SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ESS”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 703 records · Page 39

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2026

Data and scripts associated with “Moisture content modulates DOM thermodynamic regulation of oxygen consumption in drying streambed sediments”

This data package is associated with the publication “Moisture content modulates DOM thermodynamic regulation of oxygen consumption in drying streambed sediments” published in Scientific Reports (Garayburu-Caruso et al., 2026). The package contains processed data products and scripts used to quantify how drying and re-inundation of riverbed sediments influence dissolved organic matter (DOM) thermodynamic properties and their relationship with sediment oxygen (O₂) consumption across 33 stream sites in the contiguous United States. The data package contains DOM thermodynamic metrics (e.g., Gibbs free energy of carbon oxidation and thermodynamic efficiency), and O₂ consumption along with watershed-scale climate and land-cover metrics used as explanatory variables in the analyses. Underlying unprocessed and processed ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry data, oxygen consumption rates from laboratory moisture-manipulation experiments, within-sample environmental properties, sediment moisture content and contextual field measurements are archived separately at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2428003 (Laan et al., 2024) and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1923689 (Forbes et al.,2023). A preliminary version of this data package was published in February 2026 at the time of manuscript submission. It was updated in June 2026, at the time of manuscript acceptance, to include the finalized data and additional metadata (readme, data dictionary, and file level metadata). For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. 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. At the top level, the data package is organized into five main folders: (1) Data, (2)Figures, (3) Map, (4) GAM_Reulsts, and (5) src. The Data folder contains analysis-ready tabular files with oxygen consumption rates, DOM thermodynamic properties by site and treatment, site-level environmental variables, watershed-scale metrics, and other derived variables referenced in the manuscript. The Figures folder contains static image files associated with the main text and supplemental figures, while the Map folder includes spatial data and map-layer files used to create the sampling-location map. The GAM results folder contains the results for each of the general additive model (GAM).The src folder contains R scripts used to perform data processing, statistical analyses (including clustering, generalized additive models, and threshold analysis), and figure generation. This data package is associated with a GitHub repository found at https://github.com/WHONDRS-Hub/ECA_DOM_Thermodynamics.

Dissolved organic matter↗

DOE OSTI2026

Daily evapotranspiration changes during heatwaves at 32 NEON sites, 2019-2021

This dataset provides partitioned evapotranspiration (ET, the combined loss of water from soil and plant surfaces) anomalies during heatwave events—soil evaporation (E) and transpiration (T)—for 268 heatwave events across 32 National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) flux sites in the contiguous United States from 2019–2021. Using an ensemble of four high-frequency turbulence methods (Flux-variance Similarity, Conditional Eddy Covariance [CEC], CEC with Water-Use Efficiency, and Conditional Eddy Accumulation; see Zahn and Bou-Zeid 2024), half-hourly transpiration-to-evapotranspiration (T/ET) ratios were derived from 20 hertz (Hz, cycles per second) eddy covariance measurements of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapor (H₂O) concentrations. The dataset spans six vegetation types including evergreen and deciduous forests, grasslands, cultivated crops, shrublands, and emergent herbaceous wetlands. Data Package Contents: The dataset includes a single CSV (comma-separated values) file containing daily anomalies (deviations from baseline conditions) for transpiration (Delta_T), evaporation (Delta_E), total evapotranspiration (Delta_ET), and T/ET ratio (Delta_T_ET) during each day of identified heatwave events. The file also includes site codes, dates, heatwave event identifiers, and day-of-heatwave indicators. The CSV file can be opened with spreadsheet software (Microsoft Excel, Google Sheets) or programming environments (Python, R, MATLAB). This resource enables researchers to investigate ecosystem-specific responses to thermal extremes, validate land surface model partitioning of ET fluxes, and examine feedbacks between water cycling and surface energy balance during heatwaves. The dataset is particularly valuable for studies linking vegetation hydraulic strategies to climate resilience, as it captures the divergent responses of shallow-rooted versus deep-rooted ecosystems. Potential applications include improving drought early warning systems, informing irrigation management strategies, and advancing our mechanistic understanding of land-atmosphere interactions under extreme heat conditions.

