Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Sensor Metadata”

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.

161 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Probabilistic estimation of depth-resolved profiles of soil thermal diffusivity from temperature time series: Supporting Data

This dataset consists of soil temperature time series that were used to estimate soil thermal diffusivity and its uncertainty trough the probabilistic modelling approach developed and presented in the article named "Probabilistic estimation of depth-resolved profiles of soil thermal diffusivity from temperature time series" and published in Earth Surface Dynamics. There are two compressed (.zip) files that contains synthetic (Synthetic_soiltemp_Teller.zip) and field (Field_soiltemp_Teller.zip) data. There is one MATLAB file that requires MATLAB to execute but any text editor can open it. The Synthetic_soiltemp_Teller.zip file includes 5 comma-delimited data files (.csv) each of which contains soil temperature time series generated through forward modeling (i.e., heat-conduction process in a heterogeneous medium using an explicit finite difference method) to mimic various types of temperature gradients, trend and fluctuations. These synthetic soil temperatures were used to investigate the impact of different environmental conditions on the uncertainty of thermal diffusivity estimates. The Field_soiltemp_Teller.zip file contains 28 comma-delimited data files (.csv) out of which (a) 27 files includes soil temperature time series recorded from 27 temperature probes located in a site along Teller Road about 40 km northwest of Nome, Alaska (64.72°N, 165.94°W), (b) one includes the name and coordinates of the 27 probes. These field soil temperatures were used to infer soil thermal diffusivity at numerous locations and depths in a discontinuous permafrost environment, and to evaluate the links between the estimated soil thermal diffusivity values and soil physical properties. The comma-delimited data files (.csv) of the synthetic and field soil temperature time series includes date and time (UTC) in the first column and soil temperature from 5 cm below the ground surface to 1.05 m depth (with 5 or 10 cm spacing between sensors) in the other columns. The measurements were acquired every 15 minutes. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

iButton snow temperature measurements at Teller 27 and Kougarok 64, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019-2020

Snow temperature measurements were collected at the NGEE Arctic Teller Road Site at mile marker 27 (TL_MM27) and at the Kougarok Road Site at mile marker 64 (KG_MM64) on the Seward Peninsula. Data were collected from October 1, 2021 to August 16, 2022 using iButton Link DS1926-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g) and Tinytag TGP-4017 internal sensors (https://www.micronmeters.com/product/tgp-4017-internal-sensor-40-to-85-c-40-f-to-185-f) deployed across the Kougarok and Teller sites. These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snowpack temperatures at a higher spatial resolution than what is normally achieved. iButton data were collected every 4 hours beginning on October 1, 2021. Tinytag data collection began between October 9, 2021 and October 12, 2021 depending on the specific Tinytag and data were collected every 30 minutes. In total, data were collected from 236 iButtons and 30 Tinytags. This dataset contains four *.csv files of near-ground surface temperatures at various locations throughout each study site and four *.shp files of sensor locations. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Sensors were placed both inside and outside of vegetation to better capture the spatial variability of snow properties across each domain.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

iButton and Tinytag snow temperature measurements at Teller 27 and Kougarok 64, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021-2022

Snow temperature measurements were collected at the NGEE Arctic Teller Road Site at mile marker 27 (TL_MM27) and at the Kougarok Road Site at mile marker 64 (KG_MM64) on the Seward Peninsula. Data were collected from October 1, 2021 to August 16, 2022 using iButton Link DS1926-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g) and Tinytag TGP-4017 internal sensors (https://www.micronmeters.com/product/tgp-4017-internal-sensor-40-to-85-c-40-f-to-185-f) deployed across the Kougarok and Teller sites. These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snowpack temperatures at a higher spatial resolution than what is normally achieved. iButton data were collected every 4 hours beginning on October 1, 2021. Tinytag data collection began between October 9 and October 12, 2021 depending on sensor installation date. Tinytag data were collected every 30 minutes. In total, data were collected from 236 iButtons and 30 Tinytags. This dataset contains four *.csv files of near-ground surface temperatures at various locations throughout each study site and four *.shp files of sensor locations. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Sensors were placed both inside and outside of vegetation to better capture the spatial variability of snow properties across each domain. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Elemental Analysis and Middle Infrared Spectroscopy from the Kougarok Fire Complex, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2022

