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

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

Pilgrim Hot Springs Building Dimensions and Energy Modeling

This dataset was created to model the anticipated heating load of a geothermal project in development for the historical site of Pilgrim Hot Springs, and adds to the history of geothermal studies at the site. Models include an historical building (Nun's Quarters), existing modern buildings (Caretaker's Cabin, Igloo, Visitor's Cabin, Staff Shower Hut), and planned building projects (Changing Room, Greenhouse). Modeling results were used to determine feasible geothermal system typologies. The previous study linked below ("Village of Solomon Development of Energy Efficiency Building Standards for New Construction") feeds in to this project. The dataset includes DWG drawings and AKwarm energy models (.hm2) of a subset of existing buildings at the site of Pilgrim Hot Springs. All buildings were modeled in their current state, and some were additionally modeled with improvements to the building envelope. Energy modeling results exported from AKwarm include .htm and .png images.

AKwarm↗

JET-ILW Nonlinear Pedestal ETG Data

Contains data for paper on nonlinear pedestal electron-temperature-gradient turbulence simulations: *.py # python plotting scripts for generating paper plots. *.txt, *.npy # post-processed data required for plotting scripts. *.png, *.eps, *.pdf # paper plots. *.in # gs2 and stella input files for simulations in this paper. stella used for nonlinear simulations (https://github.com/mabarnes/stella)

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

Arctic Soil Patterns Analogous to Fluid Instabilities: Supporting Data

This dataset characterizes solifluction lobe morphology and spatial patterns using pre-existing LiDAR-derived digital elevation models of 25 sites across Norway with accompanying long term climate data for each site. Data were collected as part of an effort to better understand controls on the formation of solifluction patterns and to test the idea that they are analogous to fluid instabilities. We also provide soil velocity profiles and estimates of effective viscosity from across the world, drawn from literature. They were collected to improve our understanding of the rheology of soliflucting soil. See this article for more information on the theoretical motivation behind this dataset see "Arctic soil patterns analogous to fluid instabilities" (Glade et al., 2021). Data files arranged in a hierarchy and include image files *.tif and *.png, GIS shapefiles and geopackages (*.gpkg), *.csv (with same file as *.xlsx), and *.py (Python scripts readable with a text editor). Files also bundled into *.zip files. Note (2021-10-20): unit corrections made on two files: RR.csv and snowfall.csv. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Landscape-scale Characterization of Arctic Tundra Vegetation Composition, Structure, and Function with a Multi-sensor Unoccupied Aerial System: Supporting Data.

Airborne remote sensing data collected using the Brookhaven National Laboratory's (BNL) heavy-lift unoccupied aerial system (UAS) octocopter platform, the Osprey, operated by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science and Technology (TEST) group (https://www.bnl.gov/testgroup). This package includes data from three flights flown over the NGEE-Arctic Council, Kougarok and Teller sites in July, 2018. The Osprey is a multi-sensor UAS platform that simultaneously measures very high spatial resolution optical red/green/blue (RGB) and thermal infrared (TIR) surface 'skin' temperature imagery, as well as surface reflectance at 1 nm intervals in the visible to near-infrared spectral range 350 - 1000 nm measured at regular intervals along each flight path. Derived image products include ortho-mosaiced RGB and TIR images, an RGB-based digital surface model (DSM) using the structure from motion (SfM) technique, digital terrain model (DTM), and a canopy height model (CHM). In addition, a VNIR surface reflectance file is provided for the trigger locations collected during each flight campaign. Ancillary aircraft data, flight mission parameters, and general flight conditions provided by the onboard flight and data collection computers are also included. Unprocessed and processed data products are included in this package (processing levels 0-3). Data and metadata are provided as text (*.txt, *.json, *.kml, *hdr, *.enp), tabular (*.dat, *.csv, *.waypoint, ENVI format (no extension)), point cloud (*.laz) and image (*.jpg, *.tif, *png) formats. This metadata document contains flight campaign, instrument and file metadata, along with a description of data processing levels, data products and file naming scheme.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy?s Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hyperspectral remote sensing-based plant community map for region around NGEE-Arctic intensive research watersheds at Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2017-2019

