Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Soil Physics”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Soil physical and chemical measurements for topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The package is part of the DOE Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA) project and includes soil physical and chemical measurements from topsoils collected at the East River, Colorado, in conjunction with the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) survey conducted in June 2018. The soil measurements include soil bulk density, soil volumetric water content, soil microbial biomass C (Carbon), N (Nitrogen) and C:N (C to N ratio), soil DNA yield, soil total extractable organic C, soil total extractable N, soil extractable nitrate, soil extractable ammonium, soil dissolved inorganic N, soil dissolved organic N, soil pH, soil TOC400 (total organic carbon at 400°C), soil ROC (residual oxidizable carbon), soil TIC (total inorganic carbon), soil TOC (total organic carbon), soil TC (total carbon), soil N, soil OM (organic matter) loss on ignition. Additional associated site metadata can be found in the ESS-DIVE package 10.15485/1618130. The dataset includes (1) 2018_NEON_soil_physical_chemical_measurements.csv: soil physical and chemical measurements indexed by soil sample IGSNs; (2) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs); (3) flmd.csv: file level metadata file; and (4) dd.csv: data dictionary file. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS (Catchment Hydrology and ↗
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 OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes from topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The Watershed Function Science Focus Area (WF SFA) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is working to build a mechanistic understanding of the distribution and dynamics of biogeochemical processes in mountainous watersheds and their response to perturbation. In June 2018, the NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) Airborne Observatory Platform (AOP) performed a taskable airborne imaging campaign to collect visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR data across 330 km2 in the Upper East River at Crested Butte, CO. We conducted a parallel ground sampling campaign to sample vegetation traits, as well as soil physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics. We collected these samples from 438 sites across 12 locations spanning much of the elevation, topographic, and geologic variability across the study area. A subset of 250 samples were used for soil metagenomics which is presented here. In addition, at each site, vegetation samples were collected to measure species-specific leaf water content and leaf mass area, foliar elemental composition and foliar CN stable isotope ratios. Soil samples were collected to measure soil physical properties which include bulk density and soil texture analysis. A suite of soil chemical properties was measured from the samples collected at each site, including pH, organic matter, concentrations exchangeable cations, total elemental composition, and the concentrations of extractable N pools (e.g. total free amino acids, ammonium, nitrate, dissolved organic N, and total dissolved N). Additionally, we have measured soil microbial biomass CN stoichiometry. Here, we present 1982 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community from topsoil collected from during NEON 2018 campaign. All metagenomes were sequenced at JGI (Joint Genome Institute) (GOLD Study ID: Gs0149986). Metagenomes were assembled using JGI Metagenome Workflow (10.1128/mSystems.00804-20). The dataset includes (1) zip files for 1982 MAG fasta files (neon_genomes1-5.tar.gz, split into 5 tarballs to keep tarballs under 0.5 GB), (2) neon_Gs0149986_samples_soilproperties_metagenomes.csv: the sample information together with the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes and the associated soil physical and chemical measurements in NMDC (National Microbiome Data Collaborative) compliant format, (3) neon_Gs0149986.kml: location bounding box file for the sampled locations, (4) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register Internationall Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), (5) flmd.csv: file level metadata file, and (6) dd.csv: data dictionary file. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

Terrestrial laser scanning data (Levels 0 and 1) from Urban Biogeochemistry Pilot Project sites, Knoxville, Tennessee, Jul 2024 - Jul 2025

