Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “soil water potential”

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 OSTI2021

Soil Water Potentials (1990-2018) from a calibrated ELM-FATES, and rooting depth analyses scripts, PA-BCI, Panama

This dataset has ELM-FATES simulation outputs and scripts that accompany and reproduce the manuscript, Chitra-Tarak et al. (2021) Hydraulically-vulnerable trees survive on deep-water access during droughts in a tropical forest. New Phytologist. https: //doi.org/10.1111/nph.17464”. This dataset is organized into four parts: (1) source code for the model, Energy Exascale Earth System Land Model-Functionally Assembled Advanced Terrestrial simulator (ELM-FATES) (2) R scripts associated with ELM-FATES simulations: to prepare files for parameter ensemble simulation runs, calibrate the model with observed hydrological fluxes observed at BCI, re-run the model with tuned parameters and obtain long-term soil matric potentials by depth (3) ELM-FATES hydrological simulation outputs at PA-BCI, Panama (1990-2018, daily), and (4) R scripts for inverse rooting depth modeling and post-processing: prepare datasets and inversely model tree rooting depths at BCI, test hypotheses about the relationship of rooting depths with plant hydraulic traits and drought-induced mortality, and reproduce the manuscript itself. n.b. 1. Data needed to run R scripts in (2) and (4) and thus to reproduce the manuscript are sourced from various public datasets. Refer to the data availability section of the accompanying manuscript. 2. This dataset version (prepared on May 12, 2021) matches the revised and published version of the accompanying manuscript (published May 16, 2021) replacing a previous version. In the publication, this dataset is cited as follows: Chitra-Tarak R, Xu C, Aguilar S, Anderson-Teixeira K, Chambers J, Detto M, Faybishenko B, Fisher R, Knox R, Koven C et al. 2020. Soil water potentials (1990–2018) from a calibrated ELM-FATES, and rooting depth analyses scripts, PA-BCI, Panama. 2.0. NGEE Tropics Data Collection. doi: 10.15486/ngt/1696806

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Quantifying the drivers of ecosystem fluxes and water potential across the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum in an arid woodland

Dryland ecosystems occupy a vast swath of the terrestrial land surface and exert a sizeable impact on the cycling of carbon and water globally. These biomes are characterized by tightly coupled carbon and water cycles that respond rapidly to transient pulses in water availability. However, there exist many mechanistic uncertainties regarding the environmental drivers of, and linkages between, plant and ecosystem processes. Thus, drylands are often poorly represented in many vegetation and land surface models. An enhanced understanding of dryland ecosystem function is limited by the lack of long-term, co-located, and frequent measurements of plant and ecosystem processes. At a piñon-juniper woodland in southeastern Utah, USA, we collected a continuous dataset of meteorological conditions, soil water potential from surface to bedrock, tree water potential, and ecosystem carbon and water fluxes from eddy covariance. We found that predawn and midday tree water potential and daily ecosystem fluxes were highly sensitive to fluctuations in soil water availability, particularly in shallower layers, and that daytime variability in atmospheric drivers only loosely controlled these processes. The strong connections between shallow soil water potential, tree water potential, and ecosystem fluxes occurred because of the dominant role of precipitation pulses in driving vegetation activity, as even small pulses of moisture stimulated shallow soil water potential, tree water potential, and evapotranspiration for between 1 and 2 weeks. Carbon fluxes (net ecosystem exchange and gross primary productivity) were sensitive to precipitation pulses for longer, up to 3 weeks. Our results highlight that improved monitoring and sensing of shallow soil moisture can greatly enhance our understanding of dryland ecosystem function. Here, a better mechanistic understanding of the impacts of precipitation pulses is also needed to improve vegetation modeling of dryland ecosystems.

