Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Volumetric water content”

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

SPRUCE Soil Volumetric Water Content in Experimental Plots, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, 2017-2025

This dataset contains soil volumetric water content (VWC) measurements from the Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments (SPRUCE) Experiment. Measurements were made inside SPRUCE experimental plots in the S1 Bog at the US Forest Service Marcell Experimental Forest in northern Minnesota, USA from 2018-2025 (2018-06-14 to 2025-12-31). Observations were made with METER 10HS soil moisture sensors. To reduce bulk density related variability, 10HS sensors were placed inside mesh tubes filled with peat at a standard bulk density. The observations under standard bulk density represent relative differences in water content between hummock and hollow positions, and in response to experimental treatments. Productivity of peatlands, and their keystone species sphagnum, are highly dependent on water availability, which is affected by lateral inputs, precipitation, ground water depth and evapotranspiration. Knowledge of near surface and sphagnum water content is useful to understand peatland function. This dataset contains 8 data files in comma-separate values (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma-separate values (*.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

Warren, Jeffrey [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000206804697)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Geochemistry, volumetric water content, and active layer depths from rainfall simulations at the Kougarok Fire Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2022

Rainfall frequency and intensity is expected to increase in the Arctic, with potential implications for permafrost thaw and geochemical fluxes in soils. To conduct controlled rainfall experiments at remote field sites in the Arctic, the Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments Arctic Rainfall Simulator (NARS) was developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory as part of the NGEE Arctic project. To better understand how rainfall may affect interflow biogeochemistry and permafrost thaw, rainfall simulations were performed on the Seward Peninsula of Alaska during late September and early October 2022 at the Kougarok Fire Site near mile marker 86 of the Nome-Taylor Highway. Water samples were collected before, during, and after rainfall simulations until interflow had ceased. Additional data collected included soil pore water samples from macrorhizons, active layer depths, and volumetric water content at each of the experimental plots. This dataset contains one *.csv file of water sample properties, one *.csv file of thaw depths, one *.csv file of soil moisture measurements, and one *.kml file of the locations where samples were collected.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 OSTI2021

Effect of Biochar and Biochar Particle Size on Plant-Available Water of Sand, Silt Loam, and Clay Soil

Biochar is being used as a soil amendment to improve soil hydraulic properties. It has been reported that biochar increases plant-available water, particularly in coarse-textured soils; however, effects on fine-textured soils are less pronounced. Here, we quantified the effects of biochar particle size on plant-available water in sand, silt loam, and clay soils. We amended these soils with a hydrophilic biochar, and packed soil-biochar mixtures into columns of 5.35-cm diameter and 3.0-cm height. Biochar was produced by gasification of woody forest residues. We applied the biochar at two different rates (0.5\% and 2\% by weight of C) and with four different biochar particle-size fractions ($<$4.75, $<$2.0, $<$1.0 and $<$0.5 mm). Our results show that biochar amendments increased the plant-available water (when expressed gravimetrically) of all three soils, particularly at the highest biochar application rate. Although the absolute increase in plant-available water was largest for the silt loam soil, the relative increase of plant-available water was greater for the sand than for the silt loam and clay. When expressed in volumetric terms, however, the effects on water retention were less pronounced: the sand showed a small increase in plant-available water with biochar amendment, and no change was observed with the silt loam and clay. Particle size of biochar had little effect on plant-available water (when expressed in gravimetric terms) in the three soils, but silt loam and clay showed increased plant-available water (when expressed in volumetric terms) with decreasing biochar particle size, while no effect was observed for the sand. While our findings corroborate many of the previously reported effects of biochar on soil-water retention, we show that the effects and their magnitude depend on whether the results are reported in terms of gravimetric or volumetric water contents. Because bulk density tends to decrease with increasing biochar application, so will the volumetric water content, and thus the magnitude of the effect on plant-available water will be smaller when expressed in volumetric water content.

hydraulic properties, water holding capacity, soil↗
DOE OSTI2025

Observed and Imputed Volumetric Soil Water Content Timeseries for the New Mexico Elevation Gradient