In September and October of 2022, soil samples were collected at the Kougarok Fire Complex near mile marker 86 of the Nome-Taylor Highway on the Seward Peninsula of Alaska. This study site was chosen due to its unique fire history, as the Kougarok Fire Complex has experienced multiple wildfires since 1971. As the Arctic warms, the risk of Arctic tundra fires continues to increase due to warmer summer temperatures and higher frequency of lightning. Burned soil carbon or pyrogenic carbon (PyC) is an important component of C cycling after wildfire, and one that is often overlooked in tundra systems where wildfires are historically rare. To better understand PyC signatures and quantify PyC presence in post-regeneration permafrost regions, soils were sampled from soil pits within the 1971, 2002, and 2019 burn sites, as well as two unburned control sites. At each site, three soil pits were dug to the permafrost table. Soil samples were collected with a trowel from the face of each pit at 10 cm increments down to the permafrost table. Thaw depth, maximum vegetation height, vegetation species composition, and O horizon depth were also collected at each soil pit. An HS2 Hydrosense II Handheld Soil Moisture Sensor was used to collect volumetric soil moisture content at each 10 cm sampling increment. This dataset includes one *.csv of middle infrared spectroscopy measurements of soil samples, one *.csv of field observations, one *.csv of carbon and nitrogen analysis of soil samples, and one *.kml of sampling locations.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic) was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy’s Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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

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 OSTI2024

Environmental monitoring data from the 2022-2023 field experiment at Game Ridge, Missoula County, Montana, USA

This dataset contains sensor data from programmed loggers as well as handheld moisture probes, including weather data, air and soil temperature, and soil volumetric water content. Data files and data dictionary(ies) are uploaded as .csv files. The Users Guide is a .pdf file. Location data can be found in the Google Earth file GameRidge_SitePlotCoordinates.kmz.kml included here. These datasets were collected for Plant Carbohydrate Depletion, Mycorrhizal Networks, and Vulnerability to Drought: An Experimental Test in the Field. This experiment examined the interdependency between plant hydraulics and carbohydrate availability and sought to develop ways to incorporate interactions with below ground symbiotic organisms to better model and quantify forest response to drought. This environmental data was collected to provide context for the fungal community data and Pinus ponderosa physiological data.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data and scripts from: “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”

This data package includes data and scripts from the manuscript “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”.The study addressed common challenges faced in environmental sensing and modeling, including uncertain input data, missing sensor observations, and high-dimensional datasets with interrelated but redundant variables. Point-scaled meteorological and soil sensor observations were perturbed with noises and missing values, and denoising autoencoder (DAE) neural networks were developed to reconstruct the perturbed data and further predict evapotranspiration. This study concluded that (1) the reconstruction quality of each variable depends on its cross-correlation and alignment to the underlying data structure, (2) uncertainties from the models were overall stronger than those from the data corruption, and (3) there was a tradeoff between reducing bias and reducing variance when evaluating the uncertainty of the machine learning models.This package includes:(1) Four ipython scripts (.ipynb): “DAE_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates DAE neural networks, “DAE_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from the trained DAE models, “ET_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates ET prediction neural networks, and “ET_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from trained ET models.(2) One python file (.py): “methods.py” includes all user-defined functions and python codes used in the ipython scripts.(3) A “sub_models” folder that includes five trained DAE neural networks (in pytorch format, .pt), which could be used to ingest input data before being fed to the downstream ET models in ‘ET_train.ipynb” or ‘ET_predict.ipynb’.(4) Two data files (.csv). Daily meteorological, vegetation, and soil data is in “df_data.csv”, where “df_meta.csv” contains the location and time information of “df_data.csv”. Each row (index) in “df_meta.csv” corresponds to each row in “df_data.csv”. These data files are formatted to follow the data structure requirements and be directly used in the ipython scripts, and they have been shuffled chronologically to train machine learning models. The meteorological and soil data was collected using point sensors between 2019-2023 at(4.a) Three shrub-dominated field sites in East River, Colorado (named “ph1”, “ph2” and “sg5” in “df_meta.csv”, where “ph1” and “ph2” were located at PumpHouse Hillslopes, and “sg5” was at Snodgrass Mountain meadow) and(4.b) One outdoor, mesoscale, and herbaceous-dominated experiment in Berkeley, California (named “tb” in “df_meta.csv”, short for Smartsoils Testbed at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab).- See "df_data_dd.csv" and "df_meta_dd.csv" for variable descriptions and the Methods section for additional data processing steps. See "flmd.csv" and "README.txt" for brief file descriptions.- All ipython scripts and python files are written in and require PYTHON language software.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Machine learning snow depth predictions at sites in Alaska, Norway, Siberia, Colorado and New Mexico

Temporally continuous snow depth estimates are vital for understanding changing snow patterns in the Arctic and impacts on permafrost. We trained random forest machine learning models to predict snow depth from temperature data recorded at or just below the ground surface. Training data was collected at the Teller 27 Watershed and Kougarok 64 Hillslope during the 2021 - 2022 water year on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska using distributed temperature profiling (DTP) systems. We then applied this model to other sites where ground surface or shallow soil temperature data was available for at least one water year (see Related Datasets). Many of these temperature measurements were collocated with snow depth observations. Ground surface temperature (i.e. snow-ground interface temperature) is easy to measure using small, cheap and easy-to-deploy temperature sensors such as iButtons and TinyTags, and such measurements have previously been used to calculate a variety of snow metrics (e.g. snow onset date). However, this is the first study to estimate snow depth directly from ground surface temperature data. The present dataset contains one *.csv file which includes machine learning snow depth predictions at sites in Alaska, Norway, Siberia, Colorado, and New Mexico and one *.kml file including the locations of sites with snow depth predictions. No training data predictions are included in the *.csv file. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy’s Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Tussock tundra surface temperatures, ambient air and incoming photosynthetically active radiation measured at the NGEE Arctic Council site, 2021 - 2023

