Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “FILES”

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 847 records · Page 47
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

WHONDRS River Corridor Sediment and Water Geochemistry and In Situ Sensor Data from Machine-Learning-Informed Sites across the Contiguous United States (v6)

This dataset supports a broader study examining hyporheic zone respiration rates to improve predictive models at a contiguous United States (CONUS) scale. The CONUS-Scale Model-Sample Study (CM) was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles to facilitate a model-experiment (ModEx) iteration approach, leveraging crowdsourced sampling across the CONUS. New machine learning models were created every month to guide sampling locations. Data from the resulting samples were used to test and rebuild the machine learning models for the next round of sampling guidance. Sampling began in April 2022 and ended in October 2023. In addition to the widely distributed CONUS sites, a more spatially focused sampling occurred in the Yakima River Basin, WA in summer 2022. Data from this more spatially intensive sampling occurred under the label “Second Spatial Study (SSS)” and were also included in the machine learning models. Other data types collected from SSS that were not part of CM were published in a separate data package (https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1969566). This data package was originally published in February 2023. It was updated in June 2023 (v2; new and modified files); December 2023 (v3; new and modified files); June 2024 (v4; new and modified files); April 2024 (v5; new and modified files); and September 2025 (v6; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of two folders of field photos and videos, one folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data and one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (6) field protocols; (7) a subfolder with sample data; and (8) a subfolder with sensor data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) surface water and sediment dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) surface water and sediment total nitrogen data and averages; (3) surface water major cations and anions and averages; (4) sediment grain size data; (5) sediment iron (II) data and averages; (6) wet sediment mass, dry sediment mass, water mass, and wet sediment volume in incubation and sediment ICR vials; (7) sediment incubation respiration rate data and averages; (8) normalized respiration rate data and averages; (9) methods codes; (10) sediment specific surface area; (11) sediment percent carbon and nitrogen; (12) sediment gravimetric moisture and averages; (15) sediment X-ray diffraction (XRD) data; (16) sediment adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and averages; (17) a subfolder with sediment incubation respiration data, scripts, and plots; (18) surface water and sediment FTICR methods; and (19) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains five subfolders, one containing the sediment .xml data files, one containing the water .xml files, one containing the sediment CoreMS output files, one containing the water CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS).The sensor data subfolder contains (1) a subfolder with miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature data and plots; (2) miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature summary data; and (3) miniDOT installation methods. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4. CORRECTION: Carbon and nitrogen content are reported as percentages. The current column headers "01395_C_percent_per_mg" and "01397_N_percent_per_mg" are incorrect. These should read "01395_C_percent" and "01397_N_percent" and will be corrected in the next version of this data package. We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Scientific Research Permit #210901), and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the samples labeled “SSS” were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview. WHONDRS consortium members were asked to provide any acknowledgments for the collection of samples labeled “CM” and the following is a list of acknowledgments that were submitted with their corresponding Site IDs: (MART) Research activities were conducted in part on the Wind River Experimental Forest within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; (MP- 100379) Philadelphia is part of Lenapehoking, the ancestral homelands of the Lenape peoples; (MP-102398) Land surveyed is the ancestral homelands of the Nookhose'iinenno (Arapaho), Tsis tsis'tas (Cheyenne), and Nuuchu (Ute); (MP-100749 and MP- 100747) Georgia Coastal Ecosystem LTER, OCE-1832178; (SP-70 and SP-72) Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock; (MP- 102944) Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. On the traditional lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Rhonde, and the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribe; (MP- 100607) Holiday Creek is located on the traditional territory of the Monacan Indian Nation; (SP-45) Lafayette Blue Springs State Park; (MP-102420) NSF DEB-2016749; (MP-100019) New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station; (SP-35) Rayonier (land owner; https://www.rayonier.com/); (MP- 101276) US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research, Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 103224) Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 101584) Traditional lands of the Oceti Sakowin (Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda) and Anishinaabe Peoples.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Data associated with the manuscript “Radiative impact of record-breaking wildfires from integrated ground-based data” collected in Richland, Washington in September 2020

