacteria. Under unsaturated conditions, some bacteria engage with filamentous fungi in an interaction (fungal highways) in which they use fungal hyphae to disperse. Based on a previous experimental device to enrich pairs of organisms engaging in this interaction in soils, we present here the design and validation of a modified version of this sampling system constructed using additive printing. The 3D printed devices were tested using a novel application in which a target fungus, the common coprophilous fungus Coprinopsis cinerea, was used as bait to recruit and identify bacterial partners using its mycelium for dispersal. Bacteria of the genera Pseudomonas, Sphingobacterium and Stenotrophomonas were highly enriched in association with C. cinerea. Developing and producing these new easy-to-use tools to investigate how bacteria overcome dispersal limitations in cooperation with fungi is important to unravel the mechanisms by which BFIs affect processes at an ecosystem scale in soils and other unsaturated environments.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1994

Impact of microwave derived soil moisture on hydrologic simulations using a spatially distributed water balance model

Spatial distributions of soil moisture over an agricultural watershed with a drainage area of 60 ha were derived from two NASA microwave remote sensors, and then used as a feedback to determine the initial condition for a distributed water balance model. Simulated hydrologic fluxes over a period of twelve days were compared with field observations and with model predictions based on a streamflow derived initial condition. The results indicated that even the low resolution remotely sensed data can improve the hydrologic model's performance in simulating the dynamics of unsaturated zone soil moisture. For the particular watershed under study, the simulated water budget was not sensitive to the resolutions of the microwave sensors.

Lin, D. S.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Design and construction of 3D printed devices to investigate active and passive bacterial dispersal on hydrated surfaces

Background: To disperse in water-unsaturated environments, such as the soil, bacteria rely on the availability and structure of water films forming on biotic and abiotic surfaces, and, especially, along fungal mycelia. Dispersal along such “fungal highways” may be driven both by mycelial physical properties and by interactions between bacteria and fungi. However, we still do not have a way to disentangle the biotic and abiotic elements. Results: We designed and 3D printed two devices establishing stable liquid films that support bacteria dispersal in the absence of biotic interactions. The thickness of the liquid film determined the presence of hydraulic flow capable of transporting non-motile cells. In the absence of flow, only motile cells can disperse in the presence of an energy source. Non-motile cells could not disperse autonomously without flow but dispersed as “hitchhikers” when co-inoculated with motile cells. Conclusions: The 3D printed devices can be used as an abiotic control to study bacterial dispersal on hydrated surfaces, such as plant roots and fungal hyphae networks in the soil. By teasing apart the abiotic and biotic dimensions, these 3D printed devices will stimulate further research on microbial dispersal in soil and other water-unsaturated environments.

3D printing↗
DOE OSTI2023

Soil water content, matric potential, carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations, Oct 2018-Dec 2021, Slate River Floodplain, Crested Butte, Colorado

This data package includes a time series of soil sensor data (temperature, water content, bulk electrical conductivity, porewater dissolved oxygen and porewater dissolved carbon dioxide) in a vertical profile from the Slate River floodplain outside Crested Butte, Colorado, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? The package includes: (1) soil temperature, volumetric water content and electrical conductivity at 40, 60 and 82.5 cm depth; (2) soil matric potential at 40, 60, 79 and 100 cm depth; (3) soil CO2 concentrations at 40, 60 and 82.5 cm depth; and (4) soil oxygen concentrations at 60, 82.5, 100, 135, 170 and 182 cm depth. Both the carbon dioxide and oxygen sensors are optical sensors that can measure the partial pressure of oxygen in both saturated and unsaturated conditions. Unfortunately, soil CO2 in the profile is unexpectedly high and above the sensor calibration range (0-25,000 ppm). In addition, soil CO2 sensors failed within a year of deployment, so we only report CO2 data from 2019-2020.Within the data package, "FLMD.csv" describes file-level metadata and "dd.csv" defines column headers and universal terms across the dataset. The data package includes 4 "*data.csv" files, one for each calendar year in the dataset. Each "*data.csv" file has a corresponding "*_InstallationMethods.csv" file that describes the location, sensor model, sensor serial number and other metadata corresponding for each measured parameter. Because sensors have been added over time, not every sensor has data dating back to Oct 2018. Note that there is a data gap over winter 2019-2020 due to a power outage. While this repository currently only contains data through December 2021, the dataset will be updated as additional years are collected and processed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Controlling matric potential in microfluidics to examine microbial dynamics in unsaturated porous media

