Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “soil 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 OSTI2025

Filling the Gaps: A Bayesian Mixture Model for Imputing Missing Soil Water Content Data

ABSTRACT Soil water content (SWC) data are central to evaluating how soil moisture varies over time and space and influences critical plant and ecosystem functions, especially in water‐limited drylands. However, sensors that record SWC at high frequencies often malfunction, leading to incomplete timeseries and limiting our understanding of dryland ecosystem dynamics. We developed an analytical approach to impute missing SWC data, which we tested at six eddy flux tower sites along an elevation gradient in the southwestern United States. We impute missing data as a mixture of linearly interpolated SWC between the observed endpoints of a missing data gap and SWC simulated by an ecosystem water balance model (SOILWAT2). Within a Bayesian framework, we allowed the relative utility (mixture weight) of each component (linearly interpolated vs. SOILWAT2) to vary by depth, site and gap characteristics. We explored “fixed” weights versus “dynamic” weights that vary as a function of cumulative precipitation, average temperature, and time since the start of the gap. Both models estimated missing SWC data well ( R 2 = 0.70–0.88 vs. 0.75–0.91 for fixed vs. dynamic weights, respectively), but the utility of linearly interpolated versus SOILWAT2 values depended on site and depth. SOILWAT2 was more useful for more arid sites, shallower depths, longer and warmer gaps and gaps that received greater precipitation. Overall, the mixture model reliably gap‐fills SWC, while lending insight into processes governing SWC dynamics. This approach to impute missing data could be adapted to accommodate more than two mixture components and other types of environmental timeseries.

Ogle, Kiona [School of Informatics, Computing, and↗
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 OSTI2025

Changes in soil water content and lateral flow exert large effects on soil thermal dynamics across Alaskan landscapes

Both lateral surface and subsurface water flow affect soil moisture dynamics, yet most land surface models only solve subsurface water movement vertically. Here, we use a 3D ecosystem model that considers both land surface and subsurface hydrologic processes to simulate soil moisture, which is then used to drive a 1-D vertical soil thermal model to simulate the soil moisture effects on soil thermal dynamics in central Alaska. Our coupled model improves soil temperature (ST) estimates by 43.5% in comparison with observational data. Soil moisture has little effect on ST during the wet season (-1.5%) and a substantial influence during the dry season (60%). Spatially, water lateral flow has significant impacts on both soil moisture and ST, causing model estimates for thawed areas in the transition season to increase by ~10% in the study area. Our results highlight the importance of considering dynamical soil moisture, as well as lateral flow effects, on soil thermal dynamics in permafrost regions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2026

Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025

This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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 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 OSTI2025

TARP Identifying Critical Thresholds for Acute Response of Plants and Ecosystems to Water Stress at Walker Branch Watershed, 2002-2005

This dataset contains data from a manipulative field study aimed at identifying critical thresholds for acute response of plants and ecosystems to water stress (TARP) that took place at Walker Branch Watershed in Oak Ridge, Tennessee from 2002-2005 (2002-06-20 to 2005-12-16). The study used understory tents for the removal of 100% of the growing-season throughfall and stem flow, to provide data on the impact of acute drought on mechanisms responsible for growth and mortality of deciduous forest canopy trees representative of common plant functional types (Liriodendron and Quercus). Through three years of manipulation (2003, 2004 and 2005; pretreatment measurements in 2002) various measures of tree response to surface moisture deficits were recorded including root and leaf traits, plant nonstructural carbohydrates status, hourly sapflow, basal area, and periodic observations of foliar photosynthesis and conductance. Additionally, environmental data such as air and soil temperature, soil water content, and soil matric potential were recorded. This dataset contains data 16 files in comma-separate (*.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: 16 data dictionaries and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (*.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

basal area↗
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 OSTI2025

Evapotranspiration Partitioning Using Flux Tower Data in a Semi-Arid Ecosystem

Information about evapotranspiration (ET) and its components, that is, evaporation and transpiration, is crucial for a wide range of water and ecosystem management applications. However, partitioning ET into its two components is often challenging because of their spatiotemporal variabilities and lack of process understanding. This study developed a machine learning (ML) framework to shed light on ET processes and assess the relative importance of different drivers by incorporating hydrometeorology and biomass productivity variables. The Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) approach was applied to enhance explainability and rank the importance of ET drivers and their components. A total of 62 variables covering hydrometeorological and biomass productivity dimensions were considered from the Reynolds Creek Critical Zone Observatory (CZO) station in Idaho. The variable importance assessment identified the leading drivers individually for evaporation, transpiration and ET (soil water content for evaporation, vapour pressure deficit for transpiration and soil water content for ET). The results further highlighted the value of combining hydrometeorological and biomass productivity variables to achieve better predictability of ET processes.

