SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
A diversity of instruments are used to measure various quantities related to meteorology, precipitation, and radiation near the Earth’s surface. Typically, a standard suite of instruments is deployed to monitor meteorological state variables.
A diversity of instruments are used to measure various quantities related to meteorology, precipitation, and radiation near the Earth’s surface. Typically, a standard suite of instruments is deployed to monitor meteorological state variables.
A diversity of instruments are used to measure various quantities related to meteorology, precipitation, and radiation near the Earth’s surface. Typically, a standard suite of instruments is deployed to monitor meteorological state variables.
A diversity of instruments are used to measure various quantities related to meteorology, precipitation, and radiation near the Earth’s surface. Typically, a standard suite of instruments is deployed to monitor meteorological state variables.
A diversity of instruments are used to measure various quantities related to meteorology, precipitation, and radiation near the Earth’s surface. Typically, a standard suite of instruments is deployed to monitor meteorological state variables.
This dataset provides pH titration data and soil pH buffering capacities of 21 Arctic soils that were collected between 2013-2019. Geochemical data including soil organic carbon, carbon:nitrogen ratio, initial pH, and gravimetric water content are also reported. Additional measurements of cation exchange capacity and soil water retention (dry range) are presented for selected soils. A script, developed in R, is also included for a simple biogeochemical simulation that incorporates soil pH buffering capacity. This dataset contains 7 csv files and one R script.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).
A diversity of instruments are used to measure various quantities related to meteorology, precipitation, and radiation near the Earth’s surface. Typically, a standard suite of instruments is deployed to monitor meteorological state variables.
Rising sea levels and intensifying storms increase flooding pressure on coastal forests, but the mechanisms that drive coastal forest mortality remain unclear. This study used an ecosystem-scale manipulation (TEMPEST, Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments) to simulate hurricane-level flooding of a coastal forest and explore the individual and interactive impacts of inundation and salinity. This dataset comprises the results reported by Regier et al. (2025) in their paper "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest." It consists of measurements of:- Belowground conductance- Soil dissolved oxygen and redox- Soil and tree greenhouse gas fluxes- Leaf photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and intercellular carbon dioxide- Sap flux- Soil volumetric water content and electrical conductivityAll files are plain-text CSV (comma separated value) and no special software is required to read them.
Natural aquatic systems undergo fluctuating redox conditions due to microbial activity, varying water saturation levels, and nutrients dynamics. With fluctuating oxic and anoxic conditions, trace metals can be mobilized or sequestered in response to changes in iron and sulfur speciation and the concentrations and lability of organic carbon. We conducted a systematic laboratory-based microcosm study to examine the effect of redox fluctuations on trace metal mobility in samples collected from two different natural aquatic systems: riparian wetlands and a stream. We incubated water-saturated soils under three cycles of anoxic-oxic conditions (τanoxic:τoxic = 3) spanning 24 days and monitored the change in dissolved and bioavailable metal (copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn)) concentrations. The dataset includes the results of the variation in metal concentrations due to redox fluctuations in wetland soils and stream sediments. Additionally, the variation in the bioavailable concentration of metals obtained using passive samplers based on diffuse gradient in thin-films technique is included in the dataset. We have also reported the change in the pH values and dissolved oxygen concentrations in the microcosms during the entire study of 24 days. The dataset also contains the dissolved organic carbon and sulfate concentrations, and the data on fractions of metals bound to reducible and oxidizable phases. For materials from both the wetlands and the stream, anoxic conditions favored Co and Zn release, which corresponded with the reductive dissolution of iron oxides. In contrast, dissolved Cu concentrations increased under oxic conditions for both sites and correlated positively with the release of sulfate. In wetland soils, dissolution of Fe (hydr)oxides increased Ni solubility; however, in stream sediments, Ni release occurred when sulfides or organic matter were oxidized. For stream sediments, each subsequent redox cycle increased the bioavailability of trace metals. Upon redox fluctuations in wetland soils, the bioavailability of Zn and Cu increased, whereas bioavailable Ni and Co decreased. This study illustrates that different trace metals display distinct bioavailability patterns during oxic-anoxic fluctuations in natural environments. The biogeochemical cycling of carbon and nitrogen in systems with redox fluctuations may be influenced by these patterns in trace metal availability in addition to the availability of electron donors and acceptors.
