Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “PNG”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Upper-air soundings collected during the CROCUS Urban Canyons 2024 campaign in Chicago, Illinois USA

Funded by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research program, Community Research on Climate and Urban Science (CROCUS) studies urban climate change and the impact it has on communities, with particular focus on disinvested, under-resourced communities. This information leads to new insights on urban climate challenges and informs future actions for mitigating and adapting to climate change at the street, neighborhood and regional levels.As part of the CROCUS effort, the Urban Canyons 2024 project was undertaken to study conditions at unprecedented detail over various neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois. This dataset consists of upper air soundings that were collected as part of this effort. Soundings were launched during two intensive observing periods, IOP1 occurred on 22-23 July 2024, while IOP2 occurred on 27-28 July 2024. For IOP1, soundings were launched at coordinated times from three sites, Shedd Aquarium in Downtown Chicago, Abizu Campus High School in Humboldt Park, and Gary Comer Youth Center in West Woodlawn. For IOP2, the Gary Comer site was replaced by a neighborhood site in West Woodlawn, Chicago. The Abizu Campos site was operated by Valparaiso University and used iMET-4 rawinsondes, the other sites were operated by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and used GRAW DFM-19 sondes.This dataset contains netCDF files containing quality-controlled temperature, dewpoint, geopotential height, pressure, and vector wind measurements at 1 second intervals following launch. These files are readable by the open-source netCDF software libraries available in many software packages (i.e., python, R, fortran, C++, etc.). The dataset also contains quicklook plots of each launch on a skew-T log-p thermodynamic diagram. These are in png format viewable by most web browsers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data and scripts associated with “Allometric scaling of hyporheic respiration across basins in the Pacific Northwest USA"

This data package is associated with the publication “Allometric scaling of hyporheic respiration across basins in the Pacific Northwest USA” submitted to JGR-Biogeosciences (Regier et al. 2025).This study used reach-scale modeled estimates of hyporheic aerobic respiration made by the River Corridor Model (Fang et al. 2020) and watershed characteristics across the Willamette and Yakima River basins to explore potential allometric scaling (i.e., power-law relationships between size and function) of cumulative hyporheic respiration across catchment-to-basin scales. Scaling was explored quantitatively via the R2, slope, and y-intercept of relationships between cumulative hyporheic respiration and watershed area, divided into hyporheic exchange flux (HEF) quantiles. We also explored relationships between allometric scaling and other watershed characteristics through linear regression, spatial patterns, and mutual information analyses. Our results also suggest variability of hyporheic respiration allometry for middle exchange flux quantiles, and in relation to land-cover. Our findings provide initial evidence that allometric scaling may be useful for predicting hyporheic biogeochemical dynamics across watersheds from reach to basin scales. This data package is associated with the GitHub repository found at https://github.com/peterregier/rc_wrb_yrb_scaling. The data package is organized into several key directories. The “data” folder contains multiple CSV files, including landscape heterogeneity, scaling analysis, and watershed boundary data. The “figures” folder has all figure files in both PDF and PNG formats. Core analysis scripts and figure generation scripts are in the “scripts” directory, systematically numbered for sequential execution. The root directory includes essential project files; please see the file ending in “flmd.csv” for a list and description of all files contained in this data package and the file ending in “dd.csv” for data dictionaries used to describe tabular column headers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

WHONDRS River Corridor Sediment and Water Geochemistry and In Situ Sensor Data from 7 Perennial and 7 Intermittent Streams across San Antonio, Texas (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the effects of intermittency on sediment respiration. The dataset provides sediment and surface water geochemistry and in situ sensor data from 7 perennial and 7 intermittent streams in San Antonio, Texas. Each stream/site was visited both in summer during base flow (July-September 2023) and winter during peak flow (January-February 2024). Related data were collected and will be published separately in collaboration with A. Veach. The data package was originally published in April 2025. It was updated in June 2025 (v2; modified and new files) and September 2025 (v3; 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 protocol; (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) sediment grain size data; (4) sediment iron (II) data and averages; (5) 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 percent carbon and nitrogen; (11) sediment X-ray diffraction (XRD) data; (12) gravimetric moisture and averages; (13) a subfolder with sediment incubation respiration data, scripts, and plots; (14) surface water and sediment FTICR methods; and (15) 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: The data processing methods for FTICR described in “v3_WHONDRS_AV1_Methods_Codes.csv” mistakenly indicate that users should process the data in Formultitude. The corrected description should read: “Both unprocessed and processed data are provided to allow users flexibility in data processing. Instructions and scripts for processing the data using CoreMS are included.” 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data Files for Runoff Evaluation in an Earth System Land Model for Permafrost Regions

