Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Guidelines”

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 1,549 records · Page 86
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Patch-level CO2 and CH4 fluxes and porewater concentrations in experimental wetlands, 5 and 10 PPT saltwater intrusion simulations, Louisiana 2023-2024

This dataset containes carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) flux measurements collected from wetland vegetation patches dominated by Typha domingensis and Panicum hemitomon to assess greenhouse gas flux responses to experimental saltwater intrusion (SWI) pulses. Measurements were conducted before, during, and after simulated SWI events at target salinities of approximately 5 parts per thousand (ppt) with durations of 6, 10, and 17 days and 10 ppt with a duration of 48 days, alongside a control wetland (with no salinity added, flood manipulation only). These data were generated to evaluate how the magnitude and duration of SWI alter wetland carbon exchange and related biogeochemical and plant responses. This data package includes flux measurements from the wetland surface (i.e, soil/water surface and enclosed vegetation) and from the soil/water surface only; porewater and surface water concentrations of CO2 and CH4; salinity, pH, electrical conductivity collected in porewater (at 5, 10, and 20 cm soil depths) and in surface water; soil redox potential; leaf spectral indices, leaf vapor pressure deficit, stomatal conductance; water level, salinity, and photosynthetically active radiation; and aboveground biomass.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL RESPIRA↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multispectral UAV imagery of experimental freshwater wetlands under 5 ppt saltwater intrusion, Louisiana, 2023 and 2024

Multispectral imagery was collected using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to evaluate how freshwater vegetation responds to short-term simulated saltwater intrusion events. The purpose of this data collection was to understand how plant health changes in response to acute salinity exposure, which is increasingly relevant in coastal wetland ecosystems facing sea level rise and storm surge events, such as in coastal Louisiana. Three experimental saltwater intrusions were conducted at a salinity of approximately 5 parts per thousand (ppt) for durations of 6-days, 10-days, and 17-days. UAV flights occurred both before and after each treatment. The resulting imagery was processed using Pix4DMapper software to georeference the images and generate orthomosaics. The multispectral sensor used in this study captures reflectance in five bands: blue, green, red, red-edge, and near-infrared. The uploaded data consist of georeferenced .tif orthomosaics for each spectral band, which are compatible with GIS software for vegetation analysis. This imagery can be utilized in investigations into vegetation stress, remote sensing of freshwater wetland ecosystems, and modeling of plant response to environmental changes.

EARTH SCIENCE > BIOSPHERE > ECOSYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE Peat Core Sample Collection Metadata, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, August 2025

This data set contains metadata associated with peat core samples collected from the Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments (SPRUCE) experiment in August 2025. This sample metadata contains no analytical results and is a reference for analytical datasets. To ensure accessibility and discoverability, each sample was assigned an International Generic Sample Number (IGSN), a persistent identifier, using System for Earth and Extraterrestrial Sample Registration (SESAR). These samples were used for downstream analysis by multiple teams of researchers the results of which will be reported separately. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format. An aliquot of most samples is stored in the SPRUCE archive and may be available for further analysis by request. Access this collection event on SESAR https://doi.org/10.58052/IEJ9B05LW. To inquire about obtaining archived samples for analysis, reach out using the Contact Sample Owner form located on the bottom of the landing page in SESAR.

EARTH SCIENCE > BIOSPHERE > ECOSYSTEMS > TERRESTRI↗
DOE OSTI2026

TEMPEST3 surface runoff water chemistry and organic matter composition

Coastal flooding, driven by storm surges and sea level rise, can mobilize organic matter (OM) via runoff, while introducing compositionally distinct OM (e.g., estuarine OM) into the system. To understand event-scale OM dynamics, we monitored source waters and surface runoff during an ecosystem-scale field manipulation experiment, TEMPEST (Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments), in June 2024. The TEMPEST experiment is part of the COMPASS-FME (Coastal Observations, Mechanisms, and Predictions Across Systems and Scales – Field, Measurements, and Experiments) project and designed to investigate biogeochemical and ecological impacts of freshwater and seawater flooding on coastal terrestrial-aquatic interface ecosystems by simulating freshwater and seawater storm events in two 2000m2 coastal upland forest plots (freshwater and brackish seawater plots). The temporal coverage of this dataset is during the TEMPESTⅢ event (June 11-13, 2024). This dataset contains: - Surface runoff discharge measured by flumes - Sensor data (specific conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) - Particle size distribution - Total suspended sediment concentrations (TSS), particulate and dissolved organic carbon (POC, DOC) concentrations, total nitrogen and total dissolved nitrogen (TN, TDN) concentrations - Bulk particulate and dissolved OM compositions (stable C and N isotopes of particulates and optical measurements of chromophoric dissolved OM) - High resolution mass spectrometry analysis data - Water isotope data All data files are plain-text CSV (comma-separated value), and no special software is required to read them.