Day of Heatwave↗

DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE Whole Ecosystem Warming (WEW) Environmental Data and Water Table Summaries, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, 2015-2024

This data set contains observations of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), precipitation, soil temperature, soil volumetric water content, air temperature, relative humidity, and normalized water table depth that are summarized on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis for each of the SPRUCE plots. Observations span 2015-2024. This dataset draws on several datasets (Hanson et al. 2016; Hanson et al. 2020; and Warren, unpublished data) and compiles these environmental observations into useful formats for data analysis. These environmental metrics can be used to understand the environmental conditions inside SPRUCE environmental chambers throughout the durations of the experiment and can be paired with other data for modeling and analysis. R code used to generate these files is provided as part of the data package. This dataset contains four data files in comma separate (.csv) format and a compressed folder (*.zip) containing three R (*.r) scripts. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format. User note: Users must cite the original dataset/s along with this dataset when publishing any analyses using this dataset. Details on the dataset used to compile each variable are available in the header row of the files and in the user guide.

air temperature↗

DOE OSTI2026

Fungal mat growth and leaf colonization at the TRACE warming experiment, Mar - Aug 2024, Luquillo, Puerto Rico

This data package contains processed measurements on the growth of litter mat-forming fungi and the time to leaf colonization at the Tropical Responses to Altered Climate Experiment (TRACE). Located near the Sabana Field Research Station in Luquillo, Puerto Rico, the TRACE site is located in a mature, closed-canopy tropical rainforest within the Luquillo Experimental Forest (LEF). These data quantify fungal mat growth and the time to leaf colonization of fungi species Gymnopus johnstonii and Marasmius crinis-equi. The experiment was conducted in ambient (control) and experimentally warmed plots (4°C above ambient) during spring and summer periods to assess how litter mat-forming fungi respond to a range of environmental conditions of tropical wet forests. The data files include tables of relative fungal mat growth rates, time to leaf colonization, averages of soil temperature (°C), and number of dry days before leaf attachment. The data are stored in comma-separated values (CSV) format and viewable with any text editor, spreadsheet, or statistical software (e.g., R, Python, Excel). Associated metadata describe plot identifiers, measurement descriptions, and processing steps.

Agaric fungi↗

DOE OSTI2026

Depth-resolved sagebrush root metabolomics, rhizosphere microbial communities, and geochemistry at the East River Watershed

This data set consists of results from soil nutrient profile, untargeted metabolomics, mass spec imaging, and amplicon sequencing. Data for soil nutrient profile includes common cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K etc.) extracted from 3 digesting steps – ammonia acetate (for exchangeable cations), nitric acid (for acid dissolved fraction), and hydrofluoric acid/perchloric acid (HF/HClO4) for whole soil digestion. It also includes concentration of organic carbon, inorganic nitrogen (ammonia and nitrate) and phosphorus (Bray-1 P and nitric acid extract), and total nitrogen and phosphorus. Data for untargeted metabolomics includes metabolomic profile for root exudate/tissues and soil extracts from depths at surface soil to saprolite, that were measured using gas chromatography – mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and liquid chromatography – tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Data for mass spec imaging includes spatial distribution of metabolites that were detected and annotated with Fourier transformation ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometer (FTICR-MS). Data for amplicon sequencing includes the base paired 16S and ITS ribosomal RNA sequences from Miseq Illumina sequencing. All samples were collected from 2 sampling campaign October 2022 and June 2023. Collectively, these datasets enable a mechanistic evaluation of how nutrient acquisition, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, differs between shallow roots operating in soil and deep roots functioning within the fractured bedrock zone. All files are provided as comma-separated values (CSV) fies (.csv) and (GZIP) file (.gz). The compressed .gz FASTQ files can be read directly in R using the dada2 package as part of the amplicon sequence analysis workflow. 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. This research was performed on a project award 60563 (https://dx.doi.org/10.46936/expl.proj.2022.60563/60008727) from the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, a DOE Office of Science User Facility sponsored by the Biological and Environmental Research program under Contract No. DE-AC05-76RL01830.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > CARBON↗

DOE OSTI2026

RC-SFA Data Management Templates and Guidance for Standardized, Reusable AI-Ready Data Packages