This data package is associated with the publication “Radiative impact of record-breaking wildfires from integrated ground-based data” submitted to Nature Scientific Reports (Kassianov et al., 2024). Data from ground-based measurements of shortwave and spectrally resolved irradiance and aerosol optical depth (AOD) in the visible and near-infrared spectral ranges were assessed to quantify the radiative impact of the September 2020 wildfires that occurred in the Western United States. Data were collected in September 2020 by several ground-based instruments at the Atmospheric Measurements Laboratory (AML) located in Richland, Washington (46.3451, -119.2792). These data include (1) Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD); (2) spectrally resolved and shortwave (SW) irradiances; (3) backscatter profiles; (4) total sky images; and (5) near-surface ambient air temperatures.The data package consists of five sub-directories: (1) “AML_Ceilometer_”; (2)” AML_CSPHOT_”; (3) “AML_MFRSR_irradiances_”; (4) “AML_SW_irradiances_and_Temp_”; (5) “AML_TSI_images_”; and 6 files stored at the directory level, including the readme, file-level metadata file, and data dictionary. The file-level metadata file (the file ending in “_flmd.csv”) lists all files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. The data dictionary (the file ending in “_dd.csv”) describes each tabular column header’s unit, definition, and structure. Below are descriptions of each sub-directory:“AML_Ceilometer_” includes ceilometer data collected at the AML. These files contain the corresponding narratives of data. Details related to the ceilometer data can be found in Morris (2016). “AML_CSPHOT_” includes ascii files with high-temporal resolution (about 10-15 min) AML CSPHOT data and their daily-averaged counterparts. These two files contain the corresponding narratives of data. Details related to the CSPHOT data can be found in Gregory (2011). “AML_MFRSR_irradiances_” includes ascii files with the AML MFRSR-measured diffuse, normal, and total spectrally resolved irradiance. Details related to the MFRSR data can be found in Hodges and Michalsky (2016) and Koontz et al. (2013). “AML_SW_irradiances_+_Temp_” includes near-surface ambient air temperature and SW irradiances, namely direct normal, diffuse hemispherical, and total hemispheric (global), measured at the AML. These files also incorporate the corresponding narratives of data. Details related to the SW irradiances can be found in Andreas et al. (2018). “AML_TSI_images_” includes Total Sky Images (TSIs) collected at the AML. Details related to the TSI data can be found in Morris (2005).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Data transfer between scientific facilities – bottleneck analysis, insights, and optimizations

Wide area file transfers play an important role in many science applications. File transfer tools typically deliver the highest performance for datasets with a small number of large files, but many science datasets consist of many small files. Thus it is important to understand the factors that contribute to the decrease in wide area data transfer performance for datasets with many small files. To this end, we (i) benchmark the performance of subsystems involved in end-to-end file transfer between two HPC facilities for a many-file dataset that is representative of production science transfers; (ii) characterize the per-file overhead introduced by different subsystems; (iii) identify potential dependencies and bottlenecks; (iv) study the effectiveness of transferring many files concurrently as a means of reducing per-file overheads; and (v) prototype a prefetching mechanism as an alternative of concurrency to reduce the per-file overhead on source storage system. We show that both concurrency and prefetching can help reduce the per-file overhead significantly. A reasonable level of concurrency combined with prefetching can bring the per-file overhead down to a negligible level.

Liu, Yuanlai↗
DOE OSTI2023

ORNL_AISD-Ex: Quantum chemical prediction of UV/Vis absorption spectra for over 10 million organic molecules