Modeling of hydrological runoff is essential for accurately capturing spatiotemporal feedbacks within the land–atmosphere system, particularly in sensitive regions such as permafrost landscapes. However, substantial uncertainties persist in the terrestrial runoff parameterization schemes used in Earth system and land surface models. This is particularly true in permafrost regions, where landscape heterogeneity is high and reliable observational data are scarce.This data set includes all files that were produced and applied in the paper Runoff Evaluation in an Earth System Land Model for Permafrost Regions [Xiang et al. in review]. The paper is in review as of July 1 2025 in Geoscientific Model Development (GMD). In this study, we evaluate the performance of runoff parameterization schemes in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) land model (ELM). Our proposed framework leverages simulation results from the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), which is a physics-rich integrated surface/subsurface hydrologic model that has been successfully evaluated previously in Arctic tundra regions. We used ATS to simulate runoff from 22 representative hillslopes in the Sagavanirktok River basin, located on the North Slope of Alaska, then compared the output with ELM’s parameterized representation of total runoff. This dataset contains 2 figure image files (*.png, *jpg) that describe the study site and methods, as well as folders (Figure*.zip) that contain the associated data files (*.csv, *.dat) and python code notebooks (*.ipynb) for figures 3-7 in the paper. Jupyter notebook (*.ipynb) files that produce the figure files using the associated data files will run within a python environment configured with Jupyter Lab or Notebook packages.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Temporal Study 2022-2024: Sensor-Based Time Series of Surface Water Temperature, Specific Conductance, Total Dissolved Solids, Turbidity, Chlorophyll A, and Dissolved Oxygen from across Multiple Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of temporal variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides periodic (bi-weekly or monthly) in situ hydrological and water chemistry sensor data, handheld sensor water chemistry data, general environmental context photos, and field metadata collected at six sites across the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Sample and sensor data from previous years (2021-2022) can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1898912 and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1892054, respectively. Related sample data from 2022-2024 are available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2562910. 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 This dataset contains a folder of environmental context photographs and videos and (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; (4) field metadata; (5) field protocols; (6) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (7) handheld sensor data; and (8) two sensor subfolders. Each sensor subfolder (BarotrollAtm and MantaRiverData) contains a subfolder containing sensor time series data and plots. The BarotrollAtm Data subfolder contains In Situ Rugged BaroTROLL sensor pressure and air temperature data. The MantaRiverData subfolder contains Eureka Manta+ 35B multisonde temperature, specific conductance, and chlorophyll A. All files are .csv, .pdf, .jpg, .jpeg, .mp4, .png, or .mov.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Groundwater elevation data for monitoring wells within the East and Taylor River basins, Colorado (USA)

This dataset is comprised of temporal variations in groundwater elevation data for the 24 monitoring wells located throughout the East River watershed. Seasonal to annual variations in groundwater elevations are a critical property of mountainous watersheds needed to understand both hydrological and below ground biogeochemical processes. Such data serve as a critical constraint for numerical models describing coupled groundwater-surface water behavior within the watershed. Additionally, the offset between the maximum and minimum groundwater elevations defines the extent of the bedrock weathering zone, with annual excursions in the groundwater hydrographic (i.e., the rising and falling hydrographic limbs) imposing primary controls on bedrock saturation state and redox conditions that govern biogeochemical reactions impacting nitrogen, carbon, and metals cycling. Manufacturer-specific software is used to download pressure data from each transducer, with broadly available spreadsheet software (e.g. Microsoft Excel) used to convert temporal variations in water pressure to elevations in units of meters above mean sea level. As additional monitoring wells are installed within the East River watershed and new groundwater monitoring wells are installed in the Taylor River watershed, temporal groundwater elevation data will be included as a part of this master dataset. Details regarding the metadata associated with each monitoring well location, including well depths, screened intervals, well location coordinates, and bedrock type, are included, as is a standard operating procedure for generating groundwater elevation data from water pressure values recorded by the pressure transducers. This dataset includes: (1) a zip file (East_River_Watershed_Compiled_Groundwater_Elevation_Data_Plots.zip), containing (a) PNG of groundwater hydrographs, (b) a CSV file with groundwater elevation data, and (c) CSV file containing metadata organized by location; (2) an Excel file (East_River_Watershed_Compiled_Groundwater_Elevation_Data_Plots.xlsx) with the groundwater elevation data, groundwater hydrographs, and metadata organized by location; (3) a Word file (Groundwater_elevation_data_protocols.docx) and a PDF file version (Groundwater_elevation_data_protocols.pdf) containing field protocols and methods; (4) a location metadata (locations.csv) file; (5) a file level metadata (flmd.csv); and (6) data dictionary (dd.csv) file.This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Videos, photos, and AI-derived grain size data associated with “High-throughput AI Video Surveys Enable Reproducible Multiscale Sediment Size Mapping, with Implications for Hydrobiogeochemical Parameterization”