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 OSTI2022

Confronting the water potential information gap

Water potential directly controls the function of leaves, roots and microbes, and gradients in water potential drive water flows throughout the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. Notwithstanding its clear relevance for many ecosystem processes, soil water potential is rarely measured in situ, and plant water potential observations are generally discrete, sparse, and not yet aggregated into accessible databases. These gaps limit our conceptual understanding of biophysical responses to moisture stress and inject large uncertainty into hydrologic and land-surface models. Here, we outline the conceptual and predictive gains that could be made with more continuous and discoverable observations of water potential in soils and plants. We discuss improvements to sensor technologies that facilitate in situ characterization of water potential, as well as strategies for building new networks that aggregate water potential data across sites. Here, we end by highlighting novel opportunities for linking more representative site-level observations of water potential to remotely sensed proxies. Together, these considerations offer a road map for clearer links between ecohydrological processes and the water potential gradients that have the ‘potential’ to substantially reduce conceptual and modelling uncertainties.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
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

Data for "Depth of nutrient uptake by deep-rooted plants is regulated by water availability"

The data set consists of strontium (Sr) isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr), water isotopes, soil cation concentrations, soil water potential sensor data, and results of 87Sr/86Sr mixing model. The plant canopy size files include the dataset of canopy dimension of sagebrush, lupine, and sunflower. The soil and plant ICPMS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) data file includes both of 87Sr/86Sr, and cation concentration dataset from soil exchangeable pool, apatite pool, silicate extract, atmospheric rain deposition, and plant leaf and stem tissues. The plant dendrochronology file includes the dendrochronogical ring width of several sagebrush, and dendrochemical sample data includes the 87Sr/86Sr for each separated growth ring. The modeling result gives the proportion of nutrient sources of each plants (based on their 87Sr/86Sr in leaf tissues and growth rings) from atmospheric deposition and mineral weathering. Soil water potential data includes continuous collection of soil water potential dataset at 2 depths (30 cm and 60 cm, from Nov 24 - Jun 25) of the sampling site. All the samples were collected from 2 sampling campaign June and July 2023, and rain water is a separate sampling from Aug - Sept 2023, at north-facing hillslope near pumphouse site. The data showed that the depth of cation nutrient acquisition is thus tightly coupled with, and likely determined by, water availability in soil, saprolite and bedrock. The enhanced uptake of cations and water from regions of mineral weathering could confer plant and ecosystem resilience during low water years and may impact the rate of bedrock weathering and watershed chemistry during drought. This dataset includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; a location metadata file (locations.csv); and a samples metadata file (samples.csv). All files are provided as comma-separated values (CSV) files (.csv). 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 OSTI2022

Comparing Model Representations of Physiological Limits on Transpiration at a Semi-arid Ponderosa Pine Site

Mechanistic representations of biogeochemical processes in ecosystem models are rapidly advancing, requiring advancements in model evaluation approaches. Here we quantify multiple aspects of model functional performance to evaluate improved process representations in ecosystem models. We compare semi-empirical stomatal models with hydraulic constraints against more mechanistic representations of stomatal and hydraulic functioning at a semi-arid pine site using a suite of metrics and analytical tools. We find that models generally perform similarly under unstressed conditions, but performance diverges under atmospheric and soil drought. The more empirical models better capture synergistic information flows between soil water potential and vapor pressure deficit to transpiration, while the more mechanistic models are overly deterministic. Although models can be parameterized to yield similar functional performance, alternate parameterizations could not overcome structural model constraints that underestimate the unique information contained in soil water potential about transpiration. Additionally, both multilayer canopy and big-leaf models were unable to capture the magnitude of canopy temperature divergence from air temperature, and we demonstrate that errors in leaf temperature can propagate to considerable error in simulated transpiration. This study demonstrates the value of merging underutilized observational data streams with emerging analytical tools to characterize ecosystem function and discriminate among model process representations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Data used in manuscript "Quantifying Subsurface Flow and Solute Transport in a Snowmelt-recharged Hillslope with Multiyear Water Balance", submitted to Water Resources Research on 5-26-2022