We performed calculations of electronic excitation energies and associated oscillator strengths based on the time-dependent density-functional tight-binding (TD-DFTB) method [1]. The SMILES (Simplified molecular-input line-entry system) strings of the molecules from the AISD HOMO-LUMO database [2] were converted to a 3D atomistic structure and stored in a PDB file after preliminary geometry optimization using the Merck Molecular Force Field (MMFF94) in RDKit [3,4]. The primary information stored in the PDB file archive consists of Cartesian coordinates for each atom of the molecule in their 3D location in space, along with summary information about the structure, sequence, and experiment. We then performed molecular geometry optimization using the density-functional tight-binding (DFTB) method [5] in the electronic ground state, followed by single-point excited states calculations, as described below. We note that, since RDKit employs a random choice for the generation of molecular conformers, the molecular geometries obtained in this dataset could be different from the ones that were generated when the AISD HOMO-LUMO dataset was generated. The computed excitation energies and associated oscillator strengths can be converted to predict UV/Vis absorption spectra, where excitation energies correspond to absorption peak positions, and oscillator strengths are a good measure of the probability of absorption of visible or UV light in transitions between electronic ground and excited states. The conversion of SMILES strings to 3D Cartesian coordinates of fully DFTB-optimized molecules was successful for 10,502,904 out of 10,502,917 molecules. For these molecules, both geometry optimizations and excited states calculations were successful. The DFTB calculations did not complete for 13 molecules of the original AISD HOMO-LUMO dataset. We still provide information about the geometry of these molecules. The molecules are diverse for chemical compositions (which span 5 non-hydrogen elements: oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, fluorine, sulfur) and molecular size (the smallest molecule contains 5 non-hydrogen atoms, and the largest molecule contains 71 non-hydrogen atoms). The DFTB method [5] is an approximation to density functional theory (DFT), utilizing a minimal basis set in conjunction with a two-center approximation to the electronic Hamiltonian and overlap matrix elements. The DFTB total energy is the sum of an electronic and a repulsive energy contribution, and their calculation requires optimized electronic parameters and diatomic repulsive potential energy functions. All DFTB calculations were performed using the DFTB+ code [6] (version 21.2) and the wrapper for DFTB+ in the Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE) (version 3.22.1) [7], which performed an internal conversion of Cartesian coordinates from PDB to the .gen file format. For the geometry optimizations on the electronic ground state potential energy surface of the molecules, we have chosen the third-order DFTB (DFTB3) method [5c] and employed the matching 3ob set of electronic parameters and repulsive potentials [8]. The empirical γ-damping for hydrogen bond correction, and Grimme's D3 empirical dispersion correction with Becke-Johnson damping (D3(BJ)) [9] dispersion correction was included to improve the description of non-covalent interactions. For excited states single-point energy calculations, we employed the TD-DFTB method in conjunction with the DFTB2 method [5b] and the matching mio [5b,10] and halorg [11] parameter sets. We opted to request the simultaneous calculation of 50 excited states for singlet transition to investigate sufficient number of excited states, based on linear response theory using the Casida equation [Ref: T. A. Niehaus, S. Suhai, F. Della Sala, P Lugli, M. Elstner, G. Seifert, and Th. Frauenheim. Tight-binding approach to time-dependent density-functional response theory. Phys. Rev. B, 63:085108, 2001] and the ARPACK diagonalizer [R. B. Lehoucq, D. C. Sorensen, and C. Yang. Arpack users guide: Solution of large-scale eigenvalue problems by implicitly restarted arnoldi methods, 1997. 46, 51]. The dataset contains 1001 tar.gz files. Tar files are named as “ornl_aisd_ex_1.tar.gz†through “ornl_aisd_ex_1000.tar.gzâ€. Additionally, the 13 failed molecules are in “ornl_aisd_ex_unprocessed.tar.gzâ€. Except for the tar files listed below, each tar file contains 10,500 molecules. Tar files numbered 34, 121, 128, 352, 360, 429, 495, 509, 518, 627, 676, 668, and 862 contain 10,499 molecules each. The last tar file numbered 1000 contains 13,417 molecules. The total size of the uncompressed dataset is over 283 Gigabytes. The code for calculating the electronic excitation energies and statistical analysis of the dataset is provided at the following GitLab repository: https://github.com/ORNL/Analysis-of-Large-Scale-Molecular-Datasets-with-Python Calculating the UV spectrum of a molecule requires performing 3 main operations: 1. Converting the smiles string representation of a molecule into a geometric structure where each atom is assigned XYZ coordinates. The geometric structure is written to the file smiles.pdb. 2. Using smiles.pdb to compute the relaxed geometry of the molecule, which corresponds with the position of the atoms at the position of equilibrium at the ground state. This generates the files band.out, detailed.out, and geo_end.gen. 3. Using geo_end.gen to calculate the UV spectrum of the molecule which is written into the file EXC.DAT. Every molecule in the dataset has its own directory. The files contained in each molecule directory are as follows: 1. geo_end.gen 2. detailed.out 3. band.out 4. EXC.DAT 5. smiles.pdb REFERENCES [1] Niehaus, T. A.; Suhai, S.; Della Salla, F.; Lugli, P.; Elstner, M.; Seifert, G.; Frauenheim, Th. Tight-binding approach to time-dependent density-functional response theory. Phys. Rev. B, 2001, 63, 085108/1-9. [2] Blanchard, A.; Gounley, J.; Metha, K.; Yoo, P.; Irle, S. AISD HOMO-LUMO. DOI: 10.13139/ORNLNCCS/1869409 [3] RDKit: Cheminformatics and Machine Learning Software. 2013, [http://www.rdkit.org] [4] Tosco, P.; Stiefl, N. and Landrum, G. Bringing the MMFF force field to the RDKit: implementation and validation. J Cheminform. 2014, 6, 1–4. [5] a) Porezag, D.; Frauenheim, T.; Kohler, T.; Seifert, G.; Kaschner, Construction of tight-binding-like potentials on the basis of density-functional theory: Application to carbon, R. Phys. Rev. B 1995, 51, 12947-12957; b) Elstner, M.; Porezag, D.; Jungnickel, G.; Elsner, J.; Haugk, M.; Frauenheim, Th.; Suhai, S.; Seifert, G.; Phys. Rev. B 1998, 58, 7260-7268; c) Gaus, M.; Cui, Q.; Elstner, M. DFTB3: Extension of the Self-Consistent-Charge Density-Functional Tight-Binding Method (SCC-DFTB), J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2011, 7, 931-948; d) Cui, Q.; Elstner, M. Density functional tight binding: values of semi-empirical methods in an ab initio era, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16, 14368-14377. [6] Hourahine, B. et al. DFTB+, a software package for efficient approximate density functional theory based atomistic simulations, J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152, 124101/1-19. [7] Larsen, A. H. et al. The atomic simulation environment—a Python library for working with atoms. J. Phys.: Cond. Matter 2017, 29, 273002. [8] Kubillus, M.; Kubar, T.; Gaus, M.; Rezac, J.; Elstner, M. Parameterization of the DFTB3 Method for Br, Ca, Cl, F, I, K, and Na in Organic and Biological Systems, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 332-342. [9] Brandenburg, J. G.; Grimme, S. Accurate Modeling of Organic Molecular Crystals by Dispersion-Corrected Density Functional Tight Binding (DFTB), J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 1785−1789. [10] a) Niehaus, T. A.; Elstner, M.; Frauenheim, Th.; Suhai, S. Application of an approximate density-functional method to sulfur containing compounds. J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM 2001, 541, 185-94; b) Elstner, M.; Hobza, P.; Frauenheim, Th.; Suhai, S.; Kaxiras, E. Hydrogen bonding and stacking interactions of nucleic acid base pairs: A density-functional-theory based treatment. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 114, 5149-55. [11] Kubar, T.; Bodrog, Z.; Gaus, M.; Köhler, C.; Aradi, B.; Frauenheim, Th.; Elstner, M. Parametrization of the SCC-DFTB Method for Halogens. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 2939-49.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Location Identifiers, Metadata, and Map for Field Measurements at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory, Colorado, USA (Version 3.3)