Reliable soil water content (SWC) data are essential for understanding dryland ecosystem dynamics, but high-frequency SWC sensors often fail, creating gaps in critical datasets. To address this, we developed a Bayesian mixture model that imputes missing SWC using both linear interpolation and an ecosystem water balance model (SOILWAT2), tested across six AmeriFlux eddy covariance tower sites in the New Mexico Elevation Gradient, demonstrating its effectiveness in reconstructing SWC patterns while providing insights into the factors driving SWC variability. Daily volumetric soil water content (SWC) data are provided as csv-formatted spreadsheets for the six AmeriFlux sites (US-Seg, US-Ses, US-Wjs, US-Mpi, US-Vcp, and US-Vcs). For each site there is an observed SWC file (site_SWC_gapfill.csv) and a file that contains imputed SWC (imputed_SWC_site.csv). The observed SWC files contain temperature corrected sensor values, tower precipitation data, as well as outputs from SOILWAT2 simulations that were used to impute SWC. The imputed files contain the original observed SWC values and the imputed missing SWC values. When SWC was missing from the original data, the missing value was imputed based on the Bayesian imputation mixture model. The posterior mean of all imputed values is reported as "mean_X". When the observed SWC was NOT missing, mean_X = observed SWC value (original data). The standard deviation, 2.5th percentile and the 97.5th percentile for the imputed values are also reported in the imputed files. There are readme text files for each file type explaining the contents of each column.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soil bulk density and texture data collected during field survey associated with NEON AOP survey, East River, CO 2018

The purpose of soil core sampling was to determine soil bulk density, volumetric water content, and soil texture across the sites that were sampled in association with the National Ecological Observatory Network's Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP) in 2018. Soil cores were collected from surface (2.5-7.5 cm) and subsurface (50-55cm) depths at sampling sites across East River, Washington Gulch, Slate River, and Coal Creek watersheds in Gunnison, Colorado during the summer of 2018. Surface samples were weighed for determination of soil water content prior to dry down for bulk density calculations. For all samples, we measured dry weight and weight of < 2mm fraction and conducted soil textural analysis. We provide metadata for the samples, raw data files, python code that was used to calculate bulk density, water content, and texture fraction densities from primary datasets, and a final csv file with the calculated soil bulk density, volumetric water content, and soil texture data. Additional associated site metadata and vegetation fractional cover information can be found in the associated data release.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil Moisture Data for TRACER project (Houston, TX)

The purpose of this study was to collect and distribute ground-truth soil water content and meteorological data in the Houston, TX, area, supporting the Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility, and the 2022 field campaign for the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions ExpeRiment (TRACER). The files herein contain soil water content and meteorological data for three stations that the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT Austin installed in the Houston, TX, area during the period of performance. The data includes soil moisture, volumetric water content, electrical conductivity of soil, soil temperature, rain precipitation, air temperature and other parameters. Data files within this data set contain measurements at both sub-hourly and 1-hour resolution measurements. The sub-hourly meteorological data file names end with “TRACER_SubHourly_met.dat”, and the sub-hourly soil data files end with “TRACER_SubHourly_soil.dat”. For the 1-hour resolution data, the files ending with "_Soil_flagged.dat” contain mean hourly volumetric soil water content and temperature measured at 5, 10, 20 and 50 cm depths. The files ending with “_Meteoro_flagged.dat” contain mean hourly measured precipitation, air temperature and humidity, wind speed and direction, and solar radiation. All data have undergone QA/QC procedures that are described by Caldwell et al. (2019) and Dorigo et al. (2013) for the soil-specific data, and EPA (2008) for the meteorological data.

Air temperature↗
DOE OSTI2020

Time-domain reflectometer survey across the East River Watershed, Colorado

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) collected near-surface point-measurements of soil temperature (file variable TDR_T(C)), volumetric water content (file variable TDR_SM(VWC%)), and soil electrical conductivity (file variable TDR_EC(mS/m)) using a time-domain reflectometer (TDR) at a depth of 25 cm. The survey aimed to characterize the spatial heterogeneity of near-surface hydrological properties at the hillslope scale considering sites with different aspects and elevation within the watershed. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. These data were collected in early July 2019 over four hillslope sites: Pumphouse (north-east facing slope), Bradley (west and east-facing slopes), and Snodgrass (east-facing slope) within the East River watershed. Part of this survey was used to investigate soil-plant interactions at the hillslope scale in Jashvina et al. 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

SPRUCE: Carbon Dioxide and Methane Soil Flux Measurements at High Temporal Resolution, Beginning in 2022

