Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “data guidelines”

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 559 records · Page 31
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Spatial Study 2021: Sensor-Based Time Series of Surface Water Temperature, Specific Conductance, Total Dissolved Solids, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen from across Multiple Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of spatial variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides two-hour time series hydrological and water chemistry sensor data, manual chamber open channel respiration data, handheld sensor water chemistry data, river substrate grain size photos, general environmental context photos, and field metadata (including qualitative information on instream and river corridor characteristics) collected during the same two-week period at 47 sites within multiple rivers throughout the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Grain size photos can be used to improve estimates of channel substrate D50 data. Related sample-based water chemistry data are published separately at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1898914.This dataset is comprised of four main folders, one containing three sensor-specific subfolders and the others containing photographs. The SFA_SpatialStudy_2021_SensorData main data folder includes file-level metadata (FLMD), data dictionary (dd), installation methods, field metadata, Ultrameter water chemistry data, field data collection protocols, international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file, and a readme file. The “Sensor_Manual_Specifications” subfolder contains pdf files from the manufacturer of each sensor with details on the sensor specifications. Each sensor subfolder (BarotrollAtm, MantaRiver, and MinidotManualChamber) contains a sensor data subfolder for timeseries data and a subfolder for plots and summary statistics. The BarotrollAtm Data subfolder contains In Situ Rugged BaroTROLL pressure and temperature data. The MantaRiver Data subfolder contains Eureka Manta+ 35B multisonde temperature, specific conductance, and pH data. The MinidotManualChamber Data subfolder contains PME MiniDOT Logger dissolved oxygen (mg/L and percent saturation) and temperature data. The folder SFA_SpatialStudy_2021_EnvironmentalContextPhotos contains environmental context photographs and videos. The folders SFA_SpatialStudy_2021_SedimentQuadratPhotos_Part1 and SFA_SpatialStudy_2021_SedimentQuadratPhotos_Part2 contain sediment quadrat photographs. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .jpg, .jpeg, .mp4, or .mov. This data package was originally published September 2022. It was updated January 2023 (modified files) and June 2024 (new and modified files). See the change history in data package readme for more details.We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data for Roebuck et al. (2025), "Differences in dissolved organic matter composition between rivers and estuaries is conserved across freshwater and saltwater coastal regions"

Dissolved organic matter (DOM) in coastal surface waters influences local water quality and is an important component of biogeochemical cycling in coastal systems, but the processes that alter DOM composition along lower reaches of rivers and estuarine waters are poorly understood. Roebuck et al. (2025) leveraged a spatially distributed community sampling effort in coastal ecosystems across two regions to identify broad spatial drivers of surface water DOM composition and identify transferable trends between saltwater and freshwater coastal systems. Samples were collected by community members from 47 locations within the mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes coastal regions.This dataset includes:* A selection of commonly reported absorbance and fluorescence peaks normalized to dissolved organic carbon concentrations* Parallel factor output from the EC1 fluorescence datasets* A selection of commonly reported absorbance and fluorescence peaks * Spectral indices output from matlab script for absorbance and fluorescence datasets* CO2sys calculations of pH changes under varying temperatures and a constant salinity, DIC, and alkalinity concentrationAll data files are plain-text CSV (comma separated value) and no special software is required to read them.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data and scripts from: “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”

