Superhydrous hematite and goethite: A potential water reservoir in the red dust of Mars?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Chen, Si Athena↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “water potential”
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.
Plant functional types broadly describe water use strategies in the Caatinga, a seasonally dry tropical forest in northeast Brazil
In seasonally dry tropical forests, plant functional type can be classified as deciduous low wood density, deciduous high wood density, or evergreen high wood density species. While deciduousness is often associated with drought-avoidance and low wood density is often associated with tissue water storage, the degree to which these functional types may correspond to diverging and unique water use strategies has not been extensively tested. We examined (a) tolerance to water stress, measured by predawn and mid-day leaf water potential; (b) water use efficiency, measured via foliar δ 13 C; and (c) access to soil water, measured via stem water δ 18 O. We found that deciduous low wood density species maintain high leaf water potential and low water use efficiency. Deciduous high wood density species have lower leaf water potential and variable water use efficiency. Both groups rely on shallow soil water. Evergreen high wood density species have low leaf water potential, higher water use efficiency, and access alternative water sources. These findings indicate that deciduous low wood density species are drought avoiders, with a specialized strategy for storing root and stem water. Deciduous high wood density species are moderately drought tolerant, and evergreen high wood density species are the most drought tolerant group. Our results broadly support the plant functional type framework as a way to understand water use strategies, but also highlight species-level differences.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Hydraulically‐vulnerable trees survive on deep‐water access during droughts in a tropical forest
Summary Deep‐water access is arguably the most effective, but under‐studied, mechanism that plants employ to survive during drought. Vulnerability to embolism and hydraulic safety margins can predict mortality risk at given levels of dehydration, but deep‐water access may delay plant dehydration. Here, we tested the role of deep‐water access in enabling survival within a diverse tropical forest community in Panama using a novel data‐model approach. We inversely estimated the effective rooting depth (ERD, as the average depth of water extraction), for 29 canopy species by linking diameter growth dynamics (1990–2015) to vapor pressure deficit, water potentials in the whole‐soil column, and leaf hydraulic vulnerability curves. We validated ERD estimates against existing isotopic data of potential water‐access depths. Across species, deeper ERD was associated with higher maximum stem hydraulic conductivity, greater vulnerability to xylem embolism, narrower safety margins, and lower mortality rates during extreme droughts over 35 years (1981–2015) among evergreen species. Species exposure to water stress declined with deeper ERD indicating that trees compensate for water stress‐related mortality risk through deep‐water access. The role of deep‐water access in mitigating mortality of hydraulically‐vulnerable trees has important implications for our predictive understanding of forest dynamics under current and future climates.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Mean Inner Potential of Liquid Water
Improving our experimental and theoretical knowledge of electric potentials at liquid-solid boundaries is essential to achieve a deeper understanding of the driving forces behind interfacial processes. Electron holography has proved successful in probing solid-solid interfaces but requires knowledge of the materials’ mean inner potential (MIP, V0), which is a fundamental bulk material property. Combining off-axis electron holography with liquid phase transmission electron microscopy (LPTEM), we provide the first quantitative MIP determination of liquid water V0=+4.48±0.19 V. This value is larger than most theoretical predictions, and to explain the disagreement we assess the dominant factors needed in quantum simulations of liquid water. A precise MIP lays the foundations for nanoscale holographic potential measurements in liquids and provides a benchmark to improve quantum mechanical descriptions of aqueous systems and their interfaces in e.g. electrochemistry, solvation processes and spectroscopy.
Yesibolati, Murat N.↗
Compressional wave velocity and effective stress in unsaturated soil: Potential application for monitoring moisture conditions in vadose zone sediments
Compressional seismic (P-wave) velocities were measured experimentally at different water potentials and confining pressure states using a variety of sediments collected from the US Department of Energy Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. P-wave velocity was measured in variably saturated sediments using ultrasonic piezoelectric transducers and water potential was measured with a heat dissipation sensor. We propose a model to relate changes in P-wave velocity to soil stress conditions using an effective stress formulation that includes capillary stress as well as adsorptive stress. We show that compressional wave velocities can be related to water potential and confining stress using a model with five fitted parameters. A single set of parameters provides an excellent fit to data acquired from all of the sediment samples. Under very dry conditions, corresponding to low water potentials, water flow occurs in adsorptive thin films associated with very low unsaturated hydraulic conductivities. The results presented here suggest the utility of seismic methods for establishing low water potential and flow conditions within variably saturated Hanford formation sediments and providing feedback on the performance of mitigation efforts such as soil desiccation and surface infiltration barriers. Seismic methods can provide minimally invasive, three-dimensional information on relevant flow conditions in vadose zone sediments as well as changes that occur over time.