This data set contains high temporal resolution measurements of greenhouse gas flux (CO2 and CH4) from the SPRUCE (Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments) experiment (Hanson et al. 2017) over the growing seasons in 2022 (30-minute resolution) and 2023 (15-minute resolution). Additional data will be appended to this dataset periodically until the close out of the SPRUCE experiment in 2025. This dataset contains two data files in comma-separate (*.csv) format. ABB GLA131-GGA CO2/CH4 gas analyzers, each paired with an Eosense eosMX multiplexer and 2 eosAC-LT automated flux chambers, were deployed from during the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons (2022-06-06 – 2023-10-26). Each SPRUCE experimental enclosure included two Eosense 50 cm diameter flux chambers with 40 cm tall stainless steel collars embedded approximately 15 cm into the peat soil, to measure soil gas flux of peatland ecosystem moss-shrub communities. . Measurements were taken for three minutes, alternating between the flux chambers, with each Eosense flux chamber sampling gas fluxes four times per hour in 2023 and twice per hour for 2022. In addition, time-series environmental data measured at the flux chamber are included: Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), soil temperature, soil volumetric water content (at 10 cm depth), air temperature, soil temperature (0-200 cm depth), and volumetric water at 20 cm depth.

Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Envir↗
DOE OSTI2026

Automated point dendrometer, soil moisture and temperature, and meteorological variables datasets, Oct 2024 – Nov 2025, G.A. Pearson Natural Area, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

This data package includes parsed, cleaned, and calibrated data from 48 TOMST automated point dendrometers, 48 TOMST 15 cm soil moisture sensors, and 12 TOMST 30 cm soil moisture sensors. The point dendrometers were cleaned with the “dendRoAnalyst” package in RStudio. The soil sensors were cleaned and calibrated for volumetric water content (VWC) with the “myClim” package in RStudio using the soil texture of the site (sandy clay loam). Additionally, this data package also includes raw data from 2 METER weather stations. Dendrometers and soil sensors have both their sensor ID, as well as the ID for the specific tree they were instrumented on at the G.A. Pearson Natural Area (GPNA) site and their experimental group. The purpose of these data is to understand how ponderosa pine trees in restored (thinned and burned) vs. unrestored (no treatment) areas are responding to drought and seasonal precipitation. These data use radial growth and soil moisture data to answer the following question: how are active season length, growth on different time scales (weekly, monthly, seasonally, and annually), growth during dry periods and after precipitation events, and environmental and biological drivers of radial growth different between restored versus unrestored areas?

Air temperature↗
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

SPRUCE Whole Ecosystem Warming (WEW) Environmental Data and Water Table Summaries, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, 2015-2024

This data set contains observations of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), precipitation, soil temperature, soil volumetric water content, air temperature, relative humidity, and normalized water table depth that are summarized on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis for each of the SPRUCE plots. Observations span 2015-2024. This dataset draws on several datasets (Hanson et al. 2016; Hanson et al. 2020; and Warren, unpublished data) and compiles these environmental observations into useful formats for data analysis. These environmental metrics can be used to understand the environmental conditions inside SPRUCE environmental chambers throughout the durations of the experiment and can be paired with other data for modeling and analysis. R code used to generate these files is provided as part of the data package. This dataset contains four data files in comma separate (.csv) format and a compressed folder (*.zip) containing three R (*.r) scripts. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format. User note: Users must cite the original dataset/s along with this dataset when publishing any analyses using this dataset. Details on the dataset used to compile each variable are available in the header row of the files and in the user guide.

air temperature↗
DOE OSTI2022

Spatially Averaged Ice Contents of Ice-Wedge Polygon Cross-Sections to 3-m Depth, July 2013, Utqiagvik, Alaska

This dataset contains spatially averaged estimates of ice content (volume percent) for two-dimensional cross-sectional profiles (from trough center to trough center to a depth of 3 meters) of low- and flat-centered ice-wedge polygons (three of each type) located near Utqiagvik, Alaska. A combination of soil pits, trenches, and cores were used to describe, sample, and map the cross-section stratigraphy of soil horizons and ice wedges for each polygon at 6 depth intervals. Observed soil horizons were assigned to four types with increasing amounts of organic components (mineral, mineral/organic, organic/mineral, and organic). The average ice contents of each soil horizon type below the permafrost boundary and wedge ice were weighted by their cross-sectional area fractions to calculate spatially averaged estimates of ice content for each polygon. In the active layer, spatially averaged estimates of volumetric water contents were similarly determined and reported here as “ice” content to enable estimates of the soil’s structurally competent porosity and excess ice in permafrost layers. In this dataset, the file AK13_ice_contents.csv includes cross-sectional area fractions and spatially averaged ice contents for soil layers and horizon types at the six depth intervals. The file AK13_permafrost_ice_fractions.csv contains the calculated partitioning of ice contents into pore ice and excess ice fractions for the three permafrost-dominated depth intervals. In addition, there is a data dictionary file for each of these data files and a file-level metadata file. These data were generated by the Department of Energy’s Soil Carbon Response to Environmental Change Scientific Focus Area and were used as inputs to model simulations examining the consequences of thaw-affected subsidence and microtopography change on active layer thickness of low-relief polygonal tundra landscapes in a warming Arctic.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Dataset for Cruz-O'Byrne et al (2026): "Divergent biogeochemical responses in upland coastal forest soils to repeated flooding and shifts in water chemistry"