This data package includes data and scripts from the manuscript “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”.The study addressed common challenges faced in environmental sensing and modeling, including uncertain input data, missing sensor observations, and high-dimensional datasets with interrelated but redundant variables. Point-scaled meteorological and soil sensor observations were perturbed with noises and missing values, and denoising autoencoder (DAE) neural networks were developed to reconstruct the perturbed data and further predict evapotranspiration. This study concluded that (1) the reconstruction quality of each variable depends on its cross-correlation and alignment to the underlying data structure, (2) uncertainties from the models were overall stronger than those from the data corruption, and (3) there was a tradeoff between reducing bias and reducing variance when evaluating the uncertainty of the machine learning models.This package includes:(1) Four ipython scripts (.ipynb): “DAE_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates DAE neural networks, “DAE_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from the trained DAE models, “ET_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates ET prediction neural networks, and “ET_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from trained ET models.(2) One python file (.py): “methods.py” includes all user-defined functions and python codes used in the ipython scripts.(3) A “sub_models” folder that includes five trained DAE neural networks (in pytorch format, .pt), which could be used to ingest input data before being fed to the downstream ET models in ‘ET_train.ipynb” or ‘ET_predict.ipynb’.(4) Two data files (.csv). Daily meteorological, vegetation, and soil data is in “df_data.csv”, where “df_meta.csv” contains the location and time information of “df_data.csv”. Each row (index) in “df_meta.csv” corresponds to each row in “df_data.csv”. These data files are formatted to follow the data structure requirements and be directly used in the ipython scripts, and they have been shuffled chronologically to train machine learning models. The meteorological and soil data was collected using point sensors between 2019-2023 at(4.a) Three shrub-dominated field sites in East River, Colorado (named “ph1”, “ph2” and “sg5” in “df_meta.csv”, where “ph1” and “ph2” were located at PumpHouse Hillslopes, and “sg5” was at Snodgrass Mountain meadow) and(4.b) One outdoor, mesoscale, and herbaceous-dominated experiment in Berkeley, California (named “tb” in “df_meta.csv”, short for Smartsoils Testbed at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab).- See "df_data_dd.csv" and "df_meta_dd.csv" for variable descriptions and the Methods section for additional data processing steps. See "flmd.csv" and "README.txt" for brief file descriptions.- All ipython scripts and python files are written in and require PYTHON language software.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Surface water nitrogen and sediment potential nitrate reduction rates, nutrient stocks, and stable isotopes from nine wetlands at the Tanglewood Biological Station, Alabama

This dataset supports a broader study investigating wetland hydrologic and biogeochemical responses to inundation disturbances. Bimonthly surface water and sediment sampling events were conducted at nine wetland sites situated within the Tanglewood Biological Station in Alabama from April 2023 to February 2024. The contents included in the data package include surface water nitrogen (nitrogen oxides and ammonium) and sediment potential nitrate reduction rates (measured as potential denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium processing), nutrient stocks (total carbon, total nitrogen, and organic matter), and stable isotopes (carbon and nitrogen). Water level data related to each wetland location can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/2530253 (Kirker et al., 2024) and related water geochemistry data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3001967 (Forbes et al., 2025). In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata and international generic sample numbers (IGSNs); (4) readme; (5) the field protocol; and (6) a subfolder with sample data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) sediment potential denitrification rate, (2) sediment potential dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA) rate, (3) sediment total carbon and nitrogen content, (4) sediment stable isotopes (delta nitrogen-15 and delta carbon-13), (5) sediment percent organic matter, (6) surface water nitrous oxides, (7) surface water ammonium, and (8) methods codes. All files are .csv or .pdf.

Ammonium↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

First principles density functional theory study of tritium species adsorption on Ni(111) surface and diffusion in nickel-sublayer for tritium storage

The nickel-plated zircaloy-4 is used as a tritium ( 3 H) getter in the tritium-producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs) to capture 3 H produced in the 6 Li-riched annular γ-LiAlO 2 pellet under neutron irradiation. The experimental data and our previous theoretical results showed that the 3 H species produced from the γ-LiAlO 2 pellet were mainly 3 H 2 and 3 H 2 O. These 3 H species diffuse from the surface of the LiAlO 2 pellet across vacuum to the nickel-plated zircaloy-4 getter and then further diffuse into the getter to chemically form metal hydrides. While a number of studies show that oxygen binds strongly as compared to 3 H on the nickel (Ni) layer, the detailed mechanism of 3 H species absorption and diffusion across the Ni plate and Ni/Zr interface are still unclear. By employing density functional theory calculations, here we explored the 3 H 2 and 3 H 2 O species adsorption and dissociation on the Ni(111) surface and diffusion into the Ni sublayer. Our results indicated that the 3 H 2 and 3 H 2 O dissociate on the Ni(111) surface. The NiO x and Ni(O 3 H) x could be formed in the Ni layer due to the higher oxygen (O) diffusion energy barrier and formation of Ni vacancy defects. The oxygen was found to be retained in the Ni layer from diffusing across the Ni–Zr interface. This was revealed by comparing the diffusion barriers for 3 H with O. 3 H was found to have nearly three times smaller diffusion barrier than for O, making 3 H comparatively easier to diffuse through the Ni layer. In conclusion, the obtained results provide guidelines for experimental measurements on 3 H retention behavior in TPBARs and may open further avenues to explore the impurity effects on 3 H diffusion and storage at the Ni/zircaloy interfaces.