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript “High-throughput AI Video Surveys Enable Reproducible Multiscale Sediment Size Mapping, with Implications for Hydrobiogeochemical Parameterization” under review. This data package includes five data types: 1) raw photos and videos from drone survey and walking smartphone surveys; 2) images derived from raw videos; 3) manual labeling of reference scales; 4) metadata for all images and photo resolution derived from artificial intelligence (AI) models or manual labels, 5) grain size data obtained from AI models for all photos, 6) metadata and grain size data after quality control, 7) summaries of sample efficiency for all data, and 8) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) data used to support hydro-biogeochemical (HBGC) parameter estimation. Such data is used to 1) demonstrate significant improvements in accuracy, efficiency, and quality control for grain size data collection with the help of AI models, 2) study the spatial heterogeneity of grain size and observation reproducibility based on tens of thousands of data points generated by the AI models, and 3) evaluate the impacts of grain size heterogeneity on key HBGC parameters across sediment-to-reach and hourly-to-yearly scales. In particular, the data package contains 116 folders and 179696 files. The files include 41 videos in .mov format, 64047 photos in .jpg format, 13541 video-derived photos in .png format, 12747 segmentation mask data in .tif format, 12747 segmentation data in .json format, 24771 .csv files that with metadata and grain size for each individual photo as well as water depth and velocity data from CFD and observation, 51791 .txt files of raw AI predicted labels, and 11 flight record data in .srt format. The summary for all metadata and grain size statistics information is included in “Scales_V3_NG.csv” and “Statistics_V3_NG.csv”. The summary for data that pass data quality control (QC) level 0-2 is included in “QCStatistics_V3_NG.csv”. The QC level 0 represents photos whose photo resolution is positive, excluding photos that miss reference scale. The QC level 1 means reference scale circularity uncertainty is less than 5% for smartphone images while representing photo resolution is larger than 0.44 mm/pixel for drone images. The QC level 2 means excluding photos whose grain number is less than 100, a minimum number of grains recommended by classic literature. The summary for each video’s name, length, frame rates, survey area, grain number, survey efficiency, etc. can be found in “QCSummary_V3_NG.csv”. The summary for site name, GPS coordinates, and number of images at each site can be found in “SitesSummary_V3_*.csv” files. Overall computational efficiency summary is reported in Table 4 of accompanying manuscript. Additionally, the nitrate concentration data used in this work was downloaded from an existing dataset published on ESS-DIVE (Boat-Dragged Sensor Hanford Reach.csv; Conner A. et al., 2020). We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Port of Benton, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the data were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate data collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Mountain Basin Controls on the Snow-to-Streamflow Signal: An AIC-Weighted Multiple Linear Regression Framework