This dataset contains identifiers, metadata, and a map of the locations where field measurements have been conducted at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. This is version 3.3 of the dataset and replaces the prior version 3.2 (see below for details on changes between the versions). Dataset description: The East River-Taylor Watershed is the primary field site of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Researchers from several institutions generate highly diverse hydrological, biogeochemical, climate, vegetation, geological, remote sensing, and model data at the East-Taylor Watershed in collaboration with the WFSFA. Thus, the purpose of this dataset is to maintain an inventory of the field locations and instrumentation to provide information on the field activities in the East-Taylor Watershed and coordinate data collected across different locations, researchers, and institutions. The dataset contains (1) a README file with information on the various files, (2) three csv files describing the metadata collected for each surface point location, plot and region registered with the WFSFA, (3) csv files with metadata and contact information for each surface point location registered with the WFSFA, (4) a csv file with with metadata and contact information for plots, (5) a csv file with metadata for geographic regions and sub-regions within the watershed, (6) a compiled xlsx file with all the data and metadata which can be opened in Microsoft Excel, (7) a kml map of the locations plotted in the watershed which can be opened in Google Earth, (8) a jpg image of the kml map which can be viewed in any photo viewer, and (9) a zipped file with the registration templates used by the SFA team to collect location metadata. The zipped template file contains two csv files with the blank templates (point and plot), two csv files with instructions for filling out the location templates, and one compiled xlsx file with the instructions and blank templates together. Additionally, the templates in the xlsx include drop down validation for any controlled metadata fields. Persistent location identifiers (Location_ID) are determined by the WFSFA data management team and are used to track data and samples across locations. Dataset uses: This location metadata is used to update the Watershed SFA’s publicly accessible Field Information Portal (an interactive field sampling metadata exploration tool; https://wfsfa-data.lbl.gov/watershed/), the kml map file included in this dataset, and other data management tools internal to the Watershed SFA team. Version Information: The latest version of this dataset publication is version 3.3. This version contains 167 new point locations, 1 new plot, and 2 new geographic regions. Overall, there are a total of 1439 point locations, 75 plots, and 54 geographic regions. Additionally, the kml map of locations and image now includes two boundaries (Upper Ohio Creek (UO) and Carbon Creek (CA)) outside of the East River watershed (USGS HUC-10) and accompanying stream network that represents areas of focus. Refer to methods for further details on the version history. This dataset will be updated on a periodic basis with new measurement location information. Researchers interested in having their East-Taylor Watershed measurement locations added to this list should reach out to the WFSFA data management team at wfsfa-data@googlegroups.com. Acknowledgments: Please cite this dataset if using any of the location metadata in other publications or derived products. If using the location metadata for the 2018 NEON hyperspectral campaign, additionally cite Chadwick et al. (2020). doi:10.15485/1618130. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2021

Data from: "Ecophysiological variation in two provenances of Pinus flexilis seedlings across an elevation gradient from forest to alpine"

