Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Biological Science”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Meteorological Variables and Energy Fluxes at the Pumphouse Site, Crested Butte, CO 2017-2019

This data contains output from the pumphouse eddy covariance tower that includes shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, net radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, as well as sensible, latent, and ground heat fluxes. Also included is calculated evapotranspiration from the latent heat flux and the latent heat of vaporization. All data are on a daily timestep and displayed in Mountain Time. The data has been processed, and Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) was done, but any daily gaps in the data have not been filled in. This research was funded by the Department of Energy and performed as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area. This research aimed to constrain evapotranspiration in a high-elevation catchment.The dataset includes one comma-separated values (CSV) data file (EddyCovariance_MeteorlogicalVariables_CrestedButtePumphouse.csv). Additionally, three metadata CSV files are included: (1) location metadata file (locations.csv), which contains location metadata and coordinates; (2) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (3) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.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↗
NASA NTRS1994

Science observed: The mass-extinction debates

The upheaval triggered in 1980 by the Alvarez-Berkeley group impact hypothesis transformed the literature of mass extinctions from an unfocused, sporadic collection of papers that virtually ignored extraterrestrial causes and treated endogenous ones only sparingly better to an integrated, diverse body of literature. Research programs organized seemingly overnight spawned collaborative teams whose members, often from distant, isolated disciplines, redirected their careers in order to address the captivating, high-stakes issues. The initial, generally skeptical, cool reception of the impact hypothesis might have been predicted for any of a number of reasons: such an instantaneous catastrophe contravened earth science's reigning philosophy of uniformitarianism; it was formulated from a form of evidence - siderophile element anomalies - alien to the community charged with its appraisal; it advanced a causal mechanism that was improbable in terms of canonical knowledge; and it was proffered mainly by specialists alien to earth and biological science, especially paleobiology. Early on it became clear that irrespective of which causal hypothesis was chosen, the chosen one would be the strongest predictor of how the chooser would select and apply standards in assessing evidence bearing on all such hypothesis. Less strong correlation also appeared between disciplinary speciality and the assessment of evidence. Such correlations varied with the level of specialization; the most robust correlations appeared in the broadest areas of science practice. The gestalt (mindset) seemingly engendered by the embrace of an extinction hypothesis overrode, or was stronger than, the intellectual predispositions attributable to disciplinary specialty.

Glen, W.↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hyporheic zone, river, and groundwater metagenome resolved genomes and rpS3 genes in East River Watershed, Colorado USA Summer 2020, 2021

Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from water filter collected across 8 locations along the East River Watershed, CO, and 1 nearby groundwater well. The purpose was to look for connectivity and similarities across the network and to see the impact of the groundwater. As a part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we assessed community composition and strain similarities between the sites and we also compared it to previous metagenomic studies within the watershed looking at floodplain (Matheus Carnevali et al. 2021) and hillslope (Lavy et al. 2019) microbiomes. Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from filters across 8 locations during August 2020 and July 2021. This resulted in 32 samples. The groundwater sample was sequenced at UC Berkley's QB3. The other 31 samples were sequenced at University of Maryland. Metagenomes were assembled using four autobinners and the best bins were selected using dasTool. The genomes were dereplicated at 95% with dRep and the subset of winning genomes were manually curated based on visual inspection of taxonomic profile, GC content, coverage, and a set of 51 bacterial single copy genes (BSCG), and 38 archaeal signal copy genes (ASCG). The dataset includes a zip file of 311 genomes (HZ_River_SW_MAGS_Dereplicated_95.zip). The dataset additionally includes a zipped file of ribosomal protein small subunit 3 (rpS3) proteins from the hyporheic zone and river data (rpS3_Proteins_HZ_River.zip), a metadata file used to register associated samples with IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), a location metadata file (locations.csv). This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

DNA↗
DOE OSTI2025

Multiple RGB ortho-mosaics and digital surface models in 2017 and 2018 across the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