Linneman, Dorothy C.↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
Detecting forest response to droughts with global observations of vegetation water content
Droughts in a warming climate have become more common and more extreme, making understanding forest responses to water stress increasingly pressing. Analysis of water stress in trees has long focused on water potential in xylem and leaves, which influences stomatal closure and water flow through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. At the same time, changes of vegetation water content (VWC) are linked to a range of tree responses, including fluxes of water and carbon, mortality, flammability, and more. Unlike water potential, which requires demanding in situ measurements, VWC can be retrieved from remote sensing measurements, particularly at microwave frequencies using radar and radiometry. Here, we highlight key frontiers through which VWC has the potential to significantly increase our understanding of forest responses to water stress. To validate remote sensing observations of VWC at landscape scale and to better relate them to data assimilation model parameters, we introduce an ecosystem-scale analogue of the pressure-volume curve, the non-linear relationship between 44 average leaf or branch water potential and water content commonly used in plant hydraulics. The 45 sources of variability in these ecosystem-scale pressure-volume curves and their relationship to 46 forest response to water stress are discussed. We further show to what extent diel, seasonal, and 47 decadal dynamics of VWC reflect variations in different processes relating the tree response to 48 water stress. VWC can also be used for inferring belowground conditions – which are difficult to 49 impossible to observe directly. Lastly, we discuss how a dedicated geostationary spaceborne 50 observational system for VWC, when combined with existing datasets, can capture diel and 51 seasonal water dynamics to advance the science and applications of global forest vulnerability to 52 future droughts.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
An atomic cluster expansion (ACE) potential for water under extreme conditions
We present a machine learning interatomic potential for water designed to capture its complex multiphase behavior, including both molecular and superionic ice phases. The potential is based on the atomic cluster expansion (ACE) formulation and has been parameterized to enable high-fidelity molecular dynamics simulations of water under extreme conditions, for pressures up to 100 GPa and for temperatures between 500 and 6000 K. A diverse range of configurations was generated through ab initio molecular dynamics (AI-MD) simulations, covering insulating and superionic ice phases, liquid water, and dissociated plasma phase. We demonstrate that the H 2 O ACE potential accurately reproduces experimental and DFT predicted isotherms and Hugoniots. Crucially, the potential is able to capture the intricate phase behavior of water, including the transition from molecular fluid to the appropriate solid ice phases, and the superionic ice phases. This work provides a robust interatomic potential that can be used for large-scale, accurate simulations of water under extreme thermodynamic conditions.
75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗
Comparison of potential drinking water source contamination across one hundred U.S. cities
Abstract Drinking water supplies of cities are exposed to potential contamination arising from land use and other anthropogenic activities in local and distal source watersheds. Because water quality sampling surveys are often piecemeal, regionally inconsistent, and incomplete with respect to unregulated contaminants, the United States lacks a detailed comparison of potential source water contamination across all of its large cities. Here we combine national-scale geospatial datasets with hydrologic simulations to compute two metrics representing potential contamination of water supplies from point and nonpoint sources for over a hundred U.S. cities. We reveal enormous diversity in anthropogenic activities across watersheds with corresponding disparities in the potential contamination of drinking water supplies to cities. Approximately 5% of large cities rely on water that is composed primarily of runoff from non-pristine lands (e.g., agriculture, residential, industrial), while four-fifths of all large cities that withdraw surface water are exposed to treated wastewater in their supplies.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Field-scale mapping of California crop water productivity to inform water management in critically overdrafted groundwater basins
Crop water productivity (CWP) metrics can reveal how the dynamics of crop production and water use change across space and time. We use field-scale satellite inputs from 2016–2021 to estimate potential water savings for four crops (almonds, grapes, walnuts, and citrus—which collectively account for approximately one-third of California’s cropland area), within critically overdrafted groundwater sub-basins of California’s San Joaquin Valley. These annual estimates of field-level water savings potential are based on locally achievable CWP values for each crop type. Our findings show considerable spatial variation in CWP and potential water savings within each sub-basin. We find that increasing CWP to peak efficiency (defined as improving fields to the 95th percentile of observed CWP) for four crops could meet up to 36% of the estimated annual overdraft in San Joaquin Valley. For comparison, fallowing 5% of the four crop type fields in the same study area could potentially reduce annual overdraft by 11%. By delivering results at the field scale, our work can inform targeted interventions by irrigation district managers and more efficient allocation of state incentives for improved water management. For example, we estimate that state grant funding for water efficiency upgrades could have amplified potential water savings threefold by targeting investments to the least efficient fields.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Intraspecific Variation for Leaf Physiological and Root Morphological Adaptation to Drought Stress in Alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.)