The use of microfluidics for the study of soil microbial ecology is an emerging field. Most microfluidic studies of biological systems, however, have been performed under fully saturated conditions that are not representative of natural soil. Therefore, while microfluidics offer many unique capabilities that other methodologies cannot, they are not currently suited to address the effects of matric potential, an important variable defining the microbial moisture niche. Here, a methodology is presented that allows the user to control the aqueous conditions within microfluidic networks by manipulating matric potential using a hanging water column. The method relies on hydrophilic surface treatment of the microfluidic device using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and incorporating a bed of small pores at the network boundaries, which serve as a porous ceramic plate analogue (PPA). The method was validated on a simple capillary bundle and then on a more complex pore network. A water retention curve, exhibiting hysteresis, was generated for the pore network over a narrow matric potential range of 0 to – 5 kPa. Both the drainage and wetting curves were reproducible, as were the spatial configuration and the number of fragmented moisture niches in the pore network, particularly on the drainage curve. In contrast, the wetting curve exhibited greater variability in spatial configuration due to the “ink bottle effect,” where capillarity was interrupted by wider pore bodies. Ultimately, the methodology provides realistic pore-scale moisture conditions that can be easily manipulated and maintained, enabling new opportunities to explore soil biophysics and microbial biogeography in unsaturated porous media. As a brief example, images showing the localization of fluorescently tagged Pantoea sp. YR343 at −4.3 kPa are presented, highlighting bacterial distributions in water films and air-water interfaces.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Exploring limitations in the induced polarization versus surface conductivity relationship in the case of wetland soils

Recent induced polarization studies suggest that the real part of surface conductivity (σ' surf ) scales linearly with the imaginary conductivity (σ'' = σ'' surf ) or normalized chargeability (Mn) for a range of soil types. The coefficients of this relationship l and l_Mn ( l = σ''/σ' surf or l_Mn = Mn/σ' surf ) allow the separation of the surface and electrolytic conductivities from the bulk conductivity. However, the dependence of these constants on varying soil physicochemical properties, including under unsaturated conditions, is yet to be assessed. Using estimates of σ' surf from 18 undisturbed soil samples from a restored wetland and σ'' measured over a frequency range of 0.01 Hz to 10 kHz, the σ' surf and σ'' were compared with the laboratory measurements of soil properties. Also, l and l_Mn were calculated for each soil sample and regressed them against the soil properties. We find an apparent dependence of l on soil texture, bulk density, organic matter, and moisture contents, with coefficients of determination (R 2 ) ranging from 0.5 to 0.65 at low frequencies (e.g., 1 Hz) but not at high frequencies (e.g., 936 Hz). This dependence of l on soil texture results from the insensitivity of σ'' at low frequency to σ' surf and, by implication, to the soil properties controlling σ' surf . In contrast, l_Mn indicates no correlation with the soil properties because Mn is linearly correlated with σ' surf and correlated with the soil properties controlling σ' surf . Finally, our results call for caution on the application of σ'' at a single frequency as a proxy of σ' surf because σ'' is not necessarily correlated with σ' surf across all soil types. Although using l_Mn derived from multifrequency measurements overcomes this limitation, field acquisition of spectral information (e.g., up to 1000 Hz) remains a challenge.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Upland Yedoma taliks are an unpredicted source of atmospheric methane

Landscape drying associated with permafrost thaw is expected to enhance microbial methane oxidation in arctic soils. Here we show that ice-rich, Yedoma permafrost deposits, comprising a disproportionately large fraction of pan-arctic soil carbon, present an alternate trajectory. Field and laboratory observations indicate that talik (perennially thawed soils in permafrost) development in unsaturated Yedoma uplands leads to unexpectedly large methane emissions (35–78 mg m -2 d -1 summer, 150–180 mg m -2 d -1 winter). Upland Yedoma talik emissions were nearly three times higher annually than northern-wetland emissions on an areal basis. Approximately 70% emissions occurred in winter, when surface-soil freezing abated methanotrophy, enhancing methane escape from the talik. Remote sensing and numerical modeling indicate the potential for widespread upland talik formation across the pan-arctic Yedoma domain during the 21 st and 22 nd centuries. Contrary to current climate model predictions, these findings imply a positive and much larger permafrost-methane-climate feedback for upland Yedoma.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of Potential Dose and Environmental Impacts from Proposed Testing at the INL Radiological Response Training Range