Aerial imagery was collected at the Lower Montane site (Pumphouse) in the East River Watershed, Colorado during the spring, summer, and fall seasons of 2017 and 2018 to improve the understanding of seasonal vegetation dynamics and their drivers. The datasets include Red-Green-Blue (RGB) ortho-mosaics and digital surface models (DSMs) inferred from the Unoccupied Aerial System (UAS) acquired aerial RGB imagery for June 3, June 19, July 7, and August 14, 2017, and for March 14, April 26, June 1, June 18, July 6, and August 7, 2018. Real-Time Kinematic Global Positioning System (RTK-GPS) surveyed Ground control points (GCPs) were used to increase the reconstruction accuracy. The reconstructed RGB mosaics and DSMs have been trimmed to cover a similar spatial domain. The accuracy of the RGB mosaics is considered high (~10 cm). DSM accuracy is highest (~10 cm) where sufficient GCPS are available, and more difficult to assess elsewhere (see reconstruction reports for uncertainty estimates). The dataset includes a total of 20 GeoTIFF (.tif) files, 10 PDF (.pdf) files, 3 data CSV (.csv) files, and 2 metadata CSV (.csv) files. Feel free to contact the authors with any questions or collaboration interests.This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at 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

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↗
NASA NTRS1989

Gas-Grain Simulation Facility: Fundamental studies of particle formation and interactions. Volume 2: Abstracts, candidate experiments and feasibility study

An overview of the Gas-Grain Simulation Facility (GGSF) project and its current status is provided. The proceedings of the Gas-Grain Simulation Facility Experiments Workshop are recorded. The goal of the workshop was to define experiments for the GGSF--a small particle microgravity research facility. The workshop addressed the opportunity for performing, in Earth orbit, a wide variety of experiments that involve single small particles (grains) or clouds of particles. Twenty experiments from the fields of exobiology, planetary science, astrophysics, atmospheric science, biology, physics, and chemistry were described at the workshop and are outlined in Volume 2. Each experiment description included specific scientific objectives, an outline of the experimental procedure, and the anticipated GGSF performance requirements. Since these experiments represent the types of studies that will ultimately be proposed for the facility, they will be used to define the general science requirements of the GGSF. Also included in the second volume is a physics feasibility study and abstracts of example Gas-Grain Simulation Facility experiments and related experiments in progress.

Fogleman, Guy↗
DOE OSTI2025

Electrical Resistivity Tomography data from 2016 to 2018 at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset contains time-lapse Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) data along a transect located on the northeast-facing hillslope at the lower montane site (Pumphouse site) in the upper East River Watershed. The monitoring dataset covers the period from November 2, 2016, to August 6, 2018. In addition, the archive also contains a baseline dataset from October 9, 2016. The ERT transect consisted of 128 electrodes with an electrode spacing of 1.25 m. The acquisition system was located in the middle of the transect, about 50 m on one side, and included an MPT (Multi-Phase Technologies) ERT system, a mini computer, and batteries with solar panels. Acquisition occurred daily under normal circumstances. The first 16 electrodes (from the upper end of the transect) could not be used after the cable was damaged during the 2017–2018 winter. Also, due to multiple failures in the power system, the temporal resolution of the data is much lower in 2018 compared to 2016 and 2017. The data have been processed and used in Dafflon et al., 2023, and the baseline dataset was used in Falco et al., 2019 (see reference list). This archive contains the measurements (ER.zip containing csv files) for each of the 326 acquisition times and a filtered version where only electrodes 17 to 128 are included (ERT_sm.zip containing csv files). The archive also contains the baseline dataset and two acquisitions with full reciprocals (ERT_RB.zip containing csv files), as well as all the raw MPT files (ERT_raw_MTP.zip). The geometry (electrode position and elevation) is provided in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 13N Geoid2012AB in the file named ERT_Location.csv. The archive contains 1 *.csv data files, four *.zip files, and three metadata *.csv 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes from topsoils along a hillslope water gradient across early snowmelt to late summer in East River, CO