This dataset contains temperature measurements carried out along two fiber optics cables/lines (150 m each) laid out along the ground at the Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment (NGEE) Arctic site near Council, Alaska. The lines traverse an heterogeneous part of the tussock tundra site including thermokarst features and lichen dominated sections of the tundra. Measurements were done using a Sensornet Oryx DTS, a Distributed Temperature sensor that was installed in September 2021 and taken down in August 2023. The sensor was powered by solar power with data being collected every 30 minutes at 1 m resolution. In addition to these measurements air temperature and incoming photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) are provided. These measurements are co-located with the NGEE Arctic Council eddy flux and meteorological station (AmeriFlux ID US-NGC). Included are six *.csv files (four data files and two reporting format files) and two *.kml files. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

Air temperature↗
DOE OSTI2025

Ground surface temperature derived Snow Cover Properties, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019-2023

Snow-ground interface temperatures have been collected at the Teller mile marker 27 and Kougarok mile marker 64 field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska from 2019 through 2023 (with data missing from Fall 2020 through Summer 2021 due to COVID). Temperatures were measured using iButton Link DS1921G-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors and Tinytag TGP-4017 internal sensors deployed across the Kougarok 64 and Teller 27 field sites. These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snow-ground interface temperatures at a high spatial resolution, and when paired with air temperature data these measurements can provide insight into fine-scale variability in snowpack characteristics across the study sites. From this data, snow process metrics were calculated at each sensor location based on the methods outlined in Staub and Delaloye, 2017. Metrics are calculated daily for each sensor as well as over the entire season. These metrics include ground surface temperature (°C), the number of days under snow cover (number of days), the insulation effect of snow (unitless), the length of the transitional snow periods (number of days), as well as intermediaries such as temperature variability. Calculating these snow processes relies on the assumption that when snow covers a temperature sensor, it is buffered from diurnal fluctuations in air temperature by the insulating snow layer. More information on the calculated metrics can be found in the User Guide of this dataset, as well as in Staub and Delaloye’s 2017 publication Using Near-Surface Ground Temperature Data to Derive Snow Insulation and Melt Indices for Mountain Permafrost Applications. This dataset includes one daily and one seasonal *.csv file of metrics for every year of data, a daily and a seasonal *.csv data dictionary, and one User Guide document (*.pdf) describing data collection and processing.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Milone eTape Liquid Level Sensor Laboratory Calibration with a Commercial 12.2 cm HS-Flume and 3D Printed 4 cm Micro-HS-Flumes

The NGEE Arctic Rainfall Simulator (NARS) is a variable intensity rainfall simulator (RFS) with a frame design based on the Humphry et al. (2002) RFS and a water delivery system based on the Walnut Gulch (Paige et al., 2004) RFS. The NARS uses an aluminum frame that is fully deconstructable for transportation to field locations and a water system that enables variable rain intensity. Prior to field deployment, H-flume discharge and the corresponding Milone eTape Liquid Level Sensor (eTape) resistance values were measured in the laboratory so that discharge measurements from the NGEE Arctic Rainfall Simulator could be automated. eTape resistance was measured with increasing fluid heights for the full range of the eTape to calculate sensor detection limits and resolution. The eTape was calibrated to both a commercially available 12.2 cm HS-flume and a 3D printed 4 cm Micro-HS-flume. This data package contains two .csv files, one for the eTape calibration and the other for the flume calibrations, and two .stl files to 3D print the 4 cm Micro-HS-Flume design with a 1 cm x 3.6 cm stilling well opening. The .stl files can be opened in most 3D printing or CAD programs/software. Two .kml files of the laboratory location and broader area where testing was conducted are also included in this data package.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hawaii Wave Surge Energy Converter (HAWSEC) OSU O.H. Hinsdale Basin