This assessment uses screening-level models to calculate potential environmental impacts from proposed tests at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Radiological Response Training Range (RRTR) site. Proposed tests could be conducted using 11 different radioactive material types that include K2O, LaBr3, KBr, Cu, Zr, F, Ga, Ga2O3, NaNO2, Ga-68, and Tc-99m. The tests could potentially release radioactive material to the atmosphere and radionuclides and other contaminants to the soil, which could leach into the unsaturated zone and migrate to the aquifer. Atmospheric transport of radionuclides to potential human receptors and time-integrated air concentrations were calculated with a Gaussian plume model and three years of hourly meteorological data. Potential surface-soil impacts were calculated with the computer program mixing-cell model (MCM). Groundwater impacts were calculated with the computer programs MCM and GWSCREEN. Radiological doses from potential atmospheric releases were calculated for public receptors off the INL Site and for workers at nearby INL facilities. Results were compared to regulatory dose limits. Maximum potential groundwater concentrations were estimated in the aquifer below the NSTR site and compared to drinking water standards or risk-based screening levels for resident tap water. Soil concentrations were calculated and compared to risk-based screening levels for workers and potential future residents. All impacts were estimated assuming 12 tests are conducted annually using all 11 material types for a period of 15 years. This document provides the resources to enable a subject matter expert in the field of environmental assessments to replicate the modeling and calculations. The methodology and parameters are presented in the text. All electronic files, including computer-code input, output, executable files, batch files, scripts, and spreadsheet files are contained in a zip file that can be accessed by selecting “Additional Information” (select Native File) in the INL Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). It is highly unlikely the test scenarios evaluated in this ECAR will adversely impact human health based on comparisons of calculated dose and concentration against regulatory standards and risk-based screening levels. Conservative estimates of dose to workers and the public from atmospheric transport of possible radionuclide releases are far below federal radiation protection standards. Conservative estimates of potential contaminant concentrations in groundwater are less than federal drinking water standards or screening levels. Predicted radionuclide concentrations in surface soils are below risk-based screening levels, except for Ge-68 (material Ga-68) for the worker. The Ge-68 soil concentration can be made less than the worker PRG, if the number of annual tests using Ga-68 is reduced from 12 to 6. However, the sum of ratios still exceeds one because of the high K-40 ratio. If the EF of the worker (number of days the worker is in the contaminated testing area) is reduced from 225 days/yr (default value for full time worker) to 112 days/yr, the Ge-68 ratio is less than one and the sum of ratios is less than one. Actual radiation doses and groundwater and surface-soil concentrations are likely to be much less than those calculated because of the conservative assumptions and parameters employed in the modeling. For example, atmospheric-transport calculations assume the entire inventory of each material type is readily released to the atmosphere and no plume deposition, depletion, or radioactive decay occurs during transport. The calculations also assume the same meteorological conditions (e.g., wind velocity, wind direction, stability class) that produce the maximum 95th percentile concentration (i.e., concentration representing the 95th percentile of a distribution of concentrations derived from 3 years of hourly meteorological data) at each receptor location are the same for all 12 tests during the year, and each receptor is assumed to be present during all 12 tests. The surface-soil assessment assumes the entire inventory of each test is deposited in the top 5 cm of soil. No atmospheric dispersal is assumed, and the radionuclides are subject only to leaching and radioactive decay. The groundwater-pathway modeling is conservative in that it is one-dimensional in the unsaturated zone (no lateral spreading/dilution) and assumes the entire inventory of contaminants infiltrates into the ground at the same location for every test. This is especially conservative for particulate radionuclides because they would have to dissolve or corrode first and some would be dispersed into the atmosphere. The groundwater receptor is also assumed to consume water directly from a hypothetical well positioned in the location of maximum concentration. In addition, conservative degradation rates were used, and volatilization was not considered for the nonradioactive chemical