This data package contains data from terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) at five urban park sites in Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. All parks include open-grown and/or closed-canopy trees and mixed nearby land use. These study sites were established as part of the Urban Biogeochemistry Pilot Project, which has an overall goal of better understanding how hydrobiogeochemical cycling is altered within the human environment. These five sites represent a gradient of urbanization, and were instrumented to understand hydrological and biogeochemical cycling (e.g., soil moisture, soil physical properties and biogeochemistry, tree transpiration, species type). The TLS data archived here were collected to provide detailed, three-dimensional information about forest structure. Specifically, data were collected to allow tree- and stand-level characterization of woody structure and leaf area. TLS scans were placed to capture the area around trees with sap flow sensors, and as much of a 50 m radius area around the meteorological station as possible given site property limits. Derived products will allow upscaling of water content and transpiration data. This data package contains the following data: - High-level files document further details of the campaign and data package: 1_CampaignSummary.csv provides details about the campaign and study site, 2_ScanAreasDetail.csv provides details about each separate scan area (groups of scans post-processed into a single point cloud), 3_TerrestrialLidarSensor.csv provides further technical details about the Riegl VZ-400i TLS sensor, TLS_CSV_dd.csv is a CSV Data Dictionary providing information about the fields in CSV files following the ESS-DIVE CSV File Formatting Guidelines Reporting Format, TLS_flmd.csv is a File Level Metadata file providing information about each file in the data package following the ESS-DIVE File Level Metadata Reporting Format, and README.txt is a text file describing the overall project and file structure. - Level 0 data are the raw data (.PROJ folders) as recorded by the Riegl VZ-400i TLS instrument before scan co-registration and post-processing with the Riegl's proprietary RiSCAN PRO software, which requires a license. - Level 1 data contain post-processed, co-registered data from each scan area. The "PointClouds" folder for each scan area contains a .las file with 1 cm resolution point cloud data exported from RiSCAN PRO. These are the main files likely to be of interest to most users and can be further processed with any software capable of manipulating .las files (e.g. Python, R CloudCompare). The "Project Information" folder contains log files from post-processing in RiSCAN PRO that may be of interest to users who want to see detailed records of post-processing, including all PDF reports generated by RiSCAN PRO. The "ScanPositions" folder contains information about the final position of all TLS scans, after post-processing, in multiple formats. The file ScanPositions_*.csv provides final geo-referenced scan positions, and the file SOP_backup_*.csv can be used in RiSCAN PRO to restore the co-registered scan positions if users wish to re-process raw data (Level 0 .PROJ folders) with RiSCAN PRO software (e.g., subsample to a different resolution, exclude a certain scan position, or apply different filters on reflectance or deviation values) without redoing time-consuming co-registration steps.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil carbon accrual and biopore formation across a plant diversity gradient

Plant diversity promotes soil organic carbon (SOC) gains through intricate changes in root-soil interactions and their subsequent influence on soil physical and biological processes. We assessed SOC and pore characteristics of soils under a range of switchgrass-based plant systems 12 years after their establishment. The systems represented a gradient of plant diversity with species richness ranging from 1 to 30 species. We focused on soil biopores as indicators of the legacy of root activity and explored biopore relationships with SOC accumulation. Biopores were measured using X-ray computed micro-tomography. Plant functional richness explained 29 % of bioporosity and 36 % of SOC variation, while bioporosity itself explained 36 % of the variation in SOC. The most diverse plant system (30 species) had the highest SOC, while long-term bare soil fallow and monoculture switchgrass had the lowest. Of particular note was a 2-species mixture of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) and ryegrass (Elymus canadensis), which exhibited the highest bioporosity and achieved SOC levels comparable to those of the systems with 6 and 10 plant species, and were inferior only to the system with 30 species. We conclude that plant diversity may enhance SOC through biopore-mediated mechanisms and suggest a potential for identifying specific plant combinations that may be particularly efficient for fostering biopore formation and, subsequently, SOC sequestration.

Kim, Kyungmin [Seoul National Univ. (Korea, Republ↗
DOE OSTI2026

Linking Plant and Microbial Traits to Soil Carbon for Reliable and Resilient Bioenergy Systems

Bioenergy systems in the United States offer a dual opportunity to supply renewable feedstocks while enhancing ecosystem services such as hydrologic regulation, erosion control, and soil carbon (C) storage. National assessments highlight the potential to grow perennial energy crops to improve soil function and ecosystem resilience. Realizing this potential requires understanding the ecological mechanisms that govern how C is added, transformed, and stabilized in soils. Plant traits determine the quantity, depth, and chemistry of organic inputs, while microbial processes—including carbon use efficiency, necromass formation, and trophic interactions—mediate their transformation and partitioning among soil carbon pools. These biological pathways are shaped by soil physical and chemical properties, including aggregation, texture, and mineralogy, and by environmental drivers such as temperature, moisture, and disturbance, leading to context-dependent outcomes across landscapes. Management practices that diversify feedstocks, minimize disturbance, and maintain soil cover can promote both biomass production and C retention, while microbial amendments and rhizosphere engineering offer emerging, but often context-dependent, tools to optimize plant–microbe interactions. Trade-offs between biomass yield and soil carbon storage may arise when systems favor rapid aboveground productivity at the expense of belowground inputs and microbial processing, underscoring the importance of trait combinations that support both functions. Advances in monitoring, reporting, and verification—spanning precision agriculture, remote sensing, and biosensing—are improving predictive capacity through microbial-explicit process models and model–experiment (ModEx) frameworks. By connecting soil, plant, and microbial processes with advances in modeling and biosensing, this review outlines research priorities focused on trait-based parameterization and ModEx integration. These priorities will support the design of bioenergy systems that are both reliable and resilient, enhancing renewable energy production and ecosystem sustainability.