This data package provides templates and supporting documentation developed by the River Corridor Science Focus Area (RC-SFA; https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/river-corridor) to communicate its approach to managing and publishing AI-ready data. The package is intended to help data users and data producers understand the structures, metadata practices, and quality-control approaches that support consistent, reusable, and machine-actionable data products across RC-SFA studies. Rather than focusing on a single experimental dataset, this package documents the data management framework used to make RC-SFA data easier to find, ingest, navigate, and interpret. The materials in this package reflect RC-SFA practices for standardized data package organization, including the use of a human- and machine-readable README, file-level metadata, data dictionaries, descriptive file naming, method identifiers, and automated and review-based quality assurance procedures. Together, these components illustrate how RC-SFA extends FAIR data principles toward AI-readiness by prioritizing deep metadata, consistency across data packages, and support for informed downstream reuse by both humans and computational tools. This dataset is comprised of (1) readme; (2) presentation slides with an overview of RC-SFA approach and guidance; (3) document of RC-SFA best practices; (4) data dictionary (dd); (5) file level metadata (flmd); and a subfolder containing templates for dd and flmd. All files are .csv and .pdf. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About.

AI-readiness↗

DOE OSTI2026

Multi-resolution Arctic Shrub Cover Dataset Derived from UAS and Airborne SfM and LiDAR (2013-2025)

We synthesized 177 unoccupied aerial system flights and 77 airborne flights across the Arctic and created a multi-resolution benchmark data of low-to-tall shrub fractional cover leveraging Structure-from-Motion and Light Detection and Ranging. The resulting dataset covered a total of 1899 km2 across Alaska, Western Canada, Sweden, and Siberian Arctic, including key sites from the Oro Arctic to the High Arctic. The dataset is organized into 6 primary data collection directories (“Abisko,” “AWI,” “ERE,” “Fairbanks,” “NGEE,” “Toolik”), each containing site and flight subdirectories. Flight directories include shrub cover rasters (*.tifs) at 1 m, 5 m, and 30 m resolution, the canopy height model at 1 m resolution (*.tifs), and a bounding box *.kml file. For the AWI, Abisko, NGEE, and Fairbanks collections, we also include the GCC raster at 1 m resolution (*.tif). Files are organized by Collection > Site > Flight Name > Data Files. Flight rasters are in the local UTM zone and the .kml files are in the geographic coordinate system EPSG 4326. We also include a .csv file that details the source datasets for every flight. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments in the Arctic (NGEE Arctic) project is a research effort to reduce uncertainty in the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) by developing a predictive understanding of Arctic tundra ecosystems underlain by permafrost and to quantify feedbacks from the Arctic tundra to the Earth system. NGEE Arctic is supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Over Phases 1–3, observations made by the NGEE Arctic team across a gradient of permafrost landscapes in Arctic Alaska improved the representation of tundra processes in the land surface component of E3SM (the E3SM Land Model, ELM). Model improvements emphasized unique aspects of permafrost environments and explored reductions in model complexity while retaining predictive power. The Arctic-informed ELM developed by NGEE Arctic has been used to make novel predictions on processes ranging from permafrost thaw to soil biogeochemical cycling to Earth system feedbacks associated with the unique characteristics of tundra plants. In Phase 4, the NGEE Arctic team is evaluating our new predictive understanding under novel conditions across the Arctic domain. In collaboration with partners at long-term pan-Arctic research sites we are examining whether an Arctic-informed ELM can faithfully simulate interactions among surface and subsurface processes at site, regional, and pan-Arctic scales. In turn, we are using variety of tools to dynamically extend and evaluate ELM inference, with an emphasis on data synthesis and pan-Arctic model evaluation, reintegration of code with an evolving E3SM, scaling across heterogeneous Arctic landscapes, and the appropriate representation of the impacts of increasingly frequent Arctic disturbances.