Drought is changing the American Mountain West at unprecedented rates with unknown consequences to soil microbiome composition and function. As a part of LBNL Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we investigated shifts in microbial community and transcriptional activity on a subalpine conifer-meadow transition zone throughout the summer of 2023 as soil dried down. This work took place in Crested Butte, CO on Snodgrass mountain, using a proxy for drought conditions.Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community at 0-10cm from three sites along a hillslope water gradient across five timepoints from early snowmelt to late summer. 42 metagenomes were sequenced at Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and can be found under the JGI GOLD (Genomes Online Database) sequencing project Gs0166660. Metagenomes were assembled through an inhouse pipeline (see methods), binned using four autobinners (concoct, maxbin2, metabat2, and vamb) and consolidated using dastool. The consolidated bins from all metagenomes were pooled, filtered by completeness (>70%) and contamination (<10%), and dereplicated at 95% ANI using drep. This dataset (1) a zip file of 157 MAGs (as fasta files, Gs0166660_bins_tar.gz), (2) sample metadata file with sample IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), (3) bounding box coordinates for the sampled locations (Gs0166660.kml), (4) metagenome assembly and coassembly metadata file listing IMG/M (Integrated Microbial Genomes/Metagenomes) metagenome accessions linking samples to metagenomes (EastRiver_Drought_ESSDive_Metadata.csv), (5) location metadata file (locations.csv), (6) file-level metadata file (flmd.csv) and (7) 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

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↗
NASA NTRS1994

There must be a prokaryote somewhere: microbiology's search for itself

While early microbiologists showed considerable interest in the problem of the natural (evolutionary) relationships among prokaryotes, by the middle of this century that problem had largely been discarded as being unsolvable. In other words, the science of microbiology developed without an evolutionary framework, the lack of which kept it a weak discipline, defined largely by external forces. Modern technology has allowed microbiology finally to develop the needed evolutionary framework, and with this comes a sense of coherence, a sense of identity. Not only is this development radically changing microbiology itself, but also it will change microbiology's relationship to the other biological disciplines. Microbiology of the future will become the primary biological science, the base upon which our future understanding of the living world rests, and the font from which new understanding of it flows.

NASA Discipline Exobiology↗
DOE OSTI2026

Synoptic NO3 in Slate River Watershed, Colorado (2022)

The synoptic nitrate (NO3) dataset in the Slate River Watershed, Colorado consists of NO3 data collected at 19 locations three times during the summer of 2022. Stream samples were collected in early summer (early July), mid summer (late August), and late summer (late September). The samples include mainstem, tributary, and point source input water samples. These data were collected to evaluate spatiotemporal variability in stream NO3 during the summer, and evaluate anthropogenic controls on stream NO3 dynamics. This data package contains: (1) a csv of all NO3 samples and (2) a csv of locations for each sampling site. The dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. 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 > BIOSPHERE > ECOSYSTEMS > FRESHWATE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Montane Conifer, Aspen, Meadow, and Sagebrush Metagenome Resolved Genomes and Traits in East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

Climate change is driving vegetation shifts in mountain watersheds, with unknown impacts on biogeochemical cycles. We hypothesize that these shifts will reshape soil microbiomes and associated biogeochemical processes. As a part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we assessed microbiome and microbial functional trait differences between soils under conifer, aspen, forby meadows, and sagebrush across the East River Watershed, CO, controlling for elevation and aspect.Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from soils 0-20cm in depth across three locations in the watershed—Headwaters, Upper Reaches, and Lower Reaches from August 3-11th 2016. Each location was further subdivided into two blocks, with one block on a west facing aspect, and two on the east aspect of the valley. Within blocks, two samples per vegetation type were taken (one at each depth). This resulted in 66 samples, which were sequenced at JGI and can be found under the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project Gs0118068. Metagenomes were assembled through an inhouse pipeline (see methods), binned using four autobinners (concoct, maxbin2, metabat2, and vamb) and consolidated using dastool. The consolidated bins from all metagenomes were pooled, filtered by completeness (>75%) and contamination (<25%), and dereplicated at 95% ANI using drep. The dataset includes a zip file of 687 genomes (Vegtype_MAGS.zip), the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes, a csv file with MAG quality metrics and taxonomy from Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) and National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) taxonomic representative genome proteins (EastRiver_Vegtype_drep_genome_info.csv), and a file containing MAG quality metrics and taxonomy (gtdb_drep_bin_taxonomy.csv). The dataset additionally includes a sample metadata file (EastRiver_Vegtype_sample_metadata.csv), a metadata file used to register associated samples with IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), a Google KML file for the sampled locations (sample_collection_sites.kml), a location metadata file (locations.csv), a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv), and a 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

Metagenome-assembled genomes from Slate River floodplain sediments near Crested Butte, CO, USA (June 2018)