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 OSTI2025

TRACER Soil Moisture Data, Guy 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 the Guy, Texas station that the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT Austin installed in the area of study during period of performance. This station produces two data files. First, the file ending with “_Soil_flagged.dat” contains mean hourly volumetric soil water content and temperature measured at 5, 10, 20 and 50 cm depths. The file ending with “_Meteoro_flagged.dat” contains 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.

precipitation↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Soil Oxygen Dynamics: A Key Mediator of Tile Drainage Impacts on Coupled Hydrological, Biogeochemical, and Crop Systems

Tile drainage removes excess water and is an essential, widely adopted management practice to enhance crop productivity in the US Midwest and throughout the world. Tile drainage has been shown to significantly change hydrological and biogeochemical cycles by lowering the water table and reducing the residence time of soil water, although examining the complex interactions and feedbacks in an integrated hydrology–biogeochemistry–crop system remains elusive. Oxygen dynamics are critical to unraveling these interactions and have been ignored or oversimplified in existing models. Understanding these impacts is essential, particularly so because tile drainage has been highlighted as an adaptation under projected wetter springs and drier summers in the changing climate in the US Midwest. We used the ecosys model that uniquely incorporates first-principle soil oxygen dynamics and crop oxygen uptake mechanisms to quantify the impacts of tile drainage on hydrological and biogeochemical cycles and crop growth in corn–soybean rotation fields. The model was validated with data from a multi-treatment, multi-year experiment in Washington, IA. The relative root mean square error (rRMSE) for the corn and soybean yield in validation is 5.66 % and 12.57 %, respectively. The Pearson coefficient (r) of the monthly tile flow during the growing season is 0.78. Plant oxygen stress turns out as an emergent property of the equilibrium between the soil oxygen supply and biological demand. The impact of tile drainage on the system is achieved through a series of coupled feedback mechanisms. The model results show that tile drainage reduces the soil water content and enhances soil oxygenation. It additionally increases the subsurface discharge and elevates inorganic nitrogen leaching, with seasonal variations influenced by climate and crop phenology. The improved aerobic condition alleviates crop oxygen stress during wet springs, thereby promoting crop root growth during the early growth stage. The development of greater root density, in turn, mitigates water stress during dry summers, leading to an overall increase in the crop yield by ∼6 %. These functions indicate the potential of tile drainage in bolstering crop resilience to climate change and the use of this modeling tool for large-scale assessments of tile drainage. The model reveals the underlying causal mechanisms that drive the agroecosystem response to drainage on the coupled hydrology, biogeochemistry, and crop system dynamics.

Modeling↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil oxygen dynamics: a key mediator of tile drainage impacts on coupled hydrological, biogeochemical, and crop systems

Tile drainage removes excess water and is an essential, widely adopted management practice to enhance crop productivity in the US Midwest and throughout the world. Tile drainage has been shown to significantly change hydrological and biogeochemical cycles by lowering the water table and reducing the residence time of soil water, although examining the complex interactions and feedbacks in an integrated hydrology–biogeochemistry–crop system remains elusive. Oxygen dynamics are critical to unraveling these interactions and have been ignored or oversimplified in existing models. Understanding these impacts is essential, particularly so because tile drainage has been highlighted as an adaptation under projected wetter springs and drier summers in the changing climate in the US Midwest. We used the ecosys model that uniquely incorporates first-principle soil oxygen dynamics and crop oxygen uptake mechanisms to quantify the impacts of tile drainage on hydrological and biogeochemical cycles and crop growth in corn–soybean rotation fields. The model was validated with data from a multi-treatment, multi-year experiment in Washington, IA. The relative root mean square error (rRMSE) for the corn and soybean yield in validation is 5.66 % and 12.57 %, respectively. The Pearson coefficient (r) of the monthly tile flow during the growing season is 0.78. Plant oxygen stress turns out as an emergent property of the equilibrium between the soil oxygen supply and biological demand. The impact of tile drainage on the system is achieved through a series of coupled feedback mechanisms. The model results show that tile drainage reduces the soil water content and enhances soil oxygenation. It additionally increases the subsurface discharge and elevates inorganic nitrogen leaching, with seasonal variations influenced by climate and crop phenology. The improved aerobic condition alleviates crop oxygen stress during wet springs, thereby promoting crop root growth during the early growth stage. The development of greater root density, in turn, mitigates water stress during dry summers, leading to an overall increase in the crop yield by ∼6 %. These functions indicate the potential of tile drainage in bolstering crop resilience to climate change and the use of this modeling tool for large-scale assessments of tile drainage. The model reveals the underlying causal mechanisms that drive the agroecosystem response to drainage on the coupled hydrology, biogeochemistry, and crop system dynamics.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