canopy height model↗

DOE OSTI2026

TEMPEST3 surface runoff water chemistry and organic matter composition

Coastal flooding, driven by storm surges and sea level rise, can mobilize organic matter (OM) via runoff, while introducing compositionally distinct OM (e.g., estuarine OM) into the system. To understand event-scale OM dynamics, we monitored source waters and surface runoff during an ecosystem-scale field manipulation experiment, TEMPEST (Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments), in June 2024. The TEMPEST experiment is part of the COMPASS-FME (Coastal Observations, Mechanisms, and Predictions Across Systems and Scales – Field, Measurements, and Experiments) project and designed to investigate biogeochemical and ecological impacts of freshwater and seawater flooding on coastal terrestrial-aquatic interface ecosystems by simulating freshwater and seawater storm events in two 2000m2 coastal upland forest plots (freshwater and brackish seawater plots). The temporal coverage of this dataset is during the TEMPESTⅢ event (June 11-13, 2024). This dataset contains: - Surface runoff discharge measured by flumes - Sensor data (specific conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) - Particle size distribution - Total suspended sediment concentrations (TSS), particulate and dissolved organic carbon (POC, DOC) concentrations, total nitrogen and total dissolved nitrogen (TN, TDN) concentrations - Bulk particulate and dissolved OM compositions (stable C and N isotopes of particulates and optical measurements of chromophoric dissolved OM) - High resolution mass spectrometry analysis data - Water isotope data All data files are plain-text CSV (comma-separated value), and no special software is required to read them.

COMPASS-FME↗

DOE OSTI2026

Meteoric 10Be Flux Calibration Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

This data package contains tabular and geospatial data used to quantify and model meteoric beryllium-10 fluxes in the East River watershed, Colorado, USA. The tabular component includes calibration-site data from five glacial moraine sites and includes environmental variables used to evaluate spatial controls on meteoric 10Be delivery, including elevation, mean annual precipitation (MAP), mean snow depth, and mean snow water equivalent (SWE). These site-level data were used to compare observed fluxes with environmental gradients across the watershed and to evaluate the effects of erosion correction on flux estimates. The package also includes supporting slope and curvature values used to assess topographic inputs to the erosion analysis. A second component of the data package contains updated manuscript tables and regression outputs used to summarize the relationships between meteoric 10Be flux and environmental predictors. These tables include meteoric 10Be sample information and AMS results, site-level environmental values, site-level meteoric 10Be inventory and flux values, watershed-averaged predicted fluxes, soil bulk density measurements, fine-fraction values, soil pH measurements, and regression statistics including slope, intercept, coefficient of determination, and p-value. The regression products include both standard linear regressions and regressions in which the intercept is constrained to pass through zero, and they support the analyses presented in the companion manuscript. Together, these tabular files provide the numerical basis for the manuscript tables and the regression-based interpretation of meteoric 10Be flux variability in a snow-dominated mountain watershed. The geospatial component of the package consists of GeoTIFF raster files used to generate the map products presented in Figures 2 and 6 of the companion manuscript. These rasters represent watershed-scale spatial layers for environmental variables and regression-based predictions of meteoric 10Be flux. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), GeoTIFF raster files (.tif), and upporting metadata files, including CSV data dictionaries and readme text files (.csv, .txt). The tabular files can be opened with standard spreadsheet software, and the raster files can be viewed and analyzed in GIS software such as ArcGIS Pro or QGIS. Together, these files document the numerical and spatial datasets used to calibrate and predict meteoric 10Be delivery in the East River watershed.

East River↗

DOE OSTI2026

Data and script associated with “Shifts in Rain-Snow Partitioning Drive Faster Water Transit Times in the US Pacific Northwest”

This data package contains the data and code to use and run the Water Tracer enabled version of the Weather Research and Forecasting Hydrologic model (WT-WRF-Hydro) with the Sequential Precipitation Input Tagging (SPIT) framework. It is associated with the publication “Shifts in Rain-Snow Partitioning Drive Faster Water Transit Times in the US Pacific Northwest” published in Scientific Reports (Butler et al., 2026; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46539-1). We use the Continental U.S. (CONUSII; Rasmussen et al., 2021) dataset to force the model with an historical climate (2006–2013) and a future climate (2086–2093) with a representative carbon pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario. We use the model to calculate water transit times in five headwater catchments within the U.S. Pacific Northwest. We also show key hydrologic and environmental variables that affect water transit times and changes in the future. Finally, we use observed data to validate the model such as stream water isotopes, snowpack characteristics, and stream discharge. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. 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. The data package consists of 11 folders: (1) "Figures" contains the exported figures used in the manuscript; (2) "Model_Isotope_Date" contains the WT-WRF-Hydro isotope date used in model validation; (3) “Model_Outputs_Future” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro future climate outputs; (4) “Model_Outputs_Historical” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro historical climate outputs; (5) “Model_Outputs_Weights_Areas” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro weights per catchment used to calculate water transit times and isotopes in stream water; (6) “MODIS_data_scripts” contains data used to validate snow conditions in the study area; (7) “Observed_Flow_Data” contains the observed streamflow data used in model validation; (8) “Observed_Isotope_Data” contains the observed stream water isotope data used in model validation; (9) “Scripts” contains the Python scripts used to general results and the figures; (10) “Statistic_Outputs” contains the water transit time statistical outputs reported in this manuscript; (11) “Validation_SNOTEL” contains the SNOTEL data used in model validation. The files in this data package have the following file extensions: .tif, .txt, .csv, .pdf, .py, .jpg, and .png.