Microorganisms play a key role in cycling nutrients and contaminants in the terrestrial environment depending on their genetic potential. Here, we present metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community in floodplain sediment samples taken June 2018 at two locations (OBJ1 and OBJ2) near the confluence of the Oh-Be-Joyful Creek and Slate River. The site is one of the field sites in focus for the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Groundwater Quality Science Focus Area (SFA) program. Sediment samples from a deep soil pit were collected from 50 to 150 cm depth below surface at discrete depths every 20 cm for microbial analyses. A total of 12 metagenomes were sequenced through the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and can be found under Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project: Gs0142591. Metagenomes were assembled, binned, and refined using metawrap to generate MAGs (>50% complete and < 10% contamination based on checkM scores). This dataset includes a zip file of 1233 MAG fasta files and a csv file with quality, taxonomic classification (Genome Taxonomy Database Release RS220), and metagenome accessions for MAGs. This dataset also includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1997

Mathematical and Computational Challenges in Population Biology and Ecosystems Science

Mathematical and computational approaches provide powerful tools in the study of problems in population biology and ecosystems science. The subject has a rich history intertwined with the development of statistics and dynamical systems theory, but recent analytical advances, coupled with the enhanced potential of high-speed computation, have opened up new vistas and presented new challenges. Key challenges involve ways to deal with the collective dynamics of heterogeneous ensembles of individuals, and to scale from small spatial regions to large ones. The central issues-understanding how detail at one scale makes its signature felt at other scales, and how to relate phenomena across scales-cut across scientific disciplines and go to the heart of algorithmic development of approaches to high-speed computation. Examples are given from ecology, genetics, epidemiology, and immunology.

Levin, Simon A.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes from Slate River floodplain sediments near Crested Butte, CO, USA (September 2019)

Microorganisms play a key role in cycling nutrients and contaminants in the terrestrial environment depending on their genetic potential. Here we present metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community in floodplain sediment samples taken September 2019 at one locations (OBJ1) near the confluence of the Oh-Be-Joyful Creek and Slate River. The site is one of the field sites in focus for the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Groundwater Quality Science Focus Area (SFA) program. Sediment samples from a deep soil pit were collected from 50 to 150 cm depth below surface at discrete depths every 20 cm for microbial analyses. A total of 6 metagenomes were sequenced through the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and can be found under Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project: Gs0142591. Metagenomes were assembled, binned, and refined using metawrap to generate MAGs (>50% complete and < 10% contamination based on checkM scores). This dataset includes a zip file of 2562 MAG fasta files and a csv file with quality, taxonomic classification (Genome Taxonomy Database Release RS220), and metagenome accessions for MAGs. This dataset also includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Gender in Mineral Names

Minerals are the fundamental constituents of Earth, and mineral names appear in scientific literature for disciplines including geology, chemistry, materials science, biology, and medicine, among others. Choosing a name is the full responsibility of the authors of new mineral proposals submitted to the International Mineralogical Association (IMA). Scientific nomenclature and its traditions have evolved over time and, consequently, mineral names track changes in the landscape of mineralogy with respect to language, technology, and culture. To evaluate these changes, the namesake information for all 5896 minerals approved by the IMA or ‘grandfathered’ into use as of December 2022 was recorded and categorized within a workable database. The compiled information yields diverse insights into the intersection of science and culture and could also be used to project future trends. In this study, we used the name database to investigate gender diversity among mineral eponyms. More than half (c. 54%) of all mineral species are named after people, the identities of whom are largely a reflection of the people that have historically been involved, in one way or another, in the geosciences and in the mining industry. Of the 2738 people with minerals named for them, approximately 6.1% are (interpreted to be) women. Nearly all minerals named for women were named during the last sixty years, although the rate of growth in the year-on-year percentage of women among new mineral namesakes has slowed since about 1985. If current and historical trends hold, our model predicts that women will not comprise more than about 10.35% of newly established mineral namesakes in future years. The representation of women among mineral namesakes also differs starkly among countries. For example, Russians comprise 43.11% of women with minerals named for them, but account for only 15.12% of all eponyms. However, there are additional disparities beyond the proportions of namesakes. For scientists who were alive when a mineral was named for them, women were an average of 3.74 years older than men when evaluated over the same timespan (1954–2022). These results demonstrate that gender-based disparities are imprinted into current mineral nomenclature and indicate that gender parity among new mineral namesakes is impossible without unprecedented changes in the upstream demographics that are most likely to affect naming trends.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