Drought stress reduces crop biomass yield and the profitability of rainfed agricultural systems. Evaluation of populations or accessions adapted to diverse geographical and agro-climatic environments sheds light on beneficial plant responses to enhance and optimize yield in resource-limited environments. This study used the morphological and physiological characteristics of leaves and roots from two different alfalfa subspecies during progressive drought stress imposed on controlled and field conditions. Two different soils (Experiments 1 and 2) imposed water stress at different stress intensities and crop stages in the controlled environment. Algorithm-based image analysis of leaves and root systems revealed key morphological and physiological traits associated with biomass yield under stress. The Medicago sativa subspecies (ssp.) sativa population, PI478573, had smaller leaves and maintained higher chlorophyll content (CC), leaf water potential, and osmotic potential under water stress. In contrast, M. sativa ssp. varia, PI502521, had larger leaves, a robust root system, and more biomass yield. In the field study, an unmanned aerial vehicle survey revealed PI502521 to have a higher normalized difference vegetation index (vegetation cover and plant health characteristics) throughout the cropping season, whereas PI478573 values were low during the hot summer and yielded low biomass in both irrigated and rainfed treatments. RhizoVision Explorer image analysis of excavated roots revealed a smaller diameter and a narrow root angle as target traits to increase alfalfa biomass yield irrespective of water availability. Root architectural traits such as network area, solidity, volume, surface area, and maximum radius exhibited significant variation at the genotype level only under limited water availability. Different drought-adaptive strategies identified across subspecies populations will benefit the plant under varying levels of water limitation and facilitate the development of alfalfa cultivars suitable across a broad range of growing conditions. The alleles from both subspecies will enable the development of drought-tolerant alfalfa with enhanced productivity under limited water availability.
59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
Root lateral interactions drive water uptake patterns under water limitation
The plasticity of root water uptake determines the maintenance of transpiration during periods of water limitation and drought. However, the mechanistic basis of plant water uptake, as well as the implications of water uptake strategies at the individual and ecosystem scale remain elusive. We model three-dimensional root water uptake under variably saturated conditions for a one-hectare temperate forest plot for a growing season with a pronounced mid-season dry period. Variations in root architecture, hydraulic properties, and degree of lateral interaction between root systems produce divergent local responses to water limitation and provide insights on individual and community response to meteorological conditions. Results demonstrate the plasticity of ecosystem-scale responses to surface drying, where interacting roots shift regions of active uptake to deeper soil layers with less abundant root biomass. These shifts, a product of both root system and soil hydraulic properties, illustrate intimate links between root and soil hydraulics in determining plant water sourcing. Furthermore, we demonstrate that root lateral interactions are beneficial at the ecosystem-scale, even when trees compete for water. Specifically, a more spatially extensive root system facilitates access to a larger soil water reservoir, often ameliorating water limitation and reducing sharp water potential gradients. While the reduction of water stress is a benefit, it can be offset by increased root construction and maintenance costs associated with the larger rooting system. A plausible “viability” region of root communal co-existence is therefore implied where competitive pressures and root production costs are balanced by a potential water benefit.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Data for "Depth of nutrient uptake by deep-rooted plants is regulated by water availability"
The data set consists of strontium (Sr) isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr), water isotopes, soil cation concentrations, soil water potential sensor data, and results of 87Sr/86Sr mixing model. The plant canopy size files include the dataset of canopy dimension of sagebrush, lupine, and sunflower. The soil and plant ICPMS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) data file includes both of 87Sr/86Sr, and cation concentration dataset from soil exchangeable pool, apatite pool, silicate extract, atmospheric rain deposition, and plant leaf and stem tissues. The plant dendrochronology file includes the dendrochronogical ring width of several sagebrush, and dendrochemical sample data includes the 87Sr/86Sr for each separated growth ring. The modeling result gives the proportion of nutrient sources of each plants (based on their 87Sr/86Sr in leaf tissues and growth rings) from atmospheric deposition and mineral weathering. Soil water potential data includes continuous collection of soil water potential dataset at 2 depths (30 cm and 60 cm, from Nov 24 - Jun 25) of the sampling site. All the samples were collected from 2 sampling campaign June and July 2023, and rain water is a separate sampling from Aug - Sept 2023, at north-facing hillslope near pumphouse site. The data showed that the depth of cation nutrient acquisition is thus tightly coupled with, and likely determined by, water availability in soil, saprolite and bedrock. The enhanced uptake of cations and water from regions of mineral weathering could confer plant and ecosystem resilience during low water years and may impact the rate of bedrock weathering and watershed chemistry during drought. This dataset includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; a location metadata file (locations.csv); and a samples metadata file (samples.csv). All files are provided as comma-separated values (CSV) files (.csv). This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Quantification of hydraulic trait control on plant hydrodynamics and risk of hydraulic failure within a demographic structured vegetation model in a tropical forest (FATES–HYDRO V1.0)
Abstract. Vegetation plays a key role in the global carbon cycle and thus is an important component within Earth system models (ESMs) that project future climate. Many ESMs are adopting methods to resolve plant size and ecosystem disturbance history, using vegetation demographic models. These models make it feasible to conduct more realistic simulation of processes that control vegetation dynamics. Meanwhile, increasing understanding of the processes governing plant water use, and ecosystem responses to drought in particular, has led to the adoption of dynamic plant water transport (i.e., hydrodynamic) schemes within ESMs. However, the extent to which variations in plant hydraulic traits affect both plant water stress and the risk of mortality in trait-diverse tropical forests is understudied. In this study, we report on a sensitivity analysis of an existing hydrodynamic scheme (HYDRO) model that is updated and incorporated into the Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator (FATES) (FATES–HYDRO V1.0). The size- and canopy-structured representation within FATES is able to simulate how plant size and hydraulic traits affect vegetation dynamics and carbon–water fluxes. To better understand this new model system, and its functionality in tropical forest systems in particular, we conducted a global parameter sensitivity analysis at Barro Colorado Island, Panama. We assembled 942 observations of plant hydraulic traits on 306 tropical plant species for stomata, leaves, stems, and roots and determined the best-fit statistical distribution for each trait, which was used in model parameter sampling to assess the parametric sensitivity. We showed that, for simulated leaf water potential and loss of hydraulic conductivity across different plant organs, the four most important traits were associated with xylem conduit taper (buffers increasing hydraulic resistance with tree height), stomatal sensitivity to leaf water potential, maximum stem hydraulic conductivity, and the partitioning of total hydraulic resistance above vs. belowground. Our analysis of individual ensemble members revealed that trees at a high risk of hydraulic failure and potential tree mortality generally have a lower conduit taper, lower maximum xylem conductivity, lower stomatal sensitivity to leaf water potential, and lower resistance to xylem embolism for stem and transporting roots. We expect that our results will provide guidance on future modeling studies using plant hydrodynamic models to predict the forest responses to droughts and future field campaigns that aim to better parameterize plant hydrodynamic models.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Stem hydraulic conductivity and vulnerability to cavitation for 26 tree species in Panama
Stem hydraulic conductivity and vulnerability to cavitation were measured for 26 tree species located in Panama. The data were generated to better understand the ecology of the focal tree species. Complementary NGEE-Tropics datasets for these species include sap flow, leaf-level gas exchange, and leaf water potential. Stem samples were collected from distal branches of canopy trees, brought to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute laboratory in Gamboa, Panama, and allowed to dry to various water potentials before measurements. For each species, a Weibull function was fit to the 90% quantile of the relationship between stem area specific hydraulic conductivity (Ks) and stem water potential. From these functions, maximum Ks and vulnerability parameters were derived. The data files in the package include raw data, derived parameters, and the R script used for analysis.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025
This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