Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Land surface”

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 595 records · Page 33
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Interactions Between Clouds and Wind-Driven Surface Heat Exchanges over Land

Earth system model experiments show that increasing horizontal resolution fundamentally alters the simulated soil-moisture-precipitation feedback. Kilometer-scale simulations often produce weaker or even negative feedback compared to coarse-resolution models. A key difference of kilometer-scale models is that they resolve mesoscale secondary circulations, including boundary layer horizontal rolls and cellular structures, in addition to cold pools and downdrafts associated with convective precipitation. However, because the relevant processes occur on yet-smaller scales, these circulations are often poorly resolved. This project demonstrated that boundary layer secondary circulations significantly affect surface heat exchanges and wind gusts, and that current model parameterizations can misrepresent these processes at kilometer-scale resolution. Using DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) observations and targeted experiments with the DOE Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), we identified physically unrealistic wind gust and surface flux responses to secondary circulations, diagnosed a systematic overestimation of wind shear in convective cold pools, and uncovered a multivariate relationship between land surface fluxes and the scales of updrafts that form shallow cumulus clouds. These findings provide observation-based recommendations for improving parameterizations of surface fluxes and wind gusts in high-resolution Earth system models, thereby reducing uncertainty in convective storm prediction and land-atmosphere feedbacks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Blodgett Forest CA Warming Experiment Soil Gas Well Data March 2014 to June 2017

These are soil gas data from the whole soil profile warming experiment at the University of California Blodgett Forest Research Station, in the Sierra Nevada foothills near Georgetown, CA at 1370 m above sea level. Mean annual precipitation is 1774 mm with most of it occurring from November through April and mean annual temperature is about 12.5°C . The experiment is in a thinned 80-year-old stand of mixed conifers including ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), incense cedar (Calodefrus decurrens), white fir (Abies concolor), and douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The soils are Holland series: fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Ultic Haploxeralfs of granitic origin with thick, >5 cm O horizons, minimal carbonates , and a pH that ranges from 5.6 to 6.5. The warming experiment warms the top meter of the soil profile to +4°C above ambient. These data include depth-resolved measurements of CO2 concentrations, 13CO2, apparent respiration quotients, soil temperature, and soil moisture (VWC). These data can be used to model CO2 production rates across the soil profile or to track how the sources and processes contributing to soil respiration change seasonally and with warming.

13C↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soil chemistry data across a catena in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico

Landscape topography can influence biogeochemical processes across the wet tropical forest soils. This dataset contains soil chemistry data such as pH and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) from April 1, 2017 to May 1, 2018 across a catena in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. The attached CSV file contains information on sampling date, location (El Verde field station) in LEF, topographic positions (ridge, slope, and valley, respectively), field replicate number, laboratory replicate number, water extractable pH, CaCl2 extractable pH, and DOC (unit: mg/g). Overall, soil pH values were highest in the valley, followed by slope, and lowest in the ridge topographic positions. However, DOC values followed the opposite trend: ridge>slope>valley. This dataset can facilitate our understanding of the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and nutrient associated with complex topography in wet tropical forest soils.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Spatially Averaged Ice Contents of Ice-Wedge Polygon Cross-Sections to 3-m Depth, July 2013, Utqiagvik, Alaska

This dataset contains spatially averaged estimates of ice content (volume percent) for two-dimensional cross-sectional profiles (from trough center to trough center to a depth of 3 meters) of low- and flat-centered ice-wedge polygons (three of each type) located near Utqiagvik, Alaska. A combination of soil pits, trenches, and cores were used to describe, sample, and map the cross-section stratigraphy of soil horizons and ice wedges for each polygon at 6 depth intervals. Observed soil horizons were assigned to four types with increasing amounts of organic components (mineral, mineral/organic, organic/mineral, and organic). The average ice contents of each soil horizon type below the permafrost boundary and wedge ice were weighted by their cross-sectional area fractions to calculate spatially averaged estimates of ice content for each polygon. In the active layer, spatially averaged estimates of volumetric water contents were similarly determined and reported here as “ice” content to enable estimates of the soil’s structurally competent porosity and excess ice in permafrost layers. In this dataset, the file AK13_ice_contents.csv includes cross-sectional area fractions and spatially averaged ice contents for soil layers and horizon types at the six depth intervals. The file AK13_permafrost_ice_fractions.csv contains the calculated partitioning of ice contents into pore ice and excess ice fractions for the three permafrost-dominated depth intervals. In addition, there is a data dictionary file for each of these data files and a file-level metadata file. These data were generated by the Department of Energy’s Soil Carbon Response to Environmental Change Scientific Focus Area and were used as inputs to model simulations examining the consequences of thaw-affected subsidence and microtopography change on active layer thickness of low-relief polygonal tundra landscapes in a warming Arctic.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Experimental Soil Warming Impacts Soil Moisture and Plant Water Stress and Thereby Ecosystem Carbon Dynamics (Blodgett, CA)