Data in this package were used to calculate subsurface flow and solute (specifically dissolved nitrogen) transport in the Pumphouse Lower Montane (PLM) hillslope. These data are included in separate CSV files associated with each figure presented in the manuscript. The files describe site locations and elevations, weather data (air temperatures and precipitation), modeled evapotranspiration, time dependent groundwater elevations, calculated annual subsurface flow, hydraulic conductivity values, time trends in subsurface flow within different zones, pore water concentrations of total dissolve nitrogen (TDN), rates of TDN transport, soil water matric potentials following snowmelt, soil water contents during drainage, and evapotranspiration calculated by soil water mass balance versus by CLM4 model.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

A general mechanistic framework for cross-scale understanding of hot spots and hot moments in carbon and water fluxes

Semi-arid ecosystems, like those in the American Southwest, exert a massive impact on the interannual variability of carbon and water cycling. Unfortunately, these carbon and water fluxes are notoriously difficult to predict due to their high spatial and temporal variability, which is poorly captured by the current generation of vegetation models. Indeed, this region is exemplified by the ‘hot spots and hot moments’ concept, which states that small areas in space (‘hot spots’) and transient moments in time (‘hot moments’) exert an outsized influence on biogeochemical cycling. However, the factors that regulate these pulses in biogeochemical activity are unknown, as is their variability across space and time. These uncertainties severely limit efforts to better represent hot spots and hot moments in models. Here, we seek to develop a generalized method for detecting and quantifying the importance of hot spots and hot moments from individual plant to regional scales. Underpinning this method is our recently developed statistical approach for identifying hot spots and hot moments. By applying this method to semi-continuous measurements of plant water status, a depth profile of soil water potential, and ecosystem fluxes via eddy covariance, we will track the fate of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum and identify the mechanistic drivers of these transient pulses in biogeochemical activity. Then, we will expand this approach across a broad network of Ameriflux towers, and apply a machine learning approach that will allow us to upscale measurements of hot spots and hot moments across the American Southwest and quantify their impact on carbon and water cycles. These products will allow us to identify hot spots and hot moments across spatio-temporal scales and will serve as crucial data sources for validating a new generation of models that can better capture highly dynamic carbon and water fluxes. The proposed method will be easily transferable across biomes and will serve as a framework for future research on hot spots and hot moments across the plant ecophysiology, biometeorology, and vegetation modeling communities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Salinity–induced limits to mangrove canopy height

Aim: Mangrove canopy height is a key metric to assess tidal forests' resilience in the face of climate change. In terrestrial forests, tree height is primarily determined by water availability, plant hydraulic design, and disturbance regime. However, the role of water stress remains elusive in tidal environments, where saturated soils are prevalent, and salinity can substantially affect the soil water potential. Location: Global. Time Period: The canopy height dataset provides a global snapshot of the maximum mangrove height geographical distribution for the year 2000. Climate and environmental variables extend over the period 1970–2018. Major Taxa Studied: Mangroves. Methods: We use global observations of maximum canopy height, species richness, air temperature, and seawater salinity—a proxy of soil water salt concentration—to explore the causal link between salinity and mangrove stature. Results: Our findings suggest that salt stress limits mangrove height. High salinity favours more salt-tolerant species, narrowing the spectrum of viable traits. Highly salt-tolerant mangroves have evolved to cope with high salt concentrations in the soil, but this adaptation comes at a cost. They typically have lower rates of photosynthesis and growth, resulting in reduced productivity and smaller stature compared to more salt-sensitive mangrove species. This suggests a causal link between salinity, biodiversity, and tree height, where high salinity selects for more salt-tolerant species that tend to be less productive and shorter. Conclusions: We hypothesize that the salinity-induced limit to mangrove canopy height is the direct result of a reduction of primary productivity, an increment in the risk of xylem cavitation, and an indirect consequence of the decrease in biodiversity. As sea-level rise enhances coastal salinisation, failure to account for these effects can lead to incorrect estimates of future carbon stocks in Tropical coastal ecosystems and endanger preservation efforts.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Soil water content, matric potential, carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations, Oct 2018-Dec 2021, Slate River Floodplain, Crested Butte, Colorado