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of Potential Dose and Environmental Impacts from Proposed Testing at the INL National Security Test Range

This assessment uses screening-level models to calculate potential environmental impacts from proposed tests at two locations at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) National Security Test Range (NSTR) site. Proposed tests could be conducted using 11 different radioactive material types that include K 2 O, LaBr 3 , KBr, Cu, Zr, F, Ga, Ga 2 O 3 , NaNO 2 , Ga-68, and Tc-99m. The tests could potentially release radioactive material to the atmosphere and radionuclides and other contaminants to the soil, which could leach into the unsaturated zone and migrate to the aquifer. Atmospheric transport of radionuclides to potential human receptors and time-integrated air concentrations were calculated with a Gaussian plume model and three years of hourly meteorological data. Potential surface-soil impacts were calculated with the computer program mixing-cell model (MCM). Groundwater impacts were calculated with the computer programs MCM and GWSCREEN. Radiological doses from potential atmospheric releases were calculated for public receptors off the INL Site and for workers at nearby INL facilities. Results were compared to regulatory dose limits. Maximum potential groundwater concentrations were estimated in the aquifer below the NSTR site and compared to drinking water standards or risk-based screening levels for resident tap water. Soil concentrations were calculated and compared to risk-based screening levels for workers and potential future residents. All impacts were estimated based on the assumption that 12 tests are conducted annually using all 11 material types for 15 years. This document provides the resources to enable a subject matter expert in the field of environmental assessments to replicate the modeling and calculations. The methodology and parameters are presented in the text. All electronic files, including computer-code input, output, executable files, batch files, scripts, and spreadsheet files, are contained in a zip file that can be accessed by selecting “Additional Information” (select Native File) in the INL Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). It is highly unlikely the test scenarios evaluated in this ECAR will adversely impact human health based on comparisons of calculated dose and concentration against regulatory standards and risk-based screening levels. Conservative estimates of dose to workers and the public from atmospheric transport of possible radionuclide releases are far below federal radiation protection standards. Conservative estimates of potential contaminant concentrations in groundwater are less than federal drinking water standards or screening levels. Predicted radionuclide concentrations in surface soils are below risk-based screening levels, except for Ge-68 (material Ga-68) for the worker. The Ge-68 soil concentration can be made less than the worker PRG, if the number of annual tests using Ga-68 is reduced from 12 to 6. However, the sum of ratios still exceeds one because of the high K-40 ratio. If the EF of the worker (number of days the worker is in the contaminated testing area) is reduced from 225 days/yr (default value for full time worker) to 112 days/yr, the Ge-68 ratio is less than one and the sum of ratios is less than one. Actual radiation doses and groundwater and surface-soil concentrations are likely to be much less than those calculated because of the conservative assumptions and parameters employed in the modeling. For example, atmospheric-transport calculations assume the entire inventory of each material type is readily released to the atmosphere and no plume deposition, depletion, or radioactive decay occurs during transport. The calculations also assume the same meteorological conditions (e.g., wind velocity, wind direction, stability class) that produce the maximum 95th percentile concentration (i.e., concentration representing the 95th percentile of a distribution of concentrations derived from 3 years of hourly meteorological data) at each receptor location are the same for all 12 tests during the year, and each receptor is assumed to be present during all 12 tests. The surface-soil assessment assumes the entire inventory of each test is deposited in the top 5 cm of soil. No atmospheric dispersal is assumed, and the radionuclides are subject only to leaching and radioactive decay. The groundwater-pathway modeling is conservative in that it is one-dimensional in the unsaturated zone (no lateral spreading/dilution) and assumes the entire inventory of contaminants infiltrates into the ground at the same location for every test. This is especially conservative for particulate radionuclides because they would have to dissolve or corrode first and some would be dispersed into the atmosphere. The groundwater receptor is also assumed to consume water directly from a hypothetical well positioned in the location of maximum concentration. In addition, conservative degradation rates were used, and volatilization was not considered for the nonradradioactive chemicals modeled. And finally, the calculations assume all 12 tests will be performed at the same place at both locations, and all 11 radioactive material types will be used for each test. This is conservative because it is anticipated that no more than two material types will be used per test.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
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↗
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↗