Responses of the AC and DC global electric circuits (GECs) to the large eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai (HT-HH) volcano on 15 January 2022 are discussed. The AC-related investigation is based on Schumann resonance (SR) measurements from six stations on four continents. The DC-related investigation utilizes atmospheric electric field (potential gradient, PG) measurements from six recording stations in Europe and the USA. According to data from the GLD360 and WWLLN lightning detection networks, the peak lightning stroke rate, 83/s, was dominated by negative polarity lightning, but the distributions of positive and negative lightning discharges in latitude and longitude around the volcano differed. A global intensification of SR is apparent in connection with the enhanced lightning activity caused by the eruption. SR data-based results confirm that the lightning activity in the eruption dominated the naturally occurring global activity for a period of about 1 hr. The highly localized increase in lightning activity over HT-HH was a unique point source of SR excitation. PG measurements suggest that impulse-like charging of the DC GEC, by ~15%, via negative cloud-to-ground lightning strokes took place twice during the eruption. A time constant of 7 or 8 min has been inferred for near-surface PG changes due to these enhancements. This could be the first direct measurement of the time constant of the GEC near the Earth's surface, as well as the first observation of the direct charging of the DC GEC by a unique atmospheric electrified source.
This dataset contains data used for the paper: Warming promotes loss of subsoil carbon through accelerated degradation of plant-derived organic matter. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 156, 108185. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108185On April 2018 (after 4.5 years of warming), we collected O-horizon (organic horizon) material and soil core down to 90 cm depth from a whole-soil warming experiment in a mixed-coniferous temperate forest, located at the University of California Blodgett experimental forest in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, CA USA. The goal was to assess how 4.5 years of +4 °C whole-soil warming affected the quantity and quality of soil organic matter. Cores were collected from 6 experimental plots (three replicated blocks); samples were collected in 10 cm increments from 0 to 90 cm depth.This dataset contains a compressed (.zip) archive of the data used for this manuscript. The dataset includes files in .xlsx format, which can be accessed and processed using MS Excel or R. Carbon and nitrogen concentrations, as well as stable carbon isotope composition ((δ13C) and solvent extractable lipid biomarker (alkanoic acids and alkanes) data are provided as processed data files. Diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform (DRIFT) spectroscopy data are provided as raw output and processed data files.The dataset files "Blodgett_warming_Data" and "Blodgett_warming_raw_data.xlsx" were updated on July 7, 2021. The following updates were made: (1) specification of the units of measurements in the dataset (the unit of measurement was missing in some parameters) and (2) the column name "pulled depth" was changed to "pooled depth" in the updated data files.
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.
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.
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.
The solar radiative processes that contribute to Earth's surface and atmospheric energy budgets are strongly dependent on wavelength. For example, snow and water vapor become more absorptive as incident radiation shifts from visible (VIS) to near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths. Some earth system models (ESMs) aggregate solar radiation into just two bands (VIS and NIR) partitioned at 0.7 μm for transmission between the atmospheric and surface components. In the widely used radiative transfer model RRTMG_SW this partition is near the center of the overlap spectral band spanning 0.625–0.778 μm, whose flux is often approximated as being evenly divided between the VIS and NIR surface bands. Using a hyperspectral radiative transfer model, we show that the fractional downwelling surface flux within the overlap band is usually distributed about 55.5%:44.5% VIS:NIR. This improved approximation shifts as much as 4.27 W m −2 from the NIR to the VIS band, leading to an instantaneous decrease in surface absorption of up to 0.91 W m −2 over snow-covered surfaces. Century-long fully coupled ESM simulations show surface absorption over snow decreases by over 1.6 W m −2 . The coupled response in sea ice regions amplifies the initial forcing ten-fold, and increases seasonal sea ice area by up to 4.9%. These results highlight the importance of accurately representing the spectral distribution of solar radiation in the cryosphere.
This paper presents two machine designs: a surface inset permanent magnet (SIPM) machine and a surface permanent magnet (SPM) machine, both without heavy rare-earth magnets, that achieve 50 kW/L active power density and a constant-power speed ratio of 3 for EV traction applications. Compared to surface PM machines, SIPM machines do not require a special containment sleeve to hold the magnets in place at high speeds, provided that the rotor laminations are carefully designed together with the magnet mounting configuration to ensure the rotor’s structural integrity. Comparisons between the SPM and SIPM machines sharing the same stator, same current level, and same power speed envelope are presented. Both deliver very similar performance characteristics, but the SIPM machine’s simpler magnet containment configuration may give it an advantage in terms of reduced material and manufacturing costs.