This dataset contains data on daily soil temperature, moisture and flux, and soil carbon stock and root biomass across a soil profile down to 100 cm depth at Blodgett Forest Research Station, CA, USA. These data were generated to determine if modeling of an experimental soil warming of 4C showed increased soil CO2 emissions and changes in bulk soil carbon stocks with depth consistent with field observations, as part of the study: Riley et al. (2025) Experimental Soil Warming Impacts Soil Moisture and Plant Water Stress and Thereby Ecosystem Carbon Dynamics in Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems. This research was performed within the framework of the TES Belowground Biogeochemistry SFA project, in particular association with a 1 m-deep experimental soil heating experiment at the University of California Blodgett Forest Research Station, California (120 ° 39′40′′W; 38 ° 54′43′′N). Continuous data were collected at the plot level, and bulk soil carbon and root biomass were sampled once a year from each plot from 0-100 cm, in 10 cm intervals. Measurements relevant to the current study include soil temperature and soil volumetric water content measured continuously at multiple depths in the top meter; fine root biomass and SOC stocks measured from annual soil cores. Soil flux was continuously monitored using a LI-8100 Automated CO2 Flux System in conjunction with the LI-8150 Multiplexer (Licor, Nebraska, USA). Soil flux was determined using SoilFluxPro software, with flux values showing an R² fit of less than 0.9 being excluded from the analysis. Data were collected from each paired plot (1-3): one control (C) and one heated (H).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Maps of Arctic vegetation leaf nitrogen concentration, albedo and plant functional type (PFT) derived from imaging spectroscopy data, Council watershed, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

Remote sensing maps of surface albedo, leaf nitrogen content, and plant functional types (PFTs) derived from NASA's Airborne Visible / Infrared Imaging Spectrometer Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science & Technology (TEST) group at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The AVIRIS-NG imaging spectroscopy data (380 ~ 2510 nm) was collected as a part of the collaboration between NASA's Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE; Miller et al., 2019) and DOE's Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment in the Arctic (NGEE-Arctic). This package includes maps for the NGEE-Arctic Council watershed created using AVIRIS-NG imagery collected on July 9th, 2019. The map data and metadata are provided as image (ENVI, *.png) and text (*.txt, *hdr) formats. Additional supporting map quicklooks are provided as *.png files and GIS *.kml files. Detailed description of the methods for each map are provided in this document. These datasets are provided in support of Figure 6 in Nelson et al., (2022), "Remote Sensing of Tundra Ecosystems using High Spectral Resolution Reflectance: Opportunities and Challenges". The full citation can be found within the references section. Note that the AVIRIS-NG leaf nitrogen product included in this dataset is a preliminary product and is provided for demonstration purposes only. It is not recommended that the map be used for scientific applications. For future updates on these products, please contact the authors.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Numerical Modeling Experiments of Combined Effects of Ice and Permafrost on Delta Morphodynamics

This dataset contains output from numerical model experiments to test the combined effects of ice thickness and permafrost erodibility on delta dynamics. All experiments were conducted using DeltaRCM, a reduced complexity cellular model. Details of the model setup and experiments are described in full in Piliouras et al., (in revision). This dataset contains results from a total of 48 experiments, representing 16 different experimental conditions, each of which was run in triplicate. There is a control run (3 total experiments) with no ice and no permafrost. We used permafrost erodibilities (here described as erodibility relative to that of non-permafrost, and therefore < 1) of 0.65, 0.8, and 0.95, where 0.95 represents permafrost being only 5% less erodible than non-permafrost. We used ice thicknesses of 0.5 m, 3 m, and 4.5 m in a 5 m deep basin. We conducted experiments for each possible combination of permafrost erodibility and ice thickness (9 conditions, 27 experiments). We also provide results for experiments with only ice or permafrost (6 conditions, 18 experiments). The excel table (csv file) provides the ice and permafrost conditions for each run ID. Zip files contain model outputs and other variables generated during analysis (see ReadMe file) as numpy arrays (.npy files), which can be accessed using python.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Organic layer thickness and carbon concentration in burned and unburned sites, Seward Peninsula, AK, 2022

Measurements associated with organic layer samples collected from naturally burned (1971, 2002, 2015, 2019) and unburned sites at the Kougarok Fire Complex, Seward Peninsula, AK, 2022. Here, a discontinuous permafrost underlies an arctic tundra ecosystem. Measurements include elemental carbon and nitrogen concentrations and stocks, organic layer thickness, and thaw depth. There are five files in *.csv format with one data file and four data description files including data dictionary, methods, terminology, and file-level metadata. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Continuous soil temperature and soil deformation measurements, Teller road Mile 47, Nome, Alaska.