A regression-based analysis quantifies how basin characteristics modulate the snow-to-streamflow signal. First, we use the ERA5-Land reanalysis gridded product (European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts reanalysis 5 -Land component) for 4,655 hydrologic unit code - 10 (HUC10) mountain basins across the western United States (US) for water years 1987–2024. Linear regressions are performed for peak snow water equivalent (SWE) and annual streamflow for each mountain basin. Models use ordinary least squares in Python’s statsmodels package. After which, an Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)–weighted ensemble multiple linear regression (MLR) framework with 47 watershed traits is used to predict the linear regression coefficient of determination (r-squared) defining the ability of peak SWE to predict annual streamflow across all mountain basin. Predictor sets are constrained to avoid multicollinearity by excluding models with variance inflation factors (VIF) greater than 5. Mountain basin traits included in the MLR include seasonal climate, topography, vegetation type and structure, and bedrock geology. Accepted models are considered if their AIC is within 2.0 of the model with the minimum AIC, or best model. To compare predictor influence across acceptable models, we computed standardized regression coefficients. To evaluate structural redundancy among models, we constructed binary inclusion vectors for each acceptable model, denoting whether a predictor was present (1) or absent (0). Core predictor variables are defined as occurring in at least 67% of the acceptable models. For this regional analysis, only one model was found acceptable, with higher snow-to-streamflow translation (higher r-squared) occurring in colder mountain basins with higher relative winter precipitation, more snow accumulation and a lower fraction of annual precipitation that falls in the spring and summer. The second component of the data package uses previously published, high-resolution output from an integrated hydrological model of the East River watershed using the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater and Surface water Flow model (GSFLOW, doi:10.15485/1998576). East River MLR expands upon the approach described above to explore the response of five streamflow metrics—annual streamflow, runoff efficiency, 7-day minimum flow, low-flow duration, and non-perennial stream fraction to snow system indicators including peak SWE, snow-covered area, snow disappearance date, and the fraction of basin area characterized by low-to-no snow, as well as seasonal precipitation and temperature, and annual hydrologic variables representing soil moisture, evapotranspiration (ET), the partitioning of incoming precipitation to evapotranspiration (ET/P), groundwater storage, and groundwater inflow to streams. MLR was done on all water years (P0: 1987-2024) and for each period as determined in the split analysis using pooled regression techniques (P1: 1987-2011 and P2: 2012-2024) to evaluate shifting predictor variable emphasis on streamflow generation. Results indicate that since 2012, peak SWE has lost statistical strength in its prediction of annual streamflow and runoff efficiency, and the indirect influence of spring temperature has emerged as critically important. Low-flow metrics remain largely influenced by soil moisture, vegetation water use and groundwater inflows with summer precipitation becoming a direct influence on minimum summer flow. Together, these data and Python-based analysis tools provide a framework for identifying the key watershed characteristics that control how streamflow responds to snow from year to year. The package also helps quantify uncertainty in statistical models and assess how snow–streamflow relationships vary across regions and over time. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), text files (.txt), python code files (.py), figure files (.png), and shapefiles (.cpg, .dbf, .prj, .sbn, .sbx, .shp, .xml). Further details on file contents and MLR execution can be found in the readme file and the FLMD files. 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

Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025

This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data and scripts associated with “Non-random processes impacting organic matter chemistry are maximized in mid-order streams”

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the publication “Non-random processes impacting organic matter chemistry are maximized in mid-order streams” submitted to Limnology and Oceanography (L&O) by Danczak et al. (in review). This package contains data and scripts used to investigate dissolved organic matter (DOM) molecular chemistry and diversification processes across 47 surface-water sampling sites in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA, during an August 2021 sampling campaign. The package contains analyses of ultrahigh-resolution Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS), geochemical measurements, geospatial attributes, molecular diversity, and meta-metabolome ecological null models needed to reproduce the main manuscript results. The underlying field data were pulled from exising data packages at https://doi.org/10.15485/1892052 (Fulton et al., 2022) and https://doi.org/10.15485/1898914 (Grieger et al., 2022). For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. We thank the following organizations for providing access to field locations for sample collection: the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Cowiche Canyon Conservatory. Research was conducted under Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Scientific Research Permit #210901. We are grateful to the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for their collaboration in facilitating sample collection and ensuring data usage aligns with their values and worldview. This data package contains an R-Markdown file for analyses and five folders: (1) Data, (2) Geospatial Data, (3) Supplemental_Files, (5) Figures_pdf, (4) and src. The Data folder contains tabular inputs and derived files used in the manuscript analysis. The Geospatial Data folder contains climate and water-balance, hydrologic, land-cover, population/regional water-use, stream, topographic, and stream-order attribute CSV files. The src folder contains scripts used to process data, run analyses, and generate figures. The Figures_pdf folder contains manuscript figure outputs. The Supplemental_Files folder contains supplemental analysis products. All files are .csv, .pdf, .html, .png, .R, .Rmd, .svg, or .tre. This data package is associated with the rcfsa-RC2-SPS_Null_Modeling repository found at https://github.com/river-corridors-sfa/rcfsa-RC2-SPS_Null_Modeling.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Post-fire time series of sensor and geochemistry sample data from surface water, groundwater, precipitation, soil, and vegetation across Oak Creek watershed, Washington