This archive contains data used to support conclusions drawn in “Ecophysiological variation in two provenances of Pinus flexilis seedlings across an elevation gradient from forest to alpine”, by Reinhardt et al., 2011. Data were collected over one summer season in plots within the Alpine Treeline Warming Experiment (ATWE), before climate manipulations began. The experiment was located on Niwot Ridge, in the Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. This data package includes five comma-separated-values (.csv) files, five Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) files, one .pdf file, and two types of geospatial files: keyhole markup language (.kml), and ESRI shapefiles (.shp). .csv files can be opened using any simple text-editing software (such as Notepad and TextEdit), R, and Microsoft Excel. .xlsx files can only be opened using Microsoft Excel. The .pdf file can be opened using Adobe Acrobat Reader or any other compatible file viewing software. The .kml file can be opened using Google Earth and Google Maps, and shapefiles can be opened using any software compatible with the file type, such as ESRI’s ArcGIS suite and QGIS.Data archived contain gas exchange and plant physiology measurements, non-structural carbohydrate data, among others. Geospatial files are also provided for additional locational context. The files and their contents in this data package are summarized under "Data Summary" in the included Data User's Guide. All files (excluding geospatial) are available in both Microsoft Excel and in .csv format, and are indicated in the Data Summary list as well.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Climate change is predicted to cause upward shifts in forest tree distributions, which will require seedling recruitment beyond current forest boundaries. However, predicting the likelihood of successful plant establishment beyond current species’ ranges under changing climate is complicated by the interaction of genetic and environmental controls on seedling establishment. To determine how genetics and climate may interact to affect seedling establishment, we transplanted recently germinated seedlings from high- and low-elevation provenances (HI and LO, respectively) of Pinus flexilis in common gardens arrayed along an elevation and canopy gradient from subalpine forest into the alpine zone and examined differences in physiology and morphology between provenances and among sites. Plant dry mass, projected leaf area and shoot:root ratios were 12–40% greater in LO compared with HI seedlings at each elevation. There were no significant changes in these variables among sites except for decreased dry mass of LO seedlings in the alpine site. Photosynthesis, carbon balance (photosynthesis/respiration) and conductance increased >2× with elevation for both provenances, and were 35–77% greater in LO seedlings compared with HI seedlings. There were no differences in dark-adapted chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) among sites or between provenances. Our results suggest that for P. flexilis seedlings, provenances selected for above-ground growth may outperform those selected for stress resistance in the absence of harsh climatic conditions, even well above the species’ range limits in the alpine zone. This indicates that forest genetics may be important to understanding and managing species’ range adjustments due to climate change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Data from: "Warming and the dependence of limber pine (Pinus flexilis) establishment on summer soil moisture within and above its current elevation range"

This data package contains data that were used for analysis in “Warming and the dependence of limber pine (Pinus flexilis) establishment on summer soil moisture within and above its current elevation range”, by Moyes et al. 2013. All data collection and field research were completed on Niwot Ridge, Colorado, USA.This data package contains nine comma-separated-values (.csv) files, one text (.txt) file, and two zipped seedling folders that were used for leaf area analysis. One zipped folder contains 468 .jpg photographs of seedlings, and the second contains 468 corresponding Image J-processed .jpg images that include silhouette leaf area values. .csv and .txt files can be opened using any compatible simple text-editor software such as TextEdit (Mac) and Notepad (Windows); .csv’s can also be opened using R and Microsoft Excel. Image files can be opened using Preview (Mac) and Photos (Windows). In addition, there are a total of 31 Microsoft Excel files: three .xlsx files, and 28 raw Li-Cor output .xls files. This data user’s guide is available in .pdf format, and can be opened using Adobe Acrobat Reader, or any other compatible file viewing software. Geospatial data showing field site locations are also included in the archive for use and reference. There are two geospatial formats in this archive: ESRI shapefiles (.shp) and keyhole markup-language (.kml) files. Both file types contain bounding box information, with the former being polygons, and the latter containing corner coordinates for each site. ESRI shapefiles can be opened using any geospatial software compatible with the file type (such as ESRI’s ArcGIS suite and QGIS), and .kml files are compatible with Google Earth and Google Maps.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Continued changes in climate are projected to alter the geographic distributions of plant species, in part by affecting where individuals can establish from seed. We tested the hypothesis that warming promotes uphill redistribution of subalpine tree populations by reducing cold limitation at high elevation and enhancing drought stress at low elevation. We seeded limber pine (Pinus flexilis) into plots with combinations of infrared heating and water addition treatments, at sites positioned in lower subalpine forest, the treeline ecotone, and alpine tundra. In 2010, first-year seedlings were assessed for physiological performance and survival over the snow-free growing season. Seedlings emerged in midsummer, about 5–8 weeks after snowmelt. Low temperature was not observed to limit seedling photosynthesis or respiration between emergence and October, and thus experimental warming did not appear to reduce cold limitation at high elevation. Instead, gas exchange and water potential from all sites indicated a prevailing effect of summer moisture stress on photosynthesis and carbon balance. Infrared heaters raised soil growing degree days (base 5 °C, p < 0.001) and August–September mean soil temperature (p < 0.001). Despite marked differences in vegetation cover and meteorological conditions across sites, volumetric soil moisture content (θ) at 5–10 cm below 0.16 and 0.08 m^3 m^(−3) consistently corresponded with moderate and severe indications of drought stress in midday stem water potential, stomatal conductance, photosynthesis, and respiration. Seedling survival was greater in watered plots than in heated plots (p = 0.01), and negatively related to soil growing degree days and duration of exposure to θ < 0.08 m^3 m^(−3) in a stepwise linear regression model (p < 0.0001). We concluded that seasonal moisture stress and high soil surface temperature imposed a strong limitation to limber pine seedling establishment across a broad elevation gradient, including at treeline, and that these limitations are likely to be enhanced by further climate warming.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Maintenance log:Amended file name error in Data User's Guide May 19 2022