American River↗

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

Denudation, solute export, landscape evolution modeling, and geographic information system data for the East River watershed, Colorado, USA (2020-2024)

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of lithologic controls on denudation, solute export, carbon-scaling relationships, and transient landscape evolution in the East River watershed near Crested Butte, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the Figure 2 map, including drainage, hillshade, lithology, sample locations, and basin polygons, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. One group of tables reports sample-level and catchment-level information for river-sediment samples analyzed for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample names, outlet elevations, geographic coordinates, upstream drainage area, rock-type classes, production-rate scaling scheme, analyzed nuclide, catchment-averaged denudation rates, and associated lower and upper analytical uncertainties. Sample and catchment attributes provide the basis for comparing denudation rates across intrusive, shale, sedimentary, and mixed-lithology settings. A second group of tables reports supporting information for landscape-evolution modeling and the mapped geologic framework of the study area. Included files list parameter values and definitions for the two-phase landscape-evolution simulations, summarize full-domain model erosion fluxes and topographic metrics for different simulation configurations, provide a fixed-area carbon-model scaling table, and summarize mapped geologic units within the East River study domain, including geologic code, formation name, lithologic description, mapped area, and lithologic class grouping. Model outputs and geologic summaries support interpretation of transient landscape behavior and its relation to the mapped distribution of shale, intrusive, sedimentary, and surficial units. A third group of tables reports hydrologic and hydrochemical information used to quantify dissolved export from the watershed. Included files provide site-level values for drainage area, mean annual solute export, standard error of annual export, area-normalized solute yield, and equivalent weathering rate for five East River monitoring sites, along with metadata describing the number, sampling cadence, and date range of discharge records and partial and full total dissolved solids observations used in the solute-yield analyses. The package also contains a supplementary daily ion-load time series with daily mean discharge, discharge observation counts, dissolved concentrations, and daily loads for calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, fluoride, dissolved silica, charge-balance bicarbonate, and total dissolved solids. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, a package-tree text file, and a readme text file.

10Be↗

DOE OSTI2026

Historic climate, cosmogenic 10Be, denudation-rate, and geospatial datasets from the Pikes Peak region, Colorado, USA

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of elevation-dependent denudation rates on Pikes Peak in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the study-area map, including sample locations, sample watershed boundaries, the Pikes Peak batholith, Pleistocene glacier extent, weather station locations, and elevation and hillshade rasters, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. These mapped layers provide the geographic framework for interpreting denudation patterns across the Pikes Peak region and for relating sample locations to watershed geometry, bedrock setting, glacial history, and nearby climate stations. The first group of tables reports climate and geospatial context for the study area. These files include station-based temperature and precipitation data used to characterize elevational gradients in mean annual climate and monthly climate seasonality, sample locations, denudation-rate and topographic metrics, fixed frost-cracking model parameters, frost-cracking intensity and precipitation-frequency metrics, and stream-power inversion results. Together, these data provide the basis for evaluating how denudation varies with elevation, climate, and landscape form across sampled catchments on Pikes Peak. The second group of tables reports cosmogenic nuclide and erosion-model results used in the denudation analysis. Included files contain accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurements for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample identifiers, measured 10Be:9Be ratios, analytical uncertainties, carrier mass, quartz mass, blank corrections, blank-group statistics, and calculated 10Be concentrations and uncertainties. Additional tables summarize stream-power-law inversion results for sampled catchments, including optimized model parameters, predicted erosion rates, residual metrics, channel-pixel counts, and convergence status, as well as regression equations and summary statistics used to evaluate relationships among elevation, climate, frost cracking, precipitation forcing, and denudation rate. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, and a readme text file.