bioenergy systems↗
DOE OSTI2026

Self-supervised and multi-fidelity learning for extended predictive soil spectroscopy

Infrared spectroscopy is a cost-effective, non-destructive, and environmentally benign technology that is increasingly recognized as an important solution for meeting the global demand for soil data. While both near-infrared (NIR) and mid-infrared (MIR) diffuse reflectance spectroscopy enable rapid estimation of soil properties, they present a significant trade-off: NIR offers superior scalability and lower operational costs, whereas MIR provides higher analytical fidelity by capturing fundamental molecular vibrations. In this study, we propose a self-supervised, multi-fidelity learning framework designed to bridge this gap. Our approach leverages large-scale MIR spectral libraries to learn a compact, transferable latent representation, into which NIR spectra are subsequently aligned for downstream prediction. The workflow consists of pretraining a latent model on a large MIR library, adapting the representation using a smaller paired NIR–MIR dataset, and evaluating generalization on an independent external test set. Across a range of chemical and physical soil properties, we found that MIR-derived embeddings improved prediction accuracy relative to baseline models that used raw MIR inputs. Predictions derived from the spectrum conversion (NIR to MIR) task did not match the performance of the original MIR spectra but were similar or superior to predictive performance of NIR-only models, suggesting the unified spectral latent space can effectively leverage the larger and more diverse MIR dataset for prediction of soil properties not well represented in current NIR libraries.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Rod et al., "Alternating salt and freshwater floods of coastal soils impact soil structure, hydraulic properties, and oxygen dynamics"

This dataset includes laboratory experiment data on soil structure, hydraulic properties, and oxygen dynamics associated with Rod et al. 2026 https://doi.org/10.1002/vzj2.70073. There are six data files from a lab-based flood simulation of either freshwater (FW) or alternating brackish saltwater (SW) and FW using soil cores from a coastal forest at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. For soil information please see the Location section of the metadata. Files include: CO2, surface chemistry, water retention, dissolved oxygen, and soil specific surface area. Each file is in CSV format and can be opened/read with any plain text tabular file reader (Microsoft Excel, R, etc.). Purpose of Experiment: To investigate how hydrologic intensification affects soil structure and oxygen dynamics, we conducted a series of laboratory-based flood simulations. After three SW-FW floods (6 floods total) there were significant changes in pore size distribution, significant redistribution of colloids, and the A-horizon became sodic. We concluded that a small number of SW flooding events can induce a measurable change in soil physical properties that directly impacts the biogeochemical dynamics.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Alternating salt and freshwater floods of coastal soils impact soil structure, hydraulic properties, and oxygen dynamics

Coastal soils are increasingly impacted by hydrologic intensification in the form of rising sea level and flooding from storm surges and precipitation. Alternating saltwater (SW) and freshwater (FW) exposure has the potential to disperse colloids, which can lead to disintegration of soil structure, clogging of pore spaces, and reduction in ecologically and biogeochemically important functions like infiltration or gas exchange. To investigate how hydrologic intensification affects soil structure and oxygen dynamics, we conducted a series of laboratory-based flood simulations. Intact soil cores of the A and B horizons (22 total) from the toe slope of an upland coastal forest along the western shore of Chesapeake Bay. We subjected the cores to 24 h of saturation with either FW or alternating brackish SW and FW, with a 24-h draining event in between flood events. Oxygen diffusion into soil during draining was reduced by up to 30% for soils flooded alternating SW-FW compared to soils flooded only with FW. We attributed the reduced oxygen diffusion to clogging of smaller pores by colloids, with colloid redistribution observed as an increase in specific surface area down the core profile of up to 59%. After three SW-FW floods (six floods total), there were significant changes in pore size distribution, significant redistribution of colloids, and the A horizon became sodic. We concluded that a small number of SW flooding events can induce a measurable change in soil physical properties that directly impacts the biogeochemical dynamics.