This data package includes a time series of soil sensor data (temperature, water content, bulk electrical conductivity, porewater dissolved oxygen and porewater dissolved carbon dioxide) in a vertical profile from the Slate River floodplain outside Crested Butte, Colorado, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? The package includes: (1) soil temperature, volumetric water content and electrical conductivity at 40, 60 and 82.5 cm depth; (2) soil matric potential at 40, 60, 79 and 100 cm depth; (3) soil CO2 concentrations at 40, 60 and 82.5 cm depth; and (4) soil oxygen concentrations at 60, 82.5, 100, 135, 170 and 182 cm depth. Both the carbon dioxide and oxygen sensors are optical sensors that can measure the partial pressure of oxygen in both saturated and unsaturated conditions. Unfortunately, soil CO2 in the profile is unexpectedly high and above the sensor calibration range (0-25,000 ppm). In addition, soil CO2 sensors failed within a year of deployment, so we only report CO2 data from 2019-2020.Within the data package, "FLMD.csv" describes file-level metadata and "dd.csv" defines column headers and universal terms across the dataset. The data package includes 4 "*data.csv" files, one for each calendar year in the dataset. Each "*data.csv" file has a corresponding "*_InstallationMethods.csv" file that describes the location, sensor model, sensor serial number and other metadata corresponding for each measured parameter. Because sensors have been added over time, not every sensor has data dating back to Oct 2018. Note that there is a data gap over winter 2019-2020 due to a power outage. While this repository currently only contains data through December 2021, the dataset will be updated as additional years are collected and processed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

One Stomatal Model to Rule Them All? Toward Improved Representation of Carbon and Water Exchange in Global Models

Abstract Stomatal conductance schemes that optimize with respect to photosynthetic and hydraulic functions have been proposed to address biases in land‐surface model (LSM) simulations during drought. However, systematic evaluations of both optimality‐based and alternative empirical formulations for coupling carbon and water fluxes are lacking. Here, we embed 12 empirical and optimization approaches within a LSM framework. We use theoretical model experiments to explore parameter identifiability and understand how model behaviors differ in response to abiotic changes. We also evaluate the models against leaf‐level observations of gas‐exchange and hydraulic variables, from xeric to wet forest/woody species spanning a mean annual precipitation range of 361–3,286 mm yr −1 . We find that models differ in how easily parameterized they are, due to: (a) poorly constrained optimality criteria (i.e., resulting in multiple solutions), (b) low influence parameters, (c) sensitivities to environmental drivers. In both the idealized experiments and compared to observations, sensitivities to variability in environmental drivers do not agree among models. Marked differences arise in sensitivities to soil moisture (soil water potential) and vapor pressure deficit. For example, stomatal closure rates at high vapor pressure deficit range between −45% and +70% of those observed. Although over half the new generation of stomatal schemes perform to a similar standard compared to observations of leaf‐gas exchange, two models do so through large biases in simulated leaf water potential (up to 11 MPa). Our results provide guidance for LSM development, by highlighting key areas in need for additional experimentation and theory, and by constraining currently viable stomatal hypotheses.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Foliar water uptake does not contribute to embolism repair in beech ( Fagus sylvatica L.)

Abstract Background and Aims Foliar water uptake has recently been suggested as a possible mechanism for the restoration of hydraulically dysfunctional xylem vessels. In this paper we used a combination of ecophysiological measurements, X-ray microcomputed tomography and cryo-scanning electron microscopy during a drought treatment to fully evaluate this hypothesis. Key Results Based on an assessment of these methods in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) seedlings we were able to (1) confirm an increase in the amount of hydraulically redistributed water absorbed by leaves when the soil water potential decreased, and (2) locate this redistributed water in hydraulically active vessels in the stem. However, (3) no embolism repair was observed irrespective of the organ under investigation (i.e. stem, petiole or leaf) or the intensity of drought. Conclusions Our data provide evidence for a hydraulic pathway from the leaf surface to the stem xylem following a water potential gradient, but this pathway exists only in functional vessels and does not play a role in embolism repair for beech.