Tafen, De Nyago [National Energy Technology Lab. (↗
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 OSTI2025

Material Needs and Measurement Challenges for Advanced Semiconductor Packaging: Understanding the Soft Side of Science

This Perspective builds upon insights from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-organized workshop, “Materials and Metrology Needs for Advanced Semiconductor Packaging Strategies,” held at the 35th annual Electronics Packaging Symposium in Binghamton, NY, on September 5, 2024. It outlines critical challenges and opportunities related to polymer-based “soft” materials in advanced semiconductor packaging, with emphasis on polymer science, measurement science (metrology), and the strategic development of Research-Grade Test Materials (RGTMs). These efforts, led by the NIST CHIPS team, aim to advance the fundamental understanding of structure-property-processing relationships, promote standardized guidelines and innovative methods for material characterization, and accelerate the development, qualification, and adoption of next-generation packaging materials. The Perspective also distills key insights from the panel discussion with industry experts, emphasizing the need for close collaboration among materials scientists, process engineers, and metrology experts to enable a holistic strategy, further highlighting the importance of cross-sector partnerships among industry, academia, and government to address pressing challenges in packaging materials and processes.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil microbial ecology and microbiome-metabolite linkages improve understanding of ecosystem states along terrestrial-aquatic interfaces

These data are from Bandopadhyay et al., "Soil microbial ecology and microbiome-metabolite linkages improve understanding of ecosystem states along terrestrial-aquatic interfaces". This study aims to understand the soil microbial ecology along terrestrial-aquatic interfaces of a freshwater and estuarine region and how it relates to organic matter. We analyzed soil microbial (16S rRNA gene) and organic matter (Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry, FTICR-MS) composition from upland (forested), transition (stressed forest), and wetland positions at three sites in each of the Lake Erie (freshwater) and Chesapeake Bay (estuarine) regions. This dataset includes 16S rRNA gene amplicon data (only processed file types included here) and organic matter composition from FTICR-MS data (raw and processed files included here) from upland (forested), transition (stressed forest), and wetland positions at three sites in each of the Lake Erie and Chesapeake Bay regions. These sites are part of the COMPASS-FME project (https://compass.pnnl.gov/FME/COMPASSFME). File formats and software needed to access files: 16S rRNA gene amplicon data: These files follow the format reported here https://ess-dive.gitbook.io/amplicon-sequencing-reporting-format#updates-in-v1.0.1. As per this format, there are four file types reported: 1. Taxon tables (also called sequence-by-sample or OTU (operational taxonomic unit)/ESV (exact sequence variant) tables) : available in a .txt file format and accessible using TextEdit or MS Excel. 2. Representative sequences (also called consensus sequences) : available in a .fasta format and accessible using TextEdit. 3. Sequencing metadata : available in a MS Excel workbook file format and CSV file format 4. Bioinformatic metadata : available in a MS Excel workbook file format and CSV file format FTICR-MS data: 1. Raw data converted to a processed file with intensities of the peaks in the given samples : available in a MS Excel CSV file format 2. Processed file used in analyses and visualizations (appended as icr_long_) : available in a MS Excel CSV file format 3. Metadata file for ICR features (appended as icr_meta) : available in a MS Excel CSV file format

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes from East River floodplain sediments near Crested Butte, CO, USA (May to September 2018)

Microorganisms play a key role in cycling nutrients and contaminants in the terrestrial environment depending on their genetic potential. Here, we present metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community in floodplain sediment samples taken in 2018 in May (flooded conditions) and September (drained conditions) at two locations (MCB1 and MCB3) near the Meander C/Pumphouse floodplain sites of the East River. Sediment cores were collected from 2 depths, a near-surface, generally unsaturated depth (30-40 centimeter (cm) depth below surface) and a deeper depth influenced by flooding with redoximorphic features (70-80 cm depth below surface). Sediments were homogenized from the 10 cm core for microbial analyses. A total of 24 metagenomes were sequenced through the Joint genome institute (JGI) corresponding to 8 samples sequenced in triplicate. These metagenomes can be found under Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project: Gs0141020. Metagenomes were assembled, binned, and refined using metawrap to generate MAGs (>50% complete and < 10% contamination based on checkM scores). This dataset includes a zip file of 478 MAG fasta files and a csv file with quality, taxonomic classification (Genome Taxonomy Database Release RS220), and metagenome accessions for MAGs. This dataset also includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Enhancement of operational Flexibility of Power Plants Using IN740

