Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “soils”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

A global soil plasmidome resource unveils functional and ecological roles of plasmids in soil microbiomes

Plasmids play significant roles in microbial adaptation to ecosystems, yet their dynamics remain poorly understood due to identification challenges. We present the Global Soil Plasmidome Resource (GSPR), a comprehensive dataset of 98,728 plasmid sequences amassed from 6860 terrestrial microbial communities and isolates. We explore this resource through various computational approaches, including phylogenetic diversity analysis, host prediction, and extensive functional annotation, to understand the contribution of plasmids to the genetic and functional diversity in soil, correlating these findings with sample type, as well as the soil habitat they were retrieved from. Our analysis reveals insights into plasmid-encoded functions such as effector modules, quorum sensing, and stress resistance, which may contribute to their persistence and microbial adaptation in soil. Furthermore, CRISPR analysis suggests a prevalent role of these elements related to intra-plasmid competition. By contrasting plasmids from cultivated and uncultivated organisms, we identify important functions that expand existing knowledge of plasmid roles in these habitats. This study represents a notable step forward in elucidating plasmid diversity and function within soil microbiomes and establishes a foundational framework for exploring their roles in natural environments.

Fiamenghi, Mateus B↗
DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE Soil Volumetric Water Content in Experimental Plots, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, 2017-2025

This dataset contains soil volumetric water content (VWC) measurements from the Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments (SPRUCE) Experiment. Measurements were made inside SPRUCE experimental plots in the S1 Bog at the US Forest Service Marcell Experimental Forest in northern Minnesota, USA from 2018-2025 (2018-06-14 to 2025-12-31). Observations were made with METER 10HS soil moisture sensors. To reduce bulk density related variability, 10HS sensors were placed inside mesh tubes filled with peat at a standard bulk density. The observations under standard bulk density represent relative differences in water content between hummock and hollow positions, and in response to experimental treatments. Productivity of peatlands, and their keystone species sphagnum, are highly dependent on water availability, which is affected by lateral inputs, precipitation, ground water depth and evapotranspiration. Knowledge of near surface and sphagnum water content is useful to understand peatland function. This dataset contains 8 data files in comma-separate values (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma-separate values (*.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

Warren, Jeffrey [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000206804697)↗
DOE OSTI2026

A network of soil moisture, soil temperature, air temperature, net radiation, ground heat flux and ground water for Chicago, Illinois

This dataset contains environmental monitoring data collected using solar-powered Multi-Function Research (MFR) Long Range Wide Area (LoRaWAN)-enabled nodes at 11 sites in Chicago, Illinois, as part of the DOE Urban Integrated Field Lab CROCUS project. The MFR node system consists of an Input/Output Digital Input Module (IB8) interface box (ICT International) providing wired connections for environmental sensors and an MFR-Node-L data logger that manages power, data processing, and LoRaWAN communication. The wireless data are ingested via Sage network (https://sagecontinuum.org/) nodes that contain LoRaWAN antennae. Measurements were collected from 11 MFR nodes deployed across Chicago State University (CSU), Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU), Northwestern University (NU), University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), West Woodlawn "Blacks in Green" (BIG), and Indian Boundary Prairies (IBP). Each MFR node supports a consistent suite of sensors measuring atmospheric, soil, and hydrological variables. Atmospheric measurements include 2m air temperature (°C), 2m vapor pressure deficit (kPa), and 2m shortwave/longwave radiation (incoming and outgoing, W/m²) measured using ATH-VPD and Apogee SN500 sensors. Soil measurements include volumetric water content (VWC, %) and temperature (°C) at four depths (15, 30, 45, and 60 cm below surface) using Meter Teros54 sensors, and heat flux (W/m²) at 10 cm depth using Huske HFP01-05 sensors. At selected locations, Meter Hydros21 sensors measure groundwater depth (mm), specific conductivity (dS/m), and temperature (°C). The dataset includes timestamps, site identifiers with location names, device IDs, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, variable names with units, measurement depths, values, sensor names, and Sage node identifiers. All timestamps are in local Chicago time (CDT/CST). Quality control flags are provided using a 6-bit binary system indicating physical range violations, step spikes, 24-hour flat-line conditions, 6-hour jitter, 7-day ultra-low variance, and persistent high offset. Data is provided in CSV and CF-compliant NetCDF formats. This dataset is part of a larger collection of CROCUS environmental monitoring data, including linked datasets from Air Quality Transmitter (AQT) sensors, Weather Transmitter (WXT) sensors, and Sap Flow Meter (SFM1x) sensors.