Rod, Kenton A. [Pacific Northwest National Laborat↗
DOE OSTI2025

A rheological model for loose sands with insights from DEM

A rheological model for loose granular media is developed to capture both solid-like and fluid-like responses during shearing. The proposed model is built by following the mathematical structure of an extended Kelvin–Voigt model, where an elastic spring and plastic slider act in parallel to a viscous damper. This arrangement requires the partition of the total stress into rate-independent and rate-dependent stress components. To model the solid-like behavior, a simple frictional plasticity model is adopted without modifications, thus contributing to the rate-independent stress. Instead, the fluid-like or rate-dependent stress is further decomposed into deviatoric and volumetric parts, by proposing a new formulation based on a combination of the μ(I) relation, originally developed under pressure-controlled shear, with a pressure-shear rate relation derived under volume-controlled shear. The proposed formulation allows the model to capture both the increase in the friction coefficient and the enhanced dilation at high shear rates. High-fidelity simulation data, obtained from discrete element method and multiscale modelling, are used to evaluate the performance of the proposed constitutive model. The model provides accurate results under both drained and undrained simple shear paths across a wide range of shear rates. Furthermore, it successfully reproduces at much lower computational cost the flowslide mobility computed through multiscale simulations, which is primarily regulated by the shear rate dependence of the material properties during the dynamic runout stage.

Elasticity↗
DOE OSTI2025

Root size and soil physicochemical properties drive microscale spatial patterns of Fe and As retention in the rice rhizosphere

Background and Aims: Radial oxygen loss from rice roots in flooded soils oxidizes and precipitates dissolved Fe(II), Mn(II), and As(III) into mixed Fe(III), Mn(III/IV), and As(V) as root plaque and in the rhizosphere soil. It is unknown how different soils and root sizes impact the spatial extent of Fe and As retention outside the root. Methods: We imaged cross-sections of 90 roots from 6 different soils using synchrotron μXRF imaging followed by k-means clustering and elliptical averaging to distinguish bulk soil, rhizosphere, plaque, and roots based on As and Fe patterns. Results: We found preferential As retention in the plaque and rhizospheres of most roots except small (< 0.45 mm) roots in silty soils with low P or high As. In contrast, clayey soils had similar As-Fe correlations across plaque, rhizosphere, and bulk soil. Large (> 0.45 mm) roots often had no oxidized rhizosphere region. We obtained an extensive dataset of 256 As and 155 Mn synchrotron μXANES measurements, which revealed that rhizosphere and plaque As was mainly inorganic As(V) and As(III), and Mn oxidation state varied between soils but not between belowground locations. Conclusion: Small roots in coarse-textured soils were less likely to have As retention in the plaque or rhizosphere compared to large roots and fine-textured soils. Furthermore, the unique and extensive data in this study provides new insight into soil and root size impacts on As retention in the rhizosphere. It is essential to investigate a representative number of samples to draw conclusions from XRF imaging.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

While legume-based rotation influences the chemical composition of mineral-associated organic matter, tillage has little effect on its persistence

Legume-based rotations are key to enhancing soil carbon (C) storage in stable forms such as mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM), improving soil health, and helping maintain long-term C stock. This study investigates how plant inputs and tillage practices influence the distribution, composition, and persistence of MAOM in wheat cropping systems when legumes are incorporated into the rotation. Soil samples were collected from Walla Walla silty loam of northeast Oregon, including conventional tillage (CT) and no-till (NT) treatments in a long-term dryland winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and spring pea (Pisum sativum L.) rotation experiment, with an adjacent grass pasture (GP) plot serving as the baseline. Bulk soil, particulate organic matter (POM), and MAOM fractions were scanned using mid-infrared (Mid-IR) spectroscopy and analyzed for total C and nitrogen (N) as well as radiocarbon age, aggregate stability, and mineralizable C. In WP systems, NT promoted greater C accumulation and stabilization in MAOM than CT, reaching levels similar to those under native GP conditions. Furthermore, our findings indicate that decades of continuous legume-based rotation were insufficient to restore total bulk C content to levels observed in the undisturbed reference site (GP) in the 0–30 cm layer, with increases limited to the surface layer. The Mid-IR data provided insights into how cultivation may alter the chemical composition of MAOM. An increase in amide bands was observed in GP, while legume-based rotation systems favored an abundance of aliphatic (C-H) components in the MAOM fraction. In cultivated soils, C in MAOM exhibited longer residence times under arable conditions than in grassland, while POM remained an actively cycled pool across all treatments. Despite variations in the chemical composition of MAOM across treatments, mineralizable C emissions from MAOM fractions remained statistically unchanged during the 96-hour incubation period. Our findings suggest that soil physical protection, enhanced by reduced tillage, is the primary factor influencing MAOM cycling.