Headers are crucial components within diverse industries, especially in the energy sector, as they enable the efficient transfer of fluids. The selection of materials for headers is determined by their specific applications; for example, Grade 91 and Grade 92 steels are commonly utilized. In our research, we recommend the adoption of INCONEL alloy 740 due to its exceptional robustness and heat-resistant characteristics. One critical parameter in header systems is the heat transfer coefficient, which directly influences the efficiency of heat exchange processes and can thereby impact the structural integrity of the headers. This coefficient is closely linked with factors such as the Nusselt number, which is influenced by fluid flow characteristics and thermal properties. The flow direction within headers, whether unidirectional or multidirectional—significantly affects the overall dynamics of heat transfer. This research focuses on exploring the behavior of headers, a specific pipeline system component, using ANSYS simulation software. The study aims to predict heat transfer and mechanical behavior within headers under various conditions through steady-state and transient simulations (parts 1 and 2 of the report). Key parameters such as heat transfer coefficient, velocity, and temperature are examined with the goal of optimizing header design. Part 3 of the report addresses the critical yet underexplored relationship between pressure drop and heat transfer coefficients in the transient flow regime within headers, specifically focusing on smooth horizontal circular tubes. Limited experimental work has been conducted in this area, prompting the need for comprehensive analysis. By leveraging machine learning techniques, this research aims to establish a correlation between pressure drop and heat transfer across various flow conditions, including laminar, transient, quasi-turbulent, and turbulent regimes. The data utilized for this analysis were meticulously gathered from existing literature, capturing simultaneous measurements of pressure drops and heat transfer. Part 4: In the context of power plants, header pipes are essential components that significantly influence system performance by facilitating the collection and distribution of steam. This report highlights the critical role of header pipes in enhancing reliability, efficiency, and overall power plant performance. A key aspect of this investigation is shape optimization, which aims to maximize performance while minimizing material usage. By focusing on shape optimization, this research contributes to improved efficiency and a reduced environmental footprint for power plant installations. The methodology developed in this study emphasizes optimizing header shapes to decrease reliance on expensive alloy materials and lower maintenance costs. Furthermore, a case study was conducted using a header from an operational power plant to validate the proposed optimization techniques. Finally, part 5 addresses the challenges associated with flexible operations in boiler systems, the study outlines several strategies for enhancing the durability and reliability of steam headers. Key approaches include material selection, which involves utilizing advanced materials with superior high-temperature properties and enhanced fatigue resistance to extend the lifespan of steam headers. Design modifications are also recommended, focusing on implementing changes that mitigate thermal stress and cyclic loading to reduce the likelihood of failures under varying operating conditions. Additionally, the study emphasizes the importance of regular inspection and monitoring by establishing rigorous protocols to detect early signs of damage, allowing for timely maintenance and minimizing the risks of catastrophic failures. Furthermore, operational guidelines are developed to minimize the frequency and severity of thermal transients, ensuring stable and efficient operations. Collectively, these strategies provide a robust framework for overcoming the unique challenges posed by flexible operation in boiler systems, ultimately contributing to improved reliability and performance in power plant operations. Through this comprehensive approach, the study not only enhances the understanding of pressure drop and heat transfer relationships but also promotes advancements in design and operation that will benefit the entire power generation industry.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2026

Dated soil C–N–P profiles, water quality, and chamber fluxes across Ohio and Michigan wetlands (2024–2025)

This dataset includes dated soil core chemistry (bulk density, phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon concentrations), water quality, and chamber flux measurements collected from wetlands in the Midwest United States—12 sites in Ohio, one site in Indiana, one site in Michigan—collected in the spring or summer of 2024 or 2025, all in (.csv) format. These data were generated to examine how wetland restoration, management activities, and time since restoration affect biogeochemical processes, carbon sequestration, nutrient accumulation, water quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, these data aim to investigate how restored wetlands differ from natural wetlands in terms of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus dynamics, as well as carbon dioxide and methane fluxes. Also included are surface and porewater quality parameters and chamber flux measurements across these different wetlands. Sampling was conducted at various sites representing a range of restoration stages, from about 4 years post-restoration up to 105 years post-restoration, and also includes a natural wetland used as a reference in Michigan. These data can be used to determine carbon sequestration rates, nutrient cycling, and to enhance our understanding of biogeochemical responses to wetland restoration in temperate ecosystems. This data package contains (1) a csv file (Water_Quality.csv) containing water quality data (dissolved organic carbon, total dissolved nitrogen, and temperature) organized by location; (2) a csv file (Soil_C_N_P_Seq.csv) containing carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations at each soil level and time of each soil level, as well as their sequestration rates; (3) a csv file (CH4_CO2_Flux.csv) including methane and carbon dioxide fluxes that were measured with a chamber; (4) a file-level metadata (FLMD.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (5) a data dictionary (DD.csv) file that contains terms/column headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; and (6) a locations metadata file (Location_metadata.csv).