Chicago↗
DOE OSTI2025

Imprint of Anthropogenic Sources and Soil Removal on the Surface Concentration of H2 in the Contiguous US

Hydrogen (H2) is experiencing renewed interest throughout the world as a low carbon fuel alternative or complement to fossil fuels. Significant uncertainties remain regarding the environmental impact of increasing H2 usage, in part due to gaps in our understanding of the H2 atmospheric budget, including the H2 release from industrial activities and the H2 soil removal, the most important sink of H2. This study focuses on H2 dry air mole fractions measured by the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory in discrete ambient air samples collected every few days at sites located in the contiguous United States between 2010 and 2022. We take advantage of the long-term observations from this network to study the regional distribution of H2 sources using the potential source contribution function (PSCF). We find that H2 PSCF is consistent with a large anthropogenic source of atmospheric H2 from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuel. However, episodic air masses with high H2 dry air mole fractions (>700 ppb) recorded at some sampling locations in the Western and Southeastern US are not associated with elevated CO, suggesting significant noncombustion anthropogenic or geological sources of H2. Air masses depleted in H2 are recorded in rural or remote continental sites. Our analysis of observations from a tall tower in NE Colorado suggests that the degree of H2 depletion not only reflects differences in soil exposure but also the regional inhibition of the soil sink under arid conditions.

Paulot, Fabien↗
DOE OSTI2025

Workflow for Process Automation of Soil Gas Results from an Automated Soil Gas-Sampling System for Application in Carbon Storage Projects

Conference presentation at Geoconvention, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 12–14, 2025. The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) developed an automated workflow for processing soil gas measurements collected from the automated soil gas-sampling systems deployed across the project site. Raw soil gas measurements are collected from each station every 4 hours and automatically uploaded to a cloud database. The workflow begins by writing code to download the data to a workstation automatically, then the data are published to an online dashboard that visualizes the measurements in time-series plots and a process-based decision-making framework. This automated workflow accelerates the time from data acquisition to decision-making. It supports carbon storage project operators by preparing and delivering a live, standardized dataset for quick analysis and source attribution to provide assurance of containment and overall permit compliance.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2025

Workflow for Process Automation of Soil Gas Results from an Automated Soil Gas-Sampling System for Application in Carbon Storage Projects

Extended abstract for Geoconvention, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 12–14, 2025. The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) developed an automated workflow for processing soil gas measurements collected from the automated soil gas-sampling systems deployed across the project site. Raw soil gas measurements are collected from each station every 4 hours and automatically uploaded to a cloud database. The workflow begins by writing code to download the data to a workstation automatically, then the data are published to an online dashboard that visualizes the measurements in time-series plots and a process-based decision-making framework. This automated workflow accelerates the time from data acquisition to decision-making. It supports carbon storage project operators by preparing and delivering a live, standardized dataset for quick analysis and source attribution to provide assurance of containment and overall permit compliance.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil physical and chemical measurements for topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The package is part of the DOE Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA) project and includes soil physical and chemical measurements from topsoils collected at the East River, Colorado, in conjunction with the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) survey conducted in June 2018. The soil measurements include soil bulk density, soil volumetric water content, soil microbial biomass C (Carbon), N (Nitrogen) and C:N (C to N ratio), soil DNA yield, soil total extractable organic C, soil total extractable N, soil extractable nitrate, soil extractable ammonium, soil dissolved inorganic N, soil dissolved organic N, soil pH, soil TOC400 (total organic carbon at 400°C), soil ROC (residual oxidizable carbon), soil TIC (total inorganic carbon), soil TOC (total organic carbon), soil TC (total carbon), soil N, soil OM (organic matter) loss on ignition. Additional associated site metadata can be found in the ESS-DIVE package 10.15485/1618130. The dataset includes (1) 2018_NEON_soil_physical_chemical_measurements.csv: soil physical and chemical measurements indexed by soil sample IGSNs; (2) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs); (3) flmd.csv: file level metadata file; and (4) dd.csv: data dictionary file. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS (Catchment Hydrology and ↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with Mongird et al. (in prep) organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSI+RP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_ep_score_raster.tif solar_msi_ep_score_raster.tif wind_msi_ep_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with the Mongird et al. paper entitled "Can US power grid expansion avoid prime agricultural lands?" and is organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSIxRP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_rp_score_raster.tif solar_msi_rp_score_raster.tif wind_msi_rp_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2025