COMPASS-FME↗
DOE OSTI2026

Meteoric 10Be Flux Calibration Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

This data package contains tabular and geospatial data used to quantify and model meteoric beryllium-10 fluxes in the East River watershed, Colorado, USA. The tabular component includes calibration-site data from five glacial moraine sites and includes environmental variables used to evaluate spatial controls on meteoric 10Be delivery, including elevation, mean annual precipitation (MAP), mean snow depth, and mean snow water equivalent (SWE). These site-level data were used to compare observed fluxes with environmental gradients across the watershed and to evaluate the effects of erosion correction on flux estimates. The package also includes supporting slope and curvature values used to assess topographic inputs to the erosion analysis. A second component of the data package contains updated manuscript tables and regression outputs used to summarize the relationships between meteoric 10Be flux and environmental predictors. These tables include meteoric 10Be sample information and AMS results, site-level environmental values, site-level meteoric 10Be inventory and flux values, watershed-averaged predicted fluxes, soil bulk density measurements, fine-fraction values, soil pH measurements, and regression statistics including slope, intercept, coefficient of determination, and p-value. The regression products include both standard linear regressions and regressions in which the intercept is constrained to pass through zero, and they support the analyses presented in the companion manuscript. Together, these tabular files provide the numerical basis for the manuscript tables and the regression-based interpretation of meteoric 10Be flux variability in a snow-dominated mountain watershed. The geospatial component of the package consists of GeoTIFF raster files used to generate the map products presented in Figures 2 and 6 of the companion manuscript. These rasters represent watershed-scale spatial layers for environmental variables and regression-based predictions of meteoric 10Be flux. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), GeoTIFF raster files (.tif), and upporting metadata files, including CSV data dictionaries and readme text files (.csv, .txt). The tabular files can be opened with standard spreadsheet software, and the raster files can be viewed and analyzed in GIS software such as ArcGIS Pro or QGIS. Together, these files document the numerical and spatial datasets used to calibrate and predict meteoric 10Be delivery in the East River watershed.

East River↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data and script associated with “Shifts in Rain-Snow Partitioning Drive Faster Water Transit Times in the US Pacific Northwest”

This data package contains the data and code to use and run the Water Tracer enabled version of the Weather Research and Forecasting Hydrologic model (WT-WRF-Hydro) with the Sequential Precipitation Input Tagging (SPIT) framework. It is associated with the publication “Shifts in Rain-Snow Partitioning Drive Faster Water Transit Times in the US Pacific Northwest” published in Scientific Reports (Butler et al., 2026; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46539-1). We use the Continental U.S. (CONUSII; Rasmussen et al., 2021) dataset to force the model with an historical climate (2006–2013) and a future climate (2086–2093) with a representative carbon pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario. We use the model to calculate water transit times in five headwater catchments within the U.S. Pacific Northwest. We also show key hydrologic and environmental variables that affect water transit times and changes in the future. Finally, we use observed data to validate the model such as stream water isotopes, snowpack characteristics, and stream discharge. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. The data package consists of 11 folders: (1) "Figures" contains the exported figures used in the manuscript; (2) "Model_Isotope_Date" contains the WT-WRF-Hydro isotope date used in model validation; (3) “Model_Outputs_Future” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro future climate outputs; (4) “Model_Outputs_Historical” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro historical climate outputs; (5) “Model_Outputs_Weights_Areas” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro weights per catchment used to calculate water transit times and isotopes in stream water; (6) “MODIS_data_scripts” contains data used to validate snow conditions in the study area; (7) “Observed_Flow_Data” contains the observed streamflow data used in model validation; (8) “Observed_Isotope_Data” contains the observed stream water isotope data used in model validation; (9) “Scripts” contains the Python scripts used to general results and the figures; (10) “Statistic_Outputs” contains the water transit time statistical outputs reported in this manuscript; (11) “Validation_SNOTEL” contains the SNOTEL data used in model validation. The files in this data package have the following file extensions: .tif, .txt, .csv, .pdf, .py, .jpg, and .png.