Earth Science > Atmosphere > Atmospheric Chemistry↗
DOE OSTI2026

Vegetation classification map and covariates associated with NEON AOP survey, East River, CO 2018

This package includes geospatial data layers developed to investigate how environmental gradients—specifically topography and near-surface soil properties—drive the spatial arrangement of dominant plant communities in mountainous watersheds. The geospatial products, which support the analysis of these ecological relationships, are derived from airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR datasets acquired by the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP), in conjunction with an extensive ground field campaign conducted in summer 2018. This work is part of the DOE Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA) and features geospatial datasets developed based on observations and ground data collected at East River, Colorado, in collaboration with the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) survey in June 2018. Classification Map: - Classification Map (PNG, GeoTIFF): Derived from hyperspectral and LiDAR airborne data using a machine learning approach. - Class Code Mapper (CSV): Associates pixel values with corresponding vegetation/non-vegetation classes. - Classification Reference Data (CSV): Reference data used in the machine learning procedure. LiDAR-Derived Products: - Topographical Metrics (GeoTIFFs): Elevation, slope, curvature, TWI, TPI, solar insolation, and canopy height model (CHM), smoothed with a 5x5 pixel window. Vegetation Indices: - GeoTIFFs of NDVI, NDNI, NDWI: Vegetation indices derived from hyperspectral data. Urban Masks: - Urban Mask (GeoTIFF): Applied to the mapping to convert bare soil classes to urban classes. Software Compatibility: GeoTIFFs: Can be visualized with GIS software or libraries that support GeoTIFF images. CSV Files: Can be opened with any software that handles comma-separated values. The FLMD file provides details and links to the source datasets used to derive the products. The manuscript (in the Method session) provides details on how each product was derived. 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. Update on 2026-03-25: Since the original dataset publication date of 02/28/2020, this package has a new classification map derived by an improved methodology. This update also includes additional ground data that improved the representation of some of the communities. See the methods for further details on what has changed between versions.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2024

Weather data at The Morton Arboretum 2017-2023

We have been monitoring long-term weather patterns using two weather stations at The Morton Arboretum to link environmental conditions to tree growth and other tree responses. This data package contains weather data at The Morton Arboretum from 2017-08-23 to 2023-12-31; data is located in the "MortonWeatherData2017_2023.csv" file. The two weather stations are located on each side of The Arboretum (e.g., the Nursery station on the East side and the Ware Field station on the West side; the two weather stations are 3.23 km apart and coordinates are included in the "Location_metadata.csv" file). Measured variables include rain accumulation, air temperature, relative humidity, three soil moisture/temperature measurements at various depths (10, 30, and 50 cm for the Nursery weather station, and 10, 25, and 50 cm for the Ware Field), solar radiation, saturation vapor pressure, and vapor pressure deficit.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil biogeochemical properties and metrics of tree-mycorrhizal dominance for a 25-Ha forest in South Central Indiana, USA.

This data package contains a dataset used in the papers “Seeing the forest for all the trees: Mycorrhizal-associated nutrient economies are modulated by stem density and the synchrony between overstory and understory communities” and “Mycorrhizal associations of tree species influence soil nitrogen dynamics via effects on soil acid–base chemistry”. Four csv files are included along with a dataset. The dataset features chemical soil properties for a single sampling campaign within the 25 Ha Lilly-Dickey Woods Smithsonian Forest Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO) plot in South Central Indiana, USA (ldw_dat_raw.csv). Also included are separate files focused on pH (pH_data.csv), carbon and nitrogen (CN_data.csv), and nitrification rates (Nitrification_data.csv). These variables are commonly associated with the tree-mycorrhizal dominance of forest stands. In these data subsets, each soil variable was matched to a 10 meter radius neighborhood wherein metrics of tree-mycorrhizal dominance (basal area, stem count, importance value, etc.) were calculated. Models between these soil variables and dominance metrics were used to investigate how different assessments of mycorrhizal associated nutrient economies (MANE) capture these relationships. This research was performed as a part of the Smithsonian ForestGEO project. This data package can be used to explore spatial variability in soil chemistry within a mature hardwood forest, or it can be combined with the included tree data, other fine-scale spatial information, or other tree inventory data for the site to evaluate how soil chemistry varies with tree community composition or edaphic or topographic properties.