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data from: 'Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed'

This package archives the core data used for analysis and inference in 'Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed' (Worsham et al., 2025). All data were collected in the East River, Washington Gulch, Slate River, and Coal Creek watersheds of Colorado. In the paper, we quantified the relative influence of climate, topographic, edaphic, and geologic factors on conifer stand structure and composition, and their functional relationships, at the watershed scale. We used waveform LiDAR data to derive spatially continuous stand structure metrics. We fused these with a species-level classification map to estimate tree species abundance. We applied generalized additive and generalized boosted models to evaluate the covariability of structural and compositional metrics with abiotic variables. The package contains the essential products required for reproducing our analysis and the tables and figures reported in the publication. The products comprise four classes: (1) geospatial data, (2) tabular data used for inferential analysis, (3) tabular data describing analytical results and performance statistics, and (4) a data user guide. (1) includes discretized waveform LiDAR data, locations and attributes of individual tree crowns, sampling locations and domain boundaries, a canopy height model, and raster files of estimated forest structural and compositional metrics at 100 m grid scale. (2) includes all response and explanatory variable values applied in inferential models. Response variables include conifer forest stand density, basal area, 95th percentile height, quadratic mean diameter, and others. Explanatory variables include climatic water deficit, actual evapotranspiration, elevation, heat load, soil available water content, and others. (3) includes results of training and testing several individual tree detection (ITD) algorithms, as well as inferential modeling results. (4) is a PDF user guide for this data package, including detailed descriptions and data dictionaries for all files. The data package root contains 17 assets: 8 compressed tape archive (.tar.gz) files, 5 comma-separated values (.csv) files, 3 Geographic Tagged Image File Format (GeoTIFF) (.tif) files, and 1 Portable Document Format (.pdf) file. The compressed .tar.gz archives contain ESRI shapefiles (.shp) .tif, compressed LASer (.laz), and .csv files. The archives must first be decompressed using the widely distributed command-line software utility TAR. All other files, including constituent files within the .tar.gz archives, can be opened in the open-source R statistical computing environment. Alternatively, .csv files may also be read in any simple text editor software or Microsoft Excel. Geospatial files including .shp and .tif files can also be opened in GIS software, such as QGIS (open-source) or ESRI ArcGIS (proprietary). The .pdf Data User Guide can be read with Adobe Acrobat Reader or other compatible readers.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2020

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗
DOE OSTI2012

A Path to Operating System and Runtime Support for Extreme Scale Tools

In this project, we cast distributed resource access as operations on files in a global name space and developed a common, scalable solution for group operations on distributed processes and files. The resulting solution enables tool and middleware developers to quickly create new scalable software or easily improve the scalability of existing software. The cornerstone of the project was the design of a new programming idiom called group file operations that eliminates iterative behavior when a single process must apply the same set of file operations to a group of related files. To demonstrate our novel and scalable ideas for group file operations and global name space composition, we developed a group file system called TBON-FS that leverages a tree-based overlay network (TBON), specifically MRNet, for logarithmic communication and distributed data aggregation. We also developed proc++, a new synthetic file system co-designed for use in scalable group file operations. Over the course of the project, we evaluated the utility and performance of group file operations, global name space composition, TBON-FS, and proc++ in three case studies. The first study focused on the ease in using group file operations and TBON-FS to quickly develop several new scalable tools for distributed system administration and monitoring. The second study evaluated the integration of group file operation and TBON-FS within the Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System to improve its scalability for clusters. The final study involved the integration of group file operations, TBON-FS, and proc++ within TotalView, the widely-used parallel debugger. For this project, the work of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) team occurred primarily in two directions: bringing the MRNet tree-based overlay network (TBON) implementation to the Cray XT platform, and investigating techniques for predicting the performance of MRNet topologies on such systems. Rogue Wave Software (RWS), formerly TotalView Technologies Inc., worked with the University ofWisconsin (UW) team on the design and prototyping of a scalable version of the TotalView debugger. RWS assisted UW with their "proc++" design effort. RWS assisted UW with strategy for integrating proc++ into TotalView.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Wind and Temperature Consensus at Horn Point, HU-Beltsville, Piney Run (Maryland) in support of CoURAGE