NGEE Arctic Integrated Modeling (IM2): Improved subgrid hillslope hydrologic connectivity

This data product represents the integration of new code capability for arctic tundra hillslope hydrologic processes into the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), through the E3SM Land Model (ELM) component. This code integration is the result of collaborative effort between the NGEE Arctic project and the E3SM project. The current ELM represents water movement primarily through vertical processes, such as precipitation, canopy interception, evaporation, infiltration, and soil water movement. Lateral water movement—such as surface runoff, subsurface flow, and river transport—plays a significant role in the hydrological cycle, especially in regions with varied topography. While E3SM includes a runoff routing component representing water transport in the river network, the lateral transport of water at the subgrid scale within the land model has previously not been taken into account. With the recent development of topographic units within the ELM subgrid data structure, there is an opportunity to simulate hillslope hydrologic connectivity by introducing water transport along topographic gradients. We expect that more realistic representation of hillslope hydrologic processes will lead to improved predictions of both soil water content and river network flows. Lateral transport of water at and near the surface is represented as a sub-grid process in this new code development. Water is tracked as it moves from higher to lower elevations within a gridcell. This capability uses the nested hierarchical sub-grid scheme within ELM to connect water fluxes from sub-grid elements with higher elevation to those with lower elevation. This data record consists of a single document (pdf format) that describes the theoretical basis for the hillslope hydrology processes added to ELM, and describes the modifications made to the ELM code. The Methods section of this metadata record includes a link to the public E3SM code repository where the exact code modifications as integrated in E3SM can be accessed. 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).

Thornton, Peter E [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000247595158)↗
DOE OSTI2025

DayCent MUVP model calibrated for the simulation of bioenergy crops grown on set-aside land in the US

DayCent MUVP version (Methanogenesis, UV litter degradation and Photosynthesis). DAYCENT is the daily time-step version of the CENTURY biogeochemical model (Parton et al., 1994). DAYCENT simulates fluxes of C and N among the atmosphere, vegetation, and soil (Del Grosso et al., 2001a; Parton et al., 1998). Key submodels include soil water content and temperature by layer, plant production and allocation of net primary production (NPP), decomposition of litter and soil organic matter, mineralization of nutrients, N gas emissions from nitrification and denitrification, and CH4 oxidation in non-saturated soils.

biogeochemical model↗
DOE OSTI2025

Identifying preferential flow from soil moisture time series: Review of methodologies

Abstract Identifying and quantifying preferential flow (PF) through soil—the rapid movement of water through spatially distinct pathways in the subsurface—is vital to understanding how the hydrologic cycle responds to climate, land cover, and anthropogenic changes. In recent decades, methods have been developed that use measured soil moisture time series to identify PF. Because they allow for continuous monitoring and are relatively easy to implement, these methods have become an important tool for recognizing when, where, and under what conditions PF occurs. The methods seek to identify a pattern or quantification that indicates the occurrence of PF. Most commonly, the chosen signature is either (1) a nonsequential response to infiltrated water, in which soil moisture responses do not occur in order of shallowest to deepest, or (2) a velocity criterion, in which newly infiltrated water is detected at depth earlier than is possible by nonpreferential flow processes. Alternative signatures have also been developed that have certain advantages but are less commonly utilized. Choosing among these possible signatures requires attention to their pertinent characteristics, including susceptibility to errors, possible bias toward false negatives or false positives, reliance on subjective judgments, and possible requirements for additional types of data. We review 77 studies that have applied such methods to highlight important information for readers who want to identify PF from soil moisture data and to inform those who aim to develop new methods or improve existing ones. Core Ideas Soil moisture data can be used to identify the occurrence of preferential flow (PF) and its initiating conditions. Various data‐analysis methods to identify PF differ in susceptibility to error, bias, and subjectivity. These methods can utilize vast amounts of data from soil moisture monitoring networks to develop understanding of when, where, and under what conditions PF occurs. Newly developed methods may lead to better accuracy and reliability, and reduce the need for subjective judgments. Plain Language Summary Preferential flow through soil occurs when a large amount of water is suddenly available, as during an intense storm. This type of flow moves rapidly through the soil in distinct narrow pathways rather than moving evenly throughout the body of soil, with major consequences for groundwater resources, ecosystems, spreading of contaminants, and other vital concerns. Methods of detecting preferential flow have been developed that utilize measurements of soil water content made by sensors installed at various depths. This measurement technology has been widely implemented, many locations now having datasets years in length, and various methods have been developed for using these to identify preferential flow. The various methods are based on different features in the soil moisture records and vary in their advantages and shortcomings. In this review, we explain and evaluate these methods, highlighting important information for their implementation to identify preferential flow from soil moisture data and for efforts to develop new methods or improve existing ones.

Nimmo, John R↗