American River↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Denudation, solute export, landscape evolution modeling, and geographic information system data for the East River watershed, Colorado, USA (2020-2024)

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of lithologic controls on denudation, solute export, carbon-scaling relationships, and transient landscape evolution in the East River watershed near Crested Butte, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the Figure 2 map, including drainage, hillshade, lithology, sample locations, and basin polygons, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. One group of tables reports sample-level and catchment-level information for river-sediment samples analyzed for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample names, outlet elevations, geographic coordinates, upstream drainage area, rock-type classes, production-rate scaling scheme, analyzed nuclide, catchment-averaged denudation rates, and associated lower and upper analytical uncertainties. Sample and catchment attributes provide the basis for comparing denudation rates across intrusive, shale, sedimentary, and mixed-lithology settings. A second group of tables reports supporting information for landscape-evolution modeling and the mapped geologic framework of the study area. Included files list parameter values and definitions for the two-phase landscape-evolution simulations, summarize full-domain model erosion fluxes and topographic metrics for different simulation configurations, provide a fixed-area carbon-model scaling table, and summarize mapped geologic units within the East River study domain, including geologic code, formation name, lithologic description, mapped area, and lithologic class grouping. Model outputs and geologic summaries support interpretation of transient landscape behavior and its relation to the mapped distribution of shale, intrusive, sedimentary, and surficial units. A third group of tables reports hydrologic and hydrochemical information used to quantify dissolved export from the watershed. Included files provide site-level values for drainage area, mean annual solute export, standard error of annual export, area-normalized solute yield, and equivalent weathering rate for five East River monitoring sites, along with metadata describing the number, sampling cadence, and date range of discharge records and partial and full total dissolved solids observations used in the solute-yield analyses. The package also contains a supplementary daily ion-load time series with daily mean discharge, discharge observation counts, dissolved concentrations, and daily loads for calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, fluoride, dissolved silica, charge-balance bicarbonate, and total dissolved solids. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, a package-tree text file, and a readme text file.

10Be↗
DOE OSTI2026

Historic climate, cosmogenic 10Be, denudation-rate, and geospatial datasets from the Pikes Peak region, Colorado, USA

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of elevation-dependent denudation rates on Pikes Peak in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the study-area map, including sample locations, sample watershed boundaries, the Pikes Peak batholith, Pleistocene glacier extent, weather station locations, and elevation and hillshade rasters, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. These mapped layers provide the geographic framework for interpreting denudation patterns across the Pikes Peak region and for relating sample locations to watershed geometry, bedrock setting, glacial history, and nearby climate stations. The first group of tables reports climate and geospatial context for the study area. These files include station-based temperature and precipitation data used to characterize elevational gradients in mean annual climate and monthly climate seasonality, sample locations, denudation-rate and topographic metrics, fixed frost-cracking model parameters, frost-cracking intensity and precipitation-frequency metrics, and stream-power inversion results. Together, these data provide the basis for evaluating how denudation varies with elevation, climate, and landscape form across sampled catchments on Pikes Peak. The second group of tables reports cosmogenic nuclide and erosion-model results used in the denudation analysis. Included files contain accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurements for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample identifiers, measured 10Be:9Be ratios, analytical uncertainties, carrier mass, quartz mass, blank corrections, blank-group statistics, and calculated 10Be concentrations and uncertainties. Additional tables summarize stream-power-law inversion results for sampled catchments, including optimized model parameters, predicted erosion rates, residual metrics, channel-pixel counts, and convergence status, as well as regression equations and summary statistics used to evaluate relationships among elevation, climate, frost cracking, precipitation forcing, and denudation rate. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, and a readme text file.