The dataset comprises Soil Temperature and Deformation monitoring data gathered from a watershed situated along the Nome-Teller road at Mile 47 in Alaska. Its primary objective is to enhance comprehension of deformation mechanisms in permafrost environments by using 51 probes designed following Wielandt et al. (2022). The dataset comprises a description of Probe_ID, Location, start time, end time and probe length in the "ProbesLocations_StartEndDates.csv" file, the 51 data files encapsulated within "Data_files.zip" and the computed deformation for 2023 and 2022 in "Deformation_T47.zip".Each file in Data_files.zip is named as followed "ProbeId_StartMonth_EndMonth.csv". Within each file, the initial column denotes the timestamp in UTC, followed by the sensor’s battery voltage and temperature and acceleration values (X, Y, Z) in subsequent columns. The data collection frequency is set at 30-minute intervals. Each file in Deformation_T47.zip is named as followed "ProbeId_Temp_def_year.csv". Within each file, the initial column denotes the timestamp in UTC, followed by the temperature at each sensor and cumulative deformation from last to first sensor in subsequent columns. The data collection is daily averaged.This dataset forms an integral component of the Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic). The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soil Chamber Fluxes (CO2 and CH4) across a catena in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico

Wet tropical forest soils contribute significantly to global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Landscape topography largely influences the rate of CO2 versus CH4 emissions from wet tropical forest soils. This dataset contains soil chamber fluxes of CO2 and CH4 from 2016 (April 5 through July 18) across a catena in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. Soil CO2 fluxes followed the trend of ridge>slope>valley. However, soil CH4 emissions followed the opposite trend, where valley soils served as the major source of CH4 emissions. This dataset can improve our understanding of greenhouse gas (CO2 and CH4) emissions associated with complex topography in wet tropical forest soils.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data for Regier et al. (2025), "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest"

Rising sea levels and intensifying storms increase flooding pressure on coastal forests, but the mechanisms that drive coastal forest mortality remain unclear. This study used an ecosystem-scale manipulation (TEMPEST, Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments) to simulate hurricane-level flooding of a coastal forest and explore the individual and interactive impacts of inundation and salinity. This dataset comprises the results reported by Regier et al. (2025) in their paper "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest." It consists of measurements of:- Belowground conductance- Soil dissolved oxygen and redox- Soil and tree greenhouse gas fluxes- Leaf photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and intercellular carbon dioxide- Sap flux- Soil volumetric water content and electrical conductivityAll files are plain-text CSV (comma separated value) and no special software is required to read them.

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

Microbial community data from throughfall exclusion experiment: Metadata, SI, community composition, LefSe, and FunGuilR data tables from PARCHED Panama tropical forest soils, 2024-2025

Soil contains more carbon (C) than terrestrial vegetation and the atmosphere combined, with some of the largest terrestrial C stocks in tropical rainforests. Soil microbes decompose organic matter, playing a vital role in the storage or loss of soil C. With climate change, drought conditions are predicted to increase in many tropical regions, including both chronic drying and extended drought, potentially influencing these processes. This project explored the effects of chronic and seasonal drying on soil microbial communities across four distinct tropical forests in a long-term drying experiment. We investigated the effects of a chronic drying manipulation on soil microbial community abundance and variation across different forests and seasons. We also compared findings with previously published data from these forests after short-term drying. This project used soils from a long-term drying experiment established in 2018 across four seasonal lowland forests in Panama. Soils were collected from 0 – 10 cm depths during three seasonal periods in control and drying plots in 2024 and 2025 from a total of 32 plots (n = 4 per forest per treatment). The forests varied in baseline rainfall and soil fertility. We calculated alpha and beta diversity indices and compared taxonomic community composition. We found significant biogeographic variation in microbial diversity and taxonomy, with significant differences across the forests and significant effects of the drying treatment. Metadata and sample IDs are within Metadata_16S.csv and Metadata_ITS.csv. Relative abundance tables of every sample at every season are shown in the Excel workbooks 16S Relative Abundance.xlsx and ITS Relative Abundance.xlsx. They are then also shown in CSV files by each taxonomic level. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LefSe) tables are shown for the full 16S and ITS datasets (n = 96), subsets for every site at every season (n = 8), and then for the forests with each plot merged by season (n = 8). FunGuildR data table of ITS data is uploaded.

Bacteria↗
DOE OSTI2022

Soil physical and thermal properties from soil samples at multiple locations at Teller Road Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

This dataset contains results of the laboratory analysis of soil samples collected across the watershed located at miles #27 along the Teller road, near Nome, AK. The dataset includes 124 soil samples retrieved from 52 locations during the first week of August 2019. The soil samples were collected in the top 1.2 m of soil with volume known samples, analyzed with a thermal analyser to infer thermal parameters (thermal conductivity, volumetric heat capacity and thermal diffusivity), and then processed in a lab for estimation of their bulk density, water content, carbon and nitrogen content, soil texture, and elemental fractions. This dataset has one csv file and one pdf file.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Porewater data across a catena in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico.

Landscape topography can influence biogeochemical processes in wet tropical forest soils. This dataset contains porewater concentrations of organic acid (acetate) from 2018 (February 22 to November 14) across a catena in the Luquillo Experimental Forest (LEF), Puerto Rico. The attached CSV file contains information on sampling date, location (El Verde field station) in LEF, topographic positions (ridge, slope, and valley, respectively), depth (unit: cm), and acetate concentration (unit: µM). Porewater concentrations of acetate were lower in the valley as compared to the ridge and slope topographic positions. This dataset can facilitate our understanding of the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and nutrient associated with complex topography in wet tropical forest soils.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