The following information and metadata applies to both the Phase I (Hydrodynamics) and Phase II (Full System Power Take-Off) zip folders which contain testing data from the OSU (Oregon State University) O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory, from both OSU and the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH). See zip folders provided further below in the downloads section. For experimental data of the full system, including PTO, see Phase II dataset. There are two main directories in each Phases's zip folder: "OSU_data" and "UH_data". The "OSU_data" directory contains data collected from their DAQ (data acquisition system), which includes all wave gauge observations, as well as body motions derived from their Qualisys motion tracking system. The organization of the directory follows OSU's convention. Detailed information on the instrument setup can be found under "OSU_data/docs/setup/instm_locations". The experiments conducted are documented in the "OSU_data/docs/daq_logs", which provides the trial number to the corresponding data located under "OSU_data/data" in several formats (e.g., ".mat" and ".txt"). Inside the trial directory, data is provided for each of the instruments defined in "OSU_data/docs/setup/instm_locations". The "UH_data" directory contains data collected from their DAQ. The data is stored in a ".tdms" file format. There are free plug-ins for Microsoft Excel and MathWorks MATLAB to read the ".tdms" format. Below are a few links providing methods to read in the data, but a Google search should identify alternatives sources if these no longer exist (valid as of January 2024): Excel: http://www.ni.com/example/27944/en/ MATLAB: https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/30023-tdms-reader The Excel plugin is recommend to get a quick overview of the data. The UH data is organized by directory name, in which the sub-directories for each experiment contains a directory whose name defines the wave height and period for the experimental data within. For example, a directory name "H02_T0275" corresponds to an experiment with wave height 0.1m and a period of 2.75s. For random wave data, the gamma value is also included in the directory name. For example, a directory name "H02_T0225_G18" corresponds to an experiment with a significant wave height of 0.2m, a peak period of 2.25s, and a gamma value of 1.8, with each spectra being a TMA spectrum. For the free decay experiments, the directory name is defined by the initial angular displacement. For example, a directory name "ang05_run01" corresponds to an experiment with an initial angular displacement of 5 degrees. There is a dataset in the UH data for each corresponding experiment defined in the OSU DAQ logs. The ".tdms" data is output from the DAQ at fixed intervals. Therefore, if multiple files are contained within the folder, the data will need to be stitched together. Within the UH dataset, there are two input channels from the OSU DAQ providing a random square wave signal for time synchronization ("ENV-WHT-0010") and a high/low signal ("ENV-WHT-0012") to identify when the wave maker is active (+5V). The UH data is logged as a collection of channel outputs. Channels not in use for the OSU testing (either Phase I or Phase II) are marked "nan" below. If the sensor is disconnected, it will record noise throughout the experiment. Below are the channel definitions in terms of what they measure: GPS Time = time CYL-POS-0001 = position between flap and fixed reference CYL-LCA-0001 = force between flap and hydraulic cylinder REC-LPT-0001 = nan REC-HPT-0001 = nan REC-HPT-0002 = nan REC-HPT-0003 = nan HHT-HPT-0001 = pressure at exhaust ("head" only) REC-FQC-0001 = nan REC-FQC-0002 = nan HHT-FQC-0001 = flow at exhaust ("head" only) ENV-WHT-0001 = nan ENV-WHT-0002 = nan ENV-WHT-0003 = nan ENV-WHT-0010 = random signal from OSU DAQ ENV-WHT-0012 = high/low signal from OSU DAQ Also included is a calibration curve to convert the string pot data to flap pi...

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2024

NIST: Soil Respiration, Moisture, Temperature, Chemistry; and Fine Root Measurements from a Transect Through a Forest Edge, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2017-2021

This dataset contains soil respiration, moisture, temperature, and chemistry, as well as fine root measurements from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Forested Optical Reference for Evaluating Sensor Technology (FOREST) research facility at Gaithersburg, Maryland. Measurements were taken at an existing transect array that begins in a grassy meadow, crosses a sharp forest edge, then a small stream, and finally extends upwards in the interior of the forest at the top of a ridge. There are 6 different landscape positions replicated across three transects in the array. Soil respiration was measured during growing seasons in 2017-2019 (2017-06-02 to 2020-02-27). Pedons (1 m3) were isolated from surrounding tree roots using trenching and a fabric to inhibit root ingrowth. Flux measurements inside the pedons were thus assumed to represent heterotrophic only respiration in 2019, and these fluxes were paired with nearby fluxes assumed to represent total respiration. Deep vertical probes measured volumetric moisture content and temperature at the same points in the array every 10 cm in depth to either 90 cm or 120 cm total depth, at 15 minute intervals, from 2019-2021 (2019-07-09 to 2021-09-10). Soil core samples were collected from each of the array points for three different months in early- to mid-2019 (2019-03-19 to 2019-07-10), at three depths each. Soils were analyzed for gravimetric moisture content; pH; total carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus; texture; microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus; extractable dissolved organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus; extractable nitrate and ammonia; and extracellular hydrolytic enzyme activities. The fine roots were separated from the cores and segregated by plant functional type (grass or tree species) and if they were dead or alive. Fine roots were then measured for length, surface area, diameter, and dry mass. This dataset contains four data files in comma separated (*.csv) format. These data serve to deepen our understanding of root and soil processes at forest edges and in transitional zones.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