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) operates a ground-based atmospheric profiling network consisting of collocated radar wind profilers (RWP) and radio acoustic sounding systems (RASS) as part of its Ambient Air Monitoring Program. This network provides continuous observations of wind and temperature structure in the lower troposphere to support air quality forecasting, regulatory analysis, and atmospheric research. The network currently includes three fixed sites across Maryland: Horn Point (HP, lower eastern shore) [38.587525°,-76.141006°], Howard University-Beltsville (HUB, central Maryland) [39.055277°, -76.878632°], and Piney Run (PR, western Maryland) [39.705950°, -79.012000°] The network is designed to capture regional variability in atmospheric transport and boundary-layer processes. These systems measure vertical profiles of horizontal wind speed and direction using Doppler radar techniques, with observations typically spanning from ~100 m above ground level up to approximately 2.5–4 km. Measurements are derived from the Doppler shift of backscattered electromagnetic signals, enabling retrieval of wind vectors at multiple altitudes with high temporal resolution (e.g., 30-minute averages reported every 6 minutes). Each radar wind profiler is paired with a Radio Acoustic Sounding System (RASS) to provide profiles of virtual temperature in the lower atmosphere (~100–200 m AGL) by measuring the propagation speed of acoustic waves. Together, the RWP/RASS system yields a coupled data set of thermodynamic and kinematic atmospheric structure, including additional parameters such as vertical velocity, radial velocity, signal-to-noise ratio, and spectral width for advanced analysis. There are two types of files for each station: wind data (files with a "w" prefix) and virtual temperature RASS data (files with a "t" prefix). The wind data files are in the format wYYDDD.cns, where YY is the 2-digit year and DDD is the day of the year. The RASS virtual temperature data files are in the format tYYDDD.cns. Each record has the following header structure: Line 1 : Station Name RASS files Line 2 : RASS rev DeTect_2.0, WINDS files Line 2 : WINDS rev ATI 5.1 Line 3 : N latitude, W longitude, and site elevation (m) Line 4 : Date and begin time of consensus: yy mm dd hh mn ss plus # minutes to add to get UTC Line 5 : Consensus averaging time (minutes); number of beams; number of range gates Line 6 : Number of records required to make consensus (num) total number of records (tot) and the consensus window size (m/s) in the format: num:tot (window) RASS files Line 7 : no. of coded cells, no. of spec, pulse width (ns), and inter-pulse period (µs), WINDS files Line 7 : No. of coded cells, no. of spectra, pulse width (ns), and inter-pulse period (µs), each with a pair of values: first value is for oblique beams, second for vertical RASS files Line 8 : Full scale Doppler value (m/s) Delay to first gate (ns) Number of gates Spacing of gates (ns), WINDS files Line 8 : Full scale Doppler velocity (m/s), oblique and vertical Vertical correction applied to oblique beams? (0 = no, 1 = yes) Delay to first gate (ns), oblique and vertical Number of gates, oblique and vertical Spacing of gates (ns), oblique and vertical Line 9 : Azimuth and elevation (9s indicate vertical beam not used) RASS files Line 10, values : HT = Height above ground (km), T = Uncorrected virtual temperature consensus (deg C), Tc = Corrected virtual temperature consensus (deg C), W = Vertical wind consensus (9s indicate vertical beam not used, w-component, positive upward, m/s), CNT = Number of records that made consensus (for the 3 values in same order), SNR = Average signal to noise ratio (dB) of records in consensus (same order) WINDS files Line 10, values : HT = Height above ground (km), SPD = Wind speed (m/s), DIR = Wind direction (deg E of N from N), RAD = Radial velocities for each beam (m/s) in order given in azimuth and elevation line (positive toward radar; 9s indicate vertical beam not used, CNT = Number of records that made consensus, SNR = Average signal to noise ratio (dB) of records in consensus

{"wind speed and direction",temperature}↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for "Depth of nutrient uptake by deep-rooted plants is regulated by water availability"