This dataset supports a broader study examining wildfire impacts on hydrologic connectivity across 5 sites within the Oak Creek watershed and the resulting biogeochemical impacts. Stream sites were selected using the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) hydrologic model to identify locations with varying groundwater contributions and hydrologic responses across different burn severity scenarios. The Retreat Fire burned from July 23 to August 2 in 2024, affecting the five study sites at varying burn severities. Each site is equipped with YSI EXO2 sondes logging sub-hourly throughout the year, and grab samples are collected approximately every six weeks. YSI sondes are used to measure temporally resolved proxies for groundwater inputs (specific conductivity) and organic matter (fluorescent dissolved organic matter; fDOM) along with basic water quality and depth. Grab samples of surface water, groundwater, and precipitation are analyzed for water stable isotopes and conductivity to understand endmembers for hydrologic mixing Grab samples of surface water, groundwater, soil water, and litter/vegetation/soil leachates are analyzed for organic matter composition measured by Fourier-Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FTICR-MS) to understand organic matter dynamics. Game camera photos are provided in a separate data package available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3018598. Future versions of this dataset will include time series data from YSI EXO2 sondes (fDOM, dissolved oxygen, temperature, depth, specific conductance, turbidity, pH), BaroTROLL sensors (air temperature and barometric pressure), rain gauges (precipitation), and data from the soil and vegetation samples. Because this study is ongoing, this data package will be updated regularly to include newly collected data and the additional data types. 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. This dataset is comprised of (1) a folder of field photos; (2) a folder of surface water sample data; (3) a folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data; (4) a data checks report; (5) file-level metadata; (6) data dictionary; (7) field metadata; (8) readme; (9) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (10) field protocols. The sample data subfolder contains (1) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) total dissolved nitrogen data and averages; (3) stable water isotopes and averages; (4) methods codes; (5) FTICR-MS methods; and (15) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains the processed data and three subfolders, one containing the .xml 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). All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4.

Biogeochemistry↗
DOE OSTI2026

WHONDRS River Corridor Surface Water Metabolites and Geochemistry from Global Sites

This dataset supports a broader study examining the character of organic matter that may be delivered to subsurface sediments via hydrologic exchange. To implement the global survey, free stream sampling kits were provided to interested volunteers throughout the world. Samples were collected with minimal constraints in terms of location, but following strict protocols, and shipped for metabolomic analysis via Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS). In addition, basic geochemistry analyses (e.g., dissolved organic matter concentration) were conducted, standardized photos of each field system were taken, and extensive metadata were captured. Sampling began in 2018 and is ongoing as of 2025. This dataset is comprised of one folders of field photos, 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 protocol; and (7) a subfolder with sample data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) surface water dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) methods codes; (3) surface water FTICR methods; and (4) a subfolder of 12 Tesla (12T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains three subfolders, one containing the.xml files, one containing the CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS). All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, or .png. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About.

Biogeochemistry↗
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

WHONDRS Surface Water Geochemistry and Organic Matter Characterization Data from Streams Distributed across Latin America

This dataset supports a broader study examining global transferability of stream biogeochemistry and was generated in collaboration with the MicroSudAqua (µSudAqua) network (https://microsudaqua.netlify.app/en/). The dataset provides surface water geochemistry (dissolved organic carbon, total dissolved nitrogen, cations) and organic matter characterization (FTICR-MS) from streams in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Samples were collected across stream orders (1st to 6th order) within five basins. Related data were collected and will be published separately in collaboration with the µSudAqua network. 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 this readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) a folder of field photos; (2) a folder of surface water sample data, (3) a folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data; (4) file-level metadata; (5) data dictionary; (6) field metadata; (7) readme; (8) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (9) field protocol. The sample data subfolder contains (1) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) total dissolved nitrogen data and averages; (3) anions and averages; (4) methods codes; (5) FTICR-MS methods; and (15) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains the processed data and three subfolders, one containing the .xml 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). All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4.

Anions↗
DOE OSTI2024

National Park Air Quality Index Dataset

The National Park Air Quality Index dataset (NPS-AQI) consists of webcam images taken from the National Park Service's publicly available air quality web cameras and associated measurements for air pollutants, AQI, and meteorological data obtained via the publicly available NPS Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring Program. The full dataset is a collection of 146,822 images paired with air quality measurements. The specific measurements reported are: ozone ppm, 8-hour running average ozone ppm, so2 ppm, AQI (derived from ozone), temperature, and humidity. The images are 1500X1000 pixel PNG files arranged into folders by NPS site and named according to the time and date the image was taken. There are three CSV files (representing "training", "validation", and "testing" images splits) containing image names and associated NPS site names, air pollutant measurements, and meteorlogical data.

Svinth, Christian N↗