10Be cosmogenic nuclides↗

DOE OSTI2026

Data for Zheng et al. (2025), "AquaMEND: Reconciling multiple impacts of salinization on soil carbon biogeochemistry"

Soil salinization, exacerbated by climate change, poses a global threat to coastal ecosystems and soil function. Salinity affects soil carbon cycling by directly impacting microbial activity and indirectly altering soil physicochemical properties, but current models inadequately represent these complexities. This dataset contains the observational and modeling data from Zheng et al. (2025), which described a process-based modeling framework that couples soil solution chemistry with microbial carbon cycling reactions to study the impacts of soil salinization. This conceptual model is implemented numerically into the open-source geochemical program PHREEQC 3.0 (Parkhurst and Appelo, 2013). This dataset consists of: - Figure2_AquaMEND_salinity_buffer: Contains model simulation outputs to assess the impact of three different cation exchange and surface complexation processes on salinity buffering (Fig. 2 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure3_Salinity_function: Contains salinity function fitting for literature data (Fig. 3 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure4_AquaMEND_microbial_mechanisms: Contains model simulation outputs for testing various microbial process-based hypotheses related to soil salinization, including microbial mortality, carbon use efficiency (CUE), extracellular enzyme activity, and other microbial mechanisms (Fig. 4 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure5_AquaMEND_Redox: Contains on model simulation outputs to evaluate shifts among key redox processes, such as aerobic respiration, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis (Fig.5 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure6_AquaMEND_sorption: Contains on model simulation outputs for investigating the effects of salinity on dissolved organic matter (DOM) sorption and desorption processes (Fig. 6 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure7_AquaMEND_process_couple: Contains on model simulation outputs for exploring coupled biotic-abiotic processes and their interactions (Fig. 7 from Zheng et al. 2025). - data: Includes datasets used to develop salinity response functions and evaluate salinity buffering capacity. Datasets for MEND model calibration. - database: Contains the `.dat` file required by PHREEQC for model execution. - README.md: A Markdown plain text file describing the computational tools and directories. Files are a mixture of plain text CSV (comma-separated value) and plain text *.dat files written by the model; no special software is required to read them.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL SALINIT↗

DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE Wood Anatomy of Picea mariana and Larix laricina in SPRUCE Experimental Plots, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, July 2023

Branch samples were collected in July 2023 to measure wood anatomical traits on two dominant conifer species, Picea mariana and Larix laricina, in a bog forest at the SPRUCE (Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments) experiment in northern Minnesota. Anatomical measurements were made on the annual rings of those branches with dates ranging from 2011-2023. Wood anatomical measurements include annual tracheid diameter, tracheid density, cell wall thickness, thickness-to-span-ratio, and conduit lumen fraction in both earlywood and latewood. Wood anatomical samples were prepared using a portable sliding microtome (G.S.L.-1 lightweight microtome, WSL) and a light microscope (Leica DM2500). This dataset spans 2011–2023, with full branch-level coverage for 2020–2023, whereas some thinner branches formed only in recent years and therefore do not contain rings from earlier years. By providing annual, treatment-specific anatomical measurements, this dataset can help quantify structural acclimation to global change, clarify links among phenology, wood formation, and hydraulic traits, and improve predictions of forest growth response under future climates. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

annual tracheid diameter↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil carbon stocks from soil organic carbon at the Teller 47, Teller 27, and Kougarok 86 field sites, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021 – 2023

Carbon stored in permafrost soils represents the largest terrestrial storage and hence has key significance for the global carbon cycle, yet the site-specific estimates of permafrost soil carbon are limited. To better understand permafrost carbon storage, soil organic content (SOC) was measured from soils collected at the Teller 27, Teller 47, and Kougarok 86 field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska in the summers of 2019 and 2021-2023. Soil samples were collected from locations with and without near-surface permafrost to varied depths within the permafrost, where present. In addition to sample collection for soil organic carbon analysis, bulk density samples were also collected within each soil profile to allow for calculation of carbon stocks. Carbon to nitrogen ratios are also reported. Location data were collected at each observation point using a handheld GPS unit with waypoint averaging to reduce location measurement error to within 3 m. SOC was measured using elemental analysis in the laboratory. This dataset contains a *.csv file of soil carbon stocks, a *.kml file of measurement locations, a *.pdf user guide, a *.csv data dictionary, and a *.csv file level metadata.

EARTH SCIENCE > CRYOSPHERE > FROZEN GROUND↗