10Be cosmogenic nuclides↗
DOE OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Crown polygons and extracted reflectance for field sampling sites

This dataset contains (1) crown polygons for each tree, meadow, and shrub site sampled in the 2025 Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (in geojson format, .geojson) and (2) extracted reflectance, uncertainty, and shade estimates for each crown polygon from the 2018 National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and 2025 CHESS campaigns. (in CSV format, .csv). Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). Crown polygons were manually delineated for each site in the 2025 campaign using a combination of field-collected GPS data (doi:10.15485/3022418), RGB (red, green, blue) and false color reflectance mosaics (doi:10.15485/3013535), and LiDAR-derived (Light Detection and Ranging) canopy height (CHM) and digital surface (DSM) models (DOI and citation to be added upon publication). Where there was misalignment between the spectrometer- and LiDAR-derived data products, polygons prioritized alignment with the spectrometer-derived data products. Polygons were delineated conservatively to only select pixels representative of vegetation samples collected in the field. Crown polygons for 2018 are published at (doi:10.15485/1618130) and were developed using the same protocol. For each polygon, all pixels from all flightlines were extracted where the pixel centroid was contained within the polygon. For each pixel, we extracted the surface reflectance, uncertainty, and shade estimates. Details on the extracted datasets are available at (doi:10.15485/3013527, doi:10.15485/3013535). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgment: This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004) and was funded by EMIT Extended Mission Phase E Science.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Zheng et al. (2025), "AquaMEND: Reconciling multiple impacts of salinization on soil carbon biogeochemistry"

Soil salinization, exacerbated by climate change, poses a global threat to coastal ecosystems and soil function. Salinity affects soil carbon cycling by directly impacting microbial activity and indirectly altering soil physicochemical properties, but current models inadequately represent these complexities. This dataset contains the observational and modeling data from Zheng et al. (2025), which described a process-based modeling framework that couples soil solution chemistry with microbial carbon cycling reactions to study the impacts of soil salinization. This conceptual model is implemented numerically into the open-source geochemical program PHREEQC 3.0 (Parkhurst and Appelo, 2013). This dataset consists of: - Figure2_AquaMEND_salinity_buffer: Contains model simulation outputs to assess the impact of three different cation exchange and surface complexation processes on salinity buffering (Fig. 2 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure3_Salinity_function: Contains salinity function fitting for literature data (Fig. 3 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure4_AquaMEND_microbial_mechanisms: Contains model simulation outputs for testing various microbial process-based hypotheses related to soil salinization, including microbial mortality, carbon use efficiency (CUE), extracellular enzyme activity, and other microbial mechanisms (Fig. 4 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure5_AquaMEND_Redox: Contains on model simulation outputs to evaluate shifts among key redox processes, such as aerobic respiration, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis (Fig.5 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure6_AquaMEND_sorption: Contains on model simulation outputs for investigating the effects of salinity on dissolved organic matter (DOM) sorption and desorption processes (Fig. 6 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure7_AquaMEND_process_couple: Contains on model simulation outputs for exploring coupled biotic-abiotic processes and their interactions (Fig. 7 from Zheng et al. 2025). - data: Includes datasets used to develop salinity response functions and evaluate salinity buffering capacity. Datasets for MEND model calibration. - database: Contains the `.dat` file required by PHREEQC for model execution. - README.md: A Markdown plain text file describing the computational tools and directories. Files are a mixture of plain text CSV (comma-separated value) and plain text *.dat files written by the model; no special software is required to read them.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL SALINIT↗
DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE Wood Anatomy of Picea mariana and Larix laricina in SPRUCE Experimental Plots, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, July 2023

Branch samples were collected in July 2023 to measure wood anatomical traits on two dominant conifer species, Picea mariana and Larix laricina, in a bog forest at the SPRUCE (Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments) experiment in northern Minnesota. Anatomical measurements were made on the annual rings of those branches with dates ranging from 2011-2023. Wood anatomical measurements include annual tracheid diameter, tracheid density, cell wall thickness, thickness-to-span-ratio, and conduit lumen fraction in both earlywood and latewood. Wood anatomical samples were prepared using a portable sliding microtome (G.S.L.-1 lightweight microtome, WSL) and a light microscope (Leica DM2500). This dataset spans 2011–2023, with full branch-level coverage for 2020–2023, whereas some thinner branches formed only in recent years and therefore do not contain rings from earlier years. By providing annual, treatment-specific anatomical measurements, this dataset can help quantify structural acclimation to global change, clarify links among phenology, wood formation, and hydraulic traits, and improve predictions of forest growth response under future climates. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

annual tracheid diameter↗
DOE OSTI2026

EXCHANGE Campaign 2 - Microbial Biomass Collapse (EC2-MBC): Carbon Availability Under Prolonged Flooding in Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystems

Our collective research focus is on investigating the interaction between carbon availability and microbial demands during prolonged flooding. Through laboratory experiments utilizing freshly collected soil samples from diverse transition zone environments, we aim to simulate flooding and understand the mechanisms governing carbon cycling under anoxic conditions. Our primary objective is to elucidate how carbon becomes available to microbes and how they utilize it, discerning between maintenance and investment processes. By examining soils from regions with differing native redox conditions, our aim is to gain comprehensive insights into carbon dynamics across various soil types. Future data types will be added to the ESS-DIVE data package as they are completed and will be version-controlled in the Change History section of EC2_MBC_README.pdf. This data package includes: EC2_MBC_README.pdf flmd.csv dd.csv EC2_SampleIdentificationKey.csv EC2_SoilMoistureKey.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Entisols.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Inceptisols.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Ultisols.csv Processed_Porewater_Iron_II.csv Processed_Porewater_Nutrients.csv Processed_Porewater_Sulfate.csv Processed_Probe_Measurements.csv Processed_Soil_HydrolyticEnzymes.csv Processed_Soil_MicrobialCN.csv Processed_Soil_NPOC_TN_SaltExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_NPOC_TN_WaterExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_OlsenPExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_SaltExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_WaterExtracted.csv Processed_DO_Probe.zip Processed_Temperature_Probe.zip

Carbon Cycling↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil carbon stocks from soil organic carbon at the Teller 47, Teller 27, and Kougarok 86 field sites, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021 – 2023

Carbon stored in permafrost soils represents the largest terrestrial storage and hence has key significance for the global carbon cycle, yet the site-specific estimates of permafrost soil carbon are limited. To better understand permafrost carbon storage, soil organic content (SOC) was measured from soils collected at the Teller 27, Teller 47, and Kougarok 86 field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska in the summers of 2019 and 2021-2023. Soil samples were collected from locations with and without near-surface permafrost to varied depths within the permafrost, where present. In addition to sample collection for soil organic carbon analysis, bulk density samples were also collected within each soil profile to allow for calculation of carbon stocks. Carbon to nitrogen ratios are also reported. Location data were collected at each observation point using a handheld GPS unit with waypoint averaging to reduce location measurement error to within 3 m. SOC was measured using elemental analysis in the laboratory. This dataset contains a *.csv file of soil carbon stocks, a *.kml file of measurement locations, a *.pdf user guide, a *.csv data dictionary, and a *.csv file level metadata.

EARTH SCIENCE > CRYOSPHERE > FROZEN GROUND↗
DOE OSTI2026

EXCHANGE Campaign Degradation (ECD): Understanding Decomposition Dynamics Across Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystems

The EXploration of Coastal Hydrobiogeochemistry Across a Network of Gradients and Experiments (EXCHANGE) Degradation Experiment (EXCHANGE-D) is an in situ experiment designed to assess organic matter decomposition rates across coastal terrestrial-aquatic interfaces (TAIs), from coastal uplands through transition zones to wetlands. Through a network of partner scientists and coastal sites, we are testing how environmental gradients shape decomposition and carbon dynamics across terrestrial-aquatic interfaces. Using standardized tea bag substrates deployed across a network of diverse coastal sites, we compare decomposition rates at different fresh- and salt-water TAIs to develop transferable knowledge that improves the representation of organic matter degradation in coastal ecosystem models. For more information, please see https://compass.pnnl.gov/FME/EXCHANGE. This is Version 1 of the data package, which includes: ecd_README.pdf flmd.csv dd.csv ecd_soil_weom_L2.csv ecd_soil_ph_conductivity_L2.csv ecd_soil_gwc_L2.csv ecd_soil_teabag_degradation_L2.csv ecd_readme.pdf

coastal soils↗
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↗