Carbon stabilization↗
DOE OSTI2026

Assessing the Effect of a Deep‐Rooted Grass on Belowground Carbon Storage in Cultivated Land: Insights From a Multi‐Site US Study

Agriculture depletes soil organic carbon (SOC), partly due to the exclusion of deep-rooted perennials. Reintroducing deep-rooted perennials to cultivated land may help to mitigate SOC loss. We quantified the effect of deep roots on SOC by comparing 8 to 30 year-old stands of switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L .) with paired annual row crop fields at 12 sites across the central and eastern USA. We hypothesized that switchgrass would store more root C and SOC than neighboring shallow-rooted annual crops, and that these effects would extend deeper than 30 cm. We also evaluated whether switchgrass stimulates decomposition of SOC at depth using radiocarbon ( 14 C). Finally, we explored whether the effect of switchgrass on SOC is moderated by soil chemical and physical properties. While the effect of switchgrass on SOC in the surface 100 cm was positive at most sites, the average effect was not statistically significant (difference in SOC = 0.6 kg C m −2 [95% CI −0.8 to +1.9 kg C m −2 ]). By contrast, we found that root C was consistently more abundant under switchgrass, yielding an estimated additional 0.6 kg C m −2 in the surface 100 cm of soil [95% CI +0.5 to +0.7 kg C m −2 ]. 14 C measurements suggested that root C inputs were adding to existing SOC without stimulating decomposition. The effect of switchgrass on belowground C was not strongly related to any of the soil properties that we evaluated. Our observations show that root C can contribute substantially to belowground C stocks when deep-rooted perennials replace shallow-rooted crops.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Deep State Space Model for Rainfall‐Runoff Simulations

The classical way of studying the rainfall‐runoff processes in the water cycle relies on conceptual or physically‐based hydrologic models. Deep learning (DL) has recently emerged as an alternative and blossomed in the hydrology community for rainfall‐runoff simulations. However, the decades‐old Long Short‐Term Memory (LSTM) network remains the benchmark for this task, outperforming newer architectures like Transformers. In this work, we propose a State Space Model (SSM), specifically the Frequency Tuned Diagonal State Space Sequence (S4D‐FT) model, for rainfall‐runoff simulations. The proposed S4D‐FT is benchmarked against the established LSTM and a physically‐based Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model under in‐sample and out‐of‐sample simulation setups across 531 watersheds in the contiguous United States (CONUS). Results show that S4D‐FT is able to outperform the LSTM model across diverse regions under both simulation setups, especially for regions that feature snowmelt‐driven or intermittent flow regimes. In contrast, S4D‐FT tends to underperform in flashier, high‐magnitude flow regimes, likely due to its global state‐space convolution computation that emphasizes slow, storage‐driven dynamics, which makes it less effective at picking up short bursts and noisy spikes in the data. In summary, our pioneering introduction of the S4D‐FT for rainfall‐runoff simulations challenges the dominance of LSTM in the hydrology community and expands the arsenal of DL tools available for hydrological modeling.

Wang, Yihan [Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK (United↗
DOE OSTI2025

Microbial O 2 consumption as a function of pore structure in soils of sorghum, switchgrass, and prairie vegetation systems