The data set consists of strontium (Sr) isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr), water isotopes, soil cation concentrations, soil water potential sensor data, and results of 87Sr/86Sr mixing model. The plant canopy size files include the dataset of canopy dimension of sagebrush, lupine, and sunflower. The soil and plant ICPMS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) data file includes both of 87Sr/86Sr, and cation concentration dataset from soil exchangeable pool, apatite pool, silicate extract, atmospheric rain deposition, and plant leaf and stem tissues. The plant dendrochronology file includes the dendrochronogical ring width of several sagebrush, and dendrochemical sample data includes the 87Sr/86Sr for each separated growth ring. The modeling result gives the proportion of nutrient sources of each plants (based on their 87Sr/86Sr in leaf tissues and growth rings) from atmospheric deposition and mineral weathering. Soil water potential data includes continuous collection of soil water potential dataset at 2 depths (30 cm and 60 cm, from Nov 24 - Jun 25) of the sampling site. All the samples were collected from 2 sampling campaign June and July 2023, and rain water is a separate sampling from Aug - Sept 2023, at north-facing hillslope near pumphouse site. The data showed that the depth of cation nutrient acquisition is thus tightly coupled with, and likely determined by, water availability in soil, saprolite and bedrock. The enhanced uptake of cations and water from regions of mineral weathering could confer plant and ecosystem resilience during low water years and may impact the rate of bedrock weathering and watershed chemistry during drought. This dataset includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; a location metadata file (locations.csv); and a samples metadata file (samples.csv). All files are provided as comma-separated values (CSV) files (.csv). This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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

Water Observations of Flow/No-Flow for the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado (June-July 2025 and 2026)

This dataset provides multi-year, ground-truth visual observations of surface water flow/no-flow conditions within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado, collected during June and July of 2025 and 2026. In June and July 2025, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) and Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (further details are provided within the CHESS Project Description). We obtained 377 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. These ground-truth observations were collected to validate classification maps from remote sensing data and model results within the East-Taylor Watershed. In 2025, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using a field-based app for the CHESS Campaign (Zerion iForm). Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included information about visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, and beaver activity. For 2025 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2025_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2025_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg and .jpeg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2025_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2025_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). In June and July 2026, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function SFA project. We obtained 365 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. The 2026 observations focused on collecting repeat measurements at the 2025 flow/no-flow observation locations conducted as part of the CHESS campaign. These ground-truth observations were collected to understand differences in flow/no-flow in 2026, given the unprecedented 2026 drought in Colorado. In 2026, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) Survey123. Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included repeat information from the 2025 water observation effort, including visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, beaver activity, and a new metadata component of estimated stream depth (for select locations). For 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2026_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2026_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2026_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2026_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). For 2025 and 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a location metadata file (locations.csv); (6) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (7) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. 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. 2026-09-02: This dataset was updated to include 2026 water observation measurements. The 2025 observation files were also updated to ensure a consistent file naming convention across water observation years.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2015

University of Massachusetts Marine Renewable Energy Center Waverider Buoy Data

The compressed (.zip) file contains Datawell MK-III Directional Waverider binary and unpacked data files as well as a description of the data and manuals for the instrumentation. The data files are contained in the two directories within the zip file, "Apr_July_2012" and "Jun_Sept_2013". Time series and summary data were recorded in the buoy to binary files with extensions '.RDT' and '.SDT', respectively. These are located in the subdirectories 'Data_Raw' in each of the top-level deployment directories. '.RDT' files contain 3 days of time series (at 1.28 Hz) in 30 minute "bursts". Each '.SDT' file contains summary statistics for the month indicated computed at half-hour intervals for each burst. Each deployment directory also contains a description (in 'File.list') of the Datawell binary data files, and a figure ('Hs_vs_yearday') showing the significant wave height associated with each .RDT file (decoded from the filename). The corresponding unpacked Matlab .mat files are contained in the subdirectories 'Data_Mat'. These files have the extension '.mat' but use the root filename of the source .RDT and .SDT files.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
NASA NTRS1983

FGGE/SMMR-30 tape specification and shipping letter description

The Nimbus-7 FGGE/SMMR-30 tape which contains sea ice concentration data in 30 km resolution which are extracted and reformatted from Nimbus-7 SMMR PARM-30 tapes in accordance with the FGGE level II International Exchange Format Specification is outlined. There are three types of files on a FGGE/SMMR-30 tape. The first file on the tape is a test file. The second file on the tape is a tape header file. The remaining one or more files are data files. All files are terminated with a single end of file (EOP) tape mark. The last file is terminated with two EOF tape marks. All files are made up of one or more physical records. Each physical record contains 2960 bytes. Each data file contains all available values for a 6 hour synoptic time period.

Han, D.↗