Craig, Matthew [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000288907920)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Surface Water Quality Data from Beaver-Impacted Streams; Trail Creek and East River, Colorado 2025

This data package contains surface water chemistry measurements collected in 2025 to evaluate how beaver damming and low-tech process-based stream restoration influence water quality and metal mobility in mountainous headwater systems of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Sampling was conducted at Trail Creek (Taylor Park watershed, Colorado), a tributary undergoing restoration through installation of low-tech process-based structures (i.e., beaver dam analogs), and at off-channel beaver ponds within the East River floodplain (East River watershed, Colorado). Samples were collected along longitudinal transects spanning upstream control reaches, beaver-influenced ponded reaches, and downstream segments. Additional samples were collected from near-surface pore waters within a beaver dam seepage face. The dataset includes concentrations of major and trace elements measured by inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES), major anions measured by ion chromatography (IC), and dissolved organic carbon (DOC; reported as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC). Samples were size-fractionated at 0.45 micrometers (µm), 0.22 µm, and 0.02 µm to distinguish particulate (>0.45 µm), colloidal (0.22–0.02 µm), and dissolved (<0.02 µm) fractions. The data package consists of comma-separated value (.csv) files containing tabulated chemical concentration data, sample metadata (site identifiers, geographic coordinates, sampling dates, fraction type), and quality control flags. All files are provided in open, non-proprietary formats that can be accessed using standard data analysis software such as Microsoft Excel, R, Python, MATLAB, or other programs capable of reading .csv files. Units, detection limits, and analytical methods are documented in accompanying metadata files. The dataset is designed to support analyses of (1) how beaver impoundment and restoration structures alter elemental partitioning and transport, (2) the role of iron and organic carbon in mediating trace metal mobility, and (3) reach-scale changes in water quality across restoration gradients. 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. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

Anions↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data and scripts associated with a manuscript analyzing ELM-FATES parameter sensitivity under pre-fire and postfire scenarios using machine learning

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript “Fire Severity-Dependent Shifts in Vegetation Parameter Sensitivity: A Pre- and Post-Fire Analysis Using ELM-FATES and Explainable AI” submitted to Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems (Zahura et al. 2026). The study examines vegetation physiological parameters controlling pre-fire and post-fire vegetation dynamics. To support this analysis, 73 vegetation parameters in Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator (FATES) (Fisher et al., 2018) , which is coupled with E3SM (Energy Exascale Earth System Model) land model (ELM, ELM-FATES), were perturbed using a Sobol sequence to generate 1,024 ensemble members for two plant functional types: needleleaf evergreen extratropical trees (NEET) and C3 grass. Simulations were conducted for the pre-fire period (2016) and post-fire period (2018–2023). Burn severity was represented by modifying the Nesterov index in FATES to 75,000, 150,000, and 300,000 for low, moderate, and high severity, respectively. A no-fire scenario was also included. Simulations were performed for 16 grid cells in the American River Watershed across different burn severities and plant functional types. XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) models were trained using the parameter ensembles and ELM-FATES-simulated outputs, including leaf area index (LAI), gross primary productivity (GPP), aboveground biomass, vegetation evaporation, transpiration, and soil evaporation. Models were trained separately for each year and burn severity, followed by SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis to identify changes in dominant parameters after fire disturbance. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. The data package contains the ELM-FATES simulation data. The scripts and data related to the analysis will be added later. The inputs and outputs from ELM-FATES are inside the “FATES” folder. “FATES_domain_surface” contains the domain and surface netcdfs that were used to run ELM-FATES in the study area. “FATES_parameters” contains the 1024 ensembles that were generated using Sobol sequence. “FATES_outputs” folder contains ELM-FATES simulated variables. All files are .csv and .nc (NetCDF).

Aboveground biomass↗