Hydrologic disturbances from accelerated sea-level rise and the increasing frequency and intensity of storms and tidal flooding are altering biogeochemical processes in upland coastal forests, transforming these ecosystems into wetlands. However, the initial effects of flooding on belowground biogeochemistry and the mechanisms driving greenhouse gas dynamics and soil organic matter stability during the early stages of this transition remain poorly understood. This dataset presents the results of a mesocosm experiment conducted in a controlled, highly instrumented laboratory environment, in which freshwater and brackish water pulses were applied to intact soil monoliths from a temperate upland coastal forest to examine how floodwater chemistry influences soil biogeochemistry and organo-mineral interactions. All data files are plain-text CSV (comma-separated value), and no special software is required to read them. Details about the content of each file are available in the document “Dataset_readme”. The dataset consists of the following data: • rcruzobyrne_moisture: Soil volumetric water content (VWC) • rcruzobyrne_GHG: Headspace greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration and fluxes • rcruzobyrne_methane_isotopes: Headspace methane isotope signature • rcruzobyrne_porewater: Porewater chemistry • rcruzobyrne_CDOM: Porewater colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) • rcruzobyrne_FTIR: Soil Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy Details of the experimental setup, data collection, and data analysis are provided in the manuscript by Cruz-O’Byrne et al (2026) Divergent biogeochemical responses in upland coastal forest soils to repeated flooding and shifts in water chemistry. Biogeochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-026-01340-0

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > GREENHOUSE GAS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Solution‐Like Water Transport Across Molecular to Macroscopic Length Scales in Crosslinked Poly(Ethylene Glycol Diacrylate) Networks With Tailored Sidechains

Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG)‐based materials, like PEG‐diacrylate (PEGDA), are prized for their hydrophilic, inert properties, and leveraged in hydrogels and as membrane mimics. While network chemistry is often tuned for selective transport and antifouling, fundamental understanding of water dynamics at the network surface and the impact on bulk transport is limited. We utilize Overhauser dynamic nuclear polarization (ODNP) to measure nanoscale water diffusivity near a tethered spin label at the water‐polymer surface and compare it to bulk water diffusivity from pulsed field gradient (PFG) NMR. Via active ester chemistry, spin labels and varied sidechain chemistries are introduced, modulating network hydrophilicity. Tuning network hydration through crosslinker content and functional groups further impacts water diffusivity. Results show rapid nanoscale water transport at the polymer surface, reflecting network volumetric water content, with further modulation by sidechain functionality. These findings demonstrate PEGDA's utility as a membrane mimic and the critical impact of network chemistry on water transport.

hydrogels↗
DOE OSTI2021

Active layer thickness as a function of soil water content

Active layer thickness (ALT) is a critical metric for monitoring permafrost. How soil moisture influences ALT depends on two competing hypotheses: (a) increased soil moisture increases the latent heat of fusion for thaw, resulting in shallower active layers, and (b) increased soil moisture increases soil thermal conductivity, resulting in deeper active layers. To investigate their relative influence on thaw depth, we analyzed the Field Measurements of Soil Moisture and Active Layer Thickness (SMALT) in Alaska and Canada dataset, consisting of thousands of measurements of thaw depth and soil moisture collected at dozens of sites across Alaska and Canada as part of NASA’s Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE). As bulk volumetric water content (VWC) integrated over the entire active layer increases, ALT decreases, supporting the latent heat hypothesis. However, as VWC in the top 12 cm of soil increases, ALT increases, supporting the thermal conductivity hypothesis. Regional temperature variations determine the baseline thaw depth while precipitation may influence the sensitivity of ALT to changes in VWC. Soil latent heat dominates over thermal conductivity in determining ALT, and the effect of bulk VWC on ALT appears consistent across sites.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