Objectives:Fine roots significantly influence ecosystem-scale cycling of nutrients, carbon (C), and water, yet there is limited understanding of how fine root traits vary across and within tropical forests, some of Earth's most C-rich ecosystems. The biomass of fine roots can impact soil carbon storage, as root mortality is a primary source of new carbon to soils. A positive relationship has been observed between fine root biomass and soil carbon stocks in Panama (Cusack et al 2018). Beyond biomass, root characteristics like specific root length (SRL) could also influence soil carbon, as roots with higher SRL are less dense and thinner, potentially decomposing more easily or promoting soil aggregation. Understanding the effects of root morphology and tissue quality on soil carbon storage and with soil properties in general can improve predictions of landscape-scale carbon patterns. We aggregated new data of root biomass, morphology and nutrient content at 0-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-50 cm and 50-100 cm depth increments across four distinct lowland Panamanian forests and paired with already published datasets (Cusack et al 2018; Cusack and Turner 2020) of soil chemistry from the same sites and soil depths to explore relationship between soil carbon stocks and root characteristics.Datasets included:The datasets provided include .csv and .xlsx files for fine root characteristics and soil chemistry from four different forests across 0-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-50 cm, and 50-100 cm depth increments. Root characteristics include live fine root biomass, dead fine root biomass, coarse root biomass, specific root length, root diameter, root tissue density, specific root area, root %N, root %C, and root C/N ratio. Soil chemistry data includes total carbon (TC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), bulk density, total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AEM Pi), and various Mehlich-extractable elements such as aluminum, calcium, iron, potassium, manganese, phosphorus, and zinc. Nitrogen content measures include ammonium, nitrate, total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON). The dataset also includes total exchangeable bases (TEB) and effective cation exchange capacity (ECEC) in both centimoles of charge per kilogram and micromoles of charge per gram. The soil chemistry data was obtained from Cusack et al (2018) and Cusack and Turner (2020) and paired with root characteristics data for the same depth increments and sites. Additionally, a .kml file is provided with coordinates for all 32 plots included in the study across four forests (n = 8 plots per site). Root data was averaged across these 8 plots per site and soil data was collected in one pit in each site. This dataset serves as baseline data before a throughfall exclusion experiment, Panama Rainforest Changes with Experimental Drying (PARCHED), was implemented. No special software is needed to open these files.
Complete representations of oceanographic conditions require spatial and temporal information about the significant wave height (Hs), peak wave period (Tp), wind speed, wind direction, wave direction, water level, salinity, and temperature. This data develops location-independent typologies to reduce the number of boundary conditions needed to assess nearshore oceanographic environments in both a Historical (2007-2019) and Future (2020-2040) timespan along the Alaskan North Slope. Wave information for both time spans were generated from WaveWatch III, Delft3D-FLOW, and Delft3D-WAVE simulations forced by wind conditions from reanalysis data (e.g., ASRv2 and ERA5) for the historical simulations while projected conditions were obtained from downscaled GFDL-CM3 forced under RCP8.5 conditions. Salinity was generated from GOFS 3.1 for the years between 2008-2015 and skin temperature of the ocean was obtained from ASRv2 reanalysis data for the years between 2007-2016. To identify generalized oceanographic typologies, K-means clustering was applied to the energy-weighted joint-probability distribution of Hs and Tp at six sites along the North Slope of Alaska. Distributions of wave and wind direction, wind speed, and water level associated with locaiton-indepndent centroids were assigned single values to describe a reduced order, typological rendition of offshore oceanographic conditions. These final typologies and their constituent data are provided here and can be used to evaluate the change in ocean energy over the next two decades in response to climate change and provide insight into expected consequences such as coastal erosion and flooding. A full assessment of the findings and techniques developed can be found in: Eymold, W.K., Flanary, C., Erikson, L., Nederhoff, K., Chartrand, C.C., Jones, C., Kasper, J., and Bull, D.L. Typological Representation of the Offshore Oceanographic Environment along the Alaskan North Slope. Continental Shelf Research (2022). 10.1016/j.csr.2022.104795