Using airborne hyperspectral remote sensing data from NASA Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer- Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) platforms in a region near NGEE-Arctic intensive watersheds at Seward peninsula of Alaska, high resolution (5m) maps of plant community distribution were developed and included in this data collected. AVIRIS-NG data collected over 2017-2019 period were used to develop deep neural networks, trained using vegetation plot observations collected at NGEE-Arctic watersheds at Kougarok, Council and Teller. A hierarchical vegetation classification scheme consisting of six classes at Level I, and 16 classes at Level II contained in two .txt files were used to developed the plant community maps for the region. Two geospatial raster data files (.tif) at both thematic levels are shared in this data collection. Data files in this collection use Alaska Albers Equal Area projection. Readme files available in three formats (*.html, *.md, *.pdf) and one *.png visualization map.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Forced Diffusion Chamber Monitoring of Soil CO2 Fluxes from 2019 to Present at NGEE Arctic Teller Site, Mile Marker 27, Alaska

Soil CO2 efflux was monitored at the NGEE Arctic Teller Site, Mile Marker 27, in Alaska. Monitoring was performed beginning in June 2019 using EOSense forced diffusion soil CO2 flux sensors at up to six sites characterized by varying vegetation cover, topographic position, and soil temperature and moisture. Dataset includes measurements of soil CO2 flux and chamber temperature. Time interval between measurements ranges from 5 minutes to 3 hours. Included are EOSense chamber locations as *.kml and *.png files, six *.csv files with measurements, and two *.csv reporting format files.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

UAS remote sensing (DJI Phantom 4 RTK platform): RGB orthomosaic, digital surface and canopy height models, plant functional type map, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

Airborne remote sensing data collected using a DJI Phantom 4 RTK unoccupied aerial system (UAS) ? operated by the University of Maine Wheatland Geospatial Lab (https://wheatlandlab.org/). This package includes data from 17 flights flown over the NGEE-Arctic Council, Kougarok, Kougarok Mile80, Teller, and Teller Mile32 sites in July 2019. The Phantom 4 RTK is a drone platform that collects very high spatial resolution optical red/green/blue (RGB) imagery. Derived image products include point cloud, ortho-mosaiced RGB, a digital surface model (DSM) using the structure from motion (SfM) technique, and a canopy height model (CHM). Unprocessed and processed data products (1,000+ files) are included in this package (processing levels 0-3). Data and metadata are provided as text (*.txt, *.json, *hdr,), ENVI image file (*.dat), point cloud (*.laz) and image (*.jpg, *.tif, *png) formats. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

UAS remote sensing (3DR SOLO platform): multispectral reflectance and normalized difference vegetation index, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2022

Airborne remote sensing data collected using a Parrot Sequoia+ multispectral sensor installed on a 3DR SOLO unoccupied aerial system (UAS) – operated by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science & Technology group https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/testgroup/ at Brookhaven National Laboratory. This package includes data from 19 flights flown over the NGEE-Arctic, Kougarok Mile Marker (MM) 80, Kougarok Fire Complex (KFC) and Teller MM 27 sites in July 2022. Derived image products include point cloud, ortho-mosaiced multispectral image, a digital surface model (DSM) using the structure from motion (SfM) technique, and a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) map. Unprocessed and processed data products are included in this package (processing levels 0-2). Data and metadata are provided as text (*.txt, *.json, *hdr,), tabular (*.dat, *.csv), point cloud (*.laz), Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF (COG, *.tif), and image (*.jpg, *.tif, *png) formats.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

UAS remote sensing (3DR SOLO platform): multispectral reflectance, canopy height model, normalized difference vegetation index, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021

Airborne remote sensing data collected using a Parrot Sequoia+ multispectral sensor installed on a 3DR SOLO unoccupied aerial system (UAS) - operated by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Technology group at Brookhaven National Laboratory. This package includes data from 10 flights flown over the NGEE-Arctic Council Mile Marker (MM) 71, Kougarok MM64, and Teller MM27 sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, in August 2021. Derived image products include point cloud, ortho-mosaiced multispectral image, ortho-mosaiced RGB image, a digital surface model (DSM) using the structure from motion (SfM) technique, a canopy height model (CHM), and a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) map. Unprocessed and processed data products are included in this package (processing levels 0-2). Data and metadata are provided as text (*.txt, *.json, *hdr,), tabular (*.dat, *.csv), point cloud (*.laz), Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF (COG, *.tif), and image (*.jpg, *.tif, *png) formats. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