Photovoltaic Mini-Module Soiling Stations: Cooperative Research and Development (Final Report)

Photovoltaic (PV) panels can become soiled due to a variety of environmental factors. This soiling reduces the amount of light reaching the cells and thus their energy output. The ratio of actual output of the soiled device that of a clean device is known as the soiling ratio. The daily change in soiling ratio is known as the soiling rate. To study soiling for different glass coatings. Two soiling stations were fabricated. The stations were designed to monitor the short-circuit current of PV cells encapsulated with glass featuring different coatings and measure the daily soiling ratio with a pair of reference cells, one of which is automatically brushed daily. This work meets the need to understand how the glass coatings perform in additional environments. The stations are designed to quantify both the soiling ratio (the ratio between actual/expected photovoltaic panel power output) as well as differences in anti-soiling performance of different glass coatings. The design of the dirty/clean reference cell system is described by Toth et al. The soiling ratio is calculated by calculating the average irradiance measured within one hour of solar noon by each of the reference cells and then taking the ratio of these daily near-noon averages. The soiling ratio time series for the station deployed in Georgia is shown in Figure 1. This figure shows that the soiling ratio at the site has not yet fallen below 0.99, indicating that peak daily soiling losses have been below 1%. The site was chosen because it is thought to be affected by pollen soiling. With continued monitoring over the course of at least a full year, we expect to be able to observe and quantify pollen soiling events.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Pore Structures in Detritusphere of Soils Under Switchgrass and Restored Prairie Vegetation Community

Root detritusphere, that is, the soil in the vicinity of decomposing root residues, plays an important role in soil microbial activity and C sequestration. Pore structure (size distributions and connectivity of soil pores) in the detritusphere serves as a major driver for these processes and, in turn, is influenced by the physical characteristics of both soil and roots. This study compared pore structure characteristics in the root detritusphere of soils of contrasting texture and mineralogy subjected to > 6 years of contrasting vegetation: monoculture switchgrass and polyculture prairie systems. Soil samples were collected from five experimental sites in the US Midwest representing three soil types. Soil texture and mineralogy were measured using a hydrometer and x-ray powder diffraction, respectively. The intact cores were scanned with x-ray computed micro-tomography to identify visible soil pores, biopores, and particulate organic matter (POM). We specifically focused on pore structure within the detritusphere around the POM of root origin. Results showed that the detritusphere of coarser textured soils, characterized by high sand and quartz contents, had lower porosity in the vicinity of POM compared with finer textured soils. POM vicinities in finer textured soils had high proportions of large (> 300 μm diameter) pores, and their pores were better connected than in the coarser soils. Lower porosity in the outer (> 1 mm) parts of the detritusphere of switchgrass than of prairie suggested soil compaction by roots, with the effect especially pronounced in the coarser soils. Here, the results demonstrated that soil texture and mineralogy played a major, while vegetation played a more modest, role in defining the pore structure in the root detritusphere.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