Abstract Microscale O 2 availability in soil, a main factor influencing microbial processing of soil carbon and nitrogen, is a function of O 2 diffusion and microbial O 2 consumption. While O 2 diffusivity is widely studied, it is difficult to quantify the rate of microbial O 2 consumption ( MO ). In this study, we quantified the MO using O 2 microsensor profiling to compare MO in different soils and vegetation systems while manipulating the soil pore structure. Soil samples were collected from three bioenergy vegetation systems, sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L. Moench), switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L.), and prairie, at an experimental site in Southeast Michigan, and from switchgrass and prairie systems at two sites in South and North Wisconsin. We prepared soil cores with two contrasting pore structures, that is, large (>30 µm Ø) pore‐dominated soil (LP) and small (<10 µm Ø) pore‐dominated soil (SP), from the same 1‐ to 2‐mm soil size fraction. We quantified MO (nmol O 2 cm −3 s −1 ) using a microprofiler with an oxygen (OX‐100 µm) microsensor (Unisense) pre‐ and post‐38‐day incubation. Across all studied systems, there was a trend for a decrease in SP MO post‐incubation, suggesting a change in microbial metabolism to lower O 2 utilization. However, sizeable microbial O 2 consumption continued in the LP soils, further corroborated by a positive correlation between the C‐CO 2 emission rate and the post‐incubation MO , highlighting that LP provided a better physical microenvironment for the soil microbes.

Chakraborty, Poulamee [Department of Plant Soil an↗
DOE OSTI2025

Root genetics in the field to understand drought adaptation and carbon sequestration (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

For all crop plants, roots play a critical role in growth. Roots anchor the plants, and are the primary site of nutrient and water uptake. Roots are also the main source of C to soil in the form of root tissues and exudates, and thus greatly influence SOM stocks. To perform these functions, primary roots extend into soil, producing a network of branching roots of characteristic form, known as its root system architecture (RSA). RSA varies among species, and among varieties within a species that are adapted to different environments. Root traits are major targets for the second green revolution because of their potential to improve crop productivity, increase drought tolerance and nutrient acquisition, and increase C capture of soil. Improving the quality of roots in maize will be particularly valuable, since this crop is planted on over 92 million acres annually in the US. The future sustainability of agricultural systems relies on their ability to enhance soil organic matter (SOM) storage and reduce GHG emissions, while maintaining or enhancing productivity. This program had two components, Sensors and Models. For the first component, we designed and built a high-throughput phenotyping platform for root pulling of maize plants. This eliminated the physical labor of manually pulling up plants and reduced the number of personnel required down to one. The standardized pulling mechanism allowed recording force curves during the pulling process, providing additional information. We validated that the maximum force for pulling the root system was well-correlated with the root system mass and provided root crowns for further RSA analysis. These root crowns identified significant correlations with 2D root area and root depth, along with 3D root volume, total root length and number of root tips. We then used this system for field-based studies in maize on the genetics of root system architecture and its relation to nitrogen-use efficiency (NUE), including using lines relevant to the Corteva breeding program. Varieties were also evaluated at Corteva sites in the cornbelt and Danforth farm in Missouri, to establish responses across sites. From these studies we have identified genetic loci associated with root traits and created mutant lines for these loci and correlations of root traits with NUE. For the Models component, we worked to incorporate root and soil characteristics into the MEMS 2.0 soil and ecosystem biogeochemical model. Existing soil C models, such as Century, are unable to represent specific root trait interactions with the soil environment and therefore to accurately forecast the potential C sequestration benefits of root breeding under different climatic and soil type conditions. We have developed the MEMS 2.0 ecosystem biogeochemical model to improve quantification of farm-scale soil carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. The new knowledge and large datasets produced by this project will be used to develop and drive an innovative model capable of forecasting the impacts on soil C stocks and nutrient dynamics. An innovation was to use the empirical data from the field studies (in 1, above) to model genetic variation in nitrogen use efficiencies and soil C input. Our work demonstrated that maize root-derived C rapidly replaces existing soil C and after 3 years of continuous maize, up to 20% of soil organic C in the topsoil (0-15cm) and 3% in the subsoil (15-30cm) was contributed by maize. However, this contribution did not entirely represent a net increase. Root C contribution to soil was affected by maize genetics. We have analyzed soils derived from the CSU field trials for C and N stocks, in the different soil physical fractions represented by the MEMS model, using both physical fractionation with elemental analyses, and Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy. Data will be used to link crop nitrogen use efficiencies with soil C sequestration and provide data to bridge the field trials with the model development, for verification of model predictions. The project had a number of successful outcomes: we have used the new phenotyping platform to identify new genetic loci that can enhance root phenotypes; we have partnered with multiple maize seed companies phenotype varieties in their breeding programs; we have developed the MEMS model that can help inform industry on the potential for carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector, and which is now available at the CSU Soil Carbon Solutions Center for use.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