Plant Sciences↗
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 OSTI2021

Disentangling the Effects of Vapor Pressure Deficit and Soil Water Availability on Canopy Conductance in a Seasonal Tropical Forest During the 2015 El Niño Drought

In land models used in Earth system models, vegetation water stress is heuristically related to soil water matric potential, and root water uptake in soil layers is simply proportional to root density to meet the transpiration demand. The efficiency of roots utilizing deeper soil water under water stress cannot be well represented, but it is of critical importance for transpiration regulation and carbon flux. To improve modeling of tropical forest response to drought, a plant hydrodynamic scheme (HYDRO), adapted from a trait-based model in the Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator (FATES), has been implemented in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model (ELM) to represent the hydraulic dynamics and root water uptake strategy. The adapted model conforms to the big-leaf photosynthesis model in ELM. Vegetation water stress in the model is a function of prognostic leaf water potential and is used to regulate stomatal conductance. Point simulations were performed at two tropical forest sites in the Amazon and Panama. Model sensitivity to the numerical solver, plant hydraulic traits, soil properties, and atmospheric forcing has been evaluated. Our results showed that, even though water stress factors calculated at our study sites using HYDRO are comparable to that simulated by the heuristic water stress model, soil moisture prediction is improved with soil water redistributions through roots. Simulated results using HYDRO is not as sensitive to plant hydraulic traits measured for different tree species as to the soil properties and atmospheric forcing. Simplified numerical solver may cause inaccuracy as to where roots uptake water. This study suggests that plant hydrodynamic representation is critical for improved simulations of soil moisture under water stresses.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Opportunistic Short‐Term Water Uptake Dynamics by Subalpine Trees Observed via In Situ Water Isotope Measurements

Abstract Variations in tree water sources are important to understand in semi‐arid ecosystems because climatic shifts towards lower snowpack and increased drought affect water availability in subalpine forests of the western US. Here, we use daily in situ measurements of stable isotopes ( 2 H & 18 O) in soil and tree stem water, soil matric potential and sap flow to study tree water uptake dynamics. We instrumented three soil profiles down to 90 cm, as well as three aspen and engelmann spruce trees near Gothic, Colorado, in the East River watershed. We observed the fate of natural isotopic variations in rainfall, soil, and plants from June to October 2022, and in August 2023 we conducted a 2 H labeled irrigation experiment. Our observations showed that all studied aspen trees compensated for water scarcity in the shallow soil by shifting the dominant water source at 60(±20) cm to ⅔ of uptake from 90 cm within a few days of a dry period. Both species relied on snowmelt stored in the subsoil to sustain transpiration. Intense rainfall caused the plant water uptake to shift partially to top soil layers within 2 days. Spruce transpiration was lower and relied more on snowmelt, because rainfall infiltration was low in the spruce stand due to high canopy interception. Our findings highlight the important role of snowmelt stored in the deep soil layers for subalpine forest drought response and the dominant fate of monsoonal rainfall to become transpiration rather than recharging groundwater and streams in the Upper Colorado River. Plain Language Summary There is a need to understand how trees in mountainous regions respond to dry conditions that lead to water scarcity, because climate projections suggest that such conditions will become more frequent in the future. Here we present a novel data set of measurements of daily stable isotopes of water across soil profiles and in tree stems of aspen and spruce. Our data show that when the upper soil dried out, aspen trees shifted to using water from deeper layers (beneath 60 cm) to keep transpiring. For spruce trees the uptake pattern is less clear, but both types of trees mainly used snowmelt stored in the deeper soil layers to survive the dry summer. After heavy rain, aspen and spruce trees switched to using water from the top 20 cm of soil. However, for spruce, only some rain reached the soil because the dense tree canopy intercepted it, so spruce trees stayed more dependent on snowmelt and used less water overall. This study shows how important deep snowmelt water is for helping forests survive dry periods and suggests that most summer rain is quickly used by trees rather than replenishing streams and groundwater in the headwaters of the Colorado River. Key Points Tree water resources changed within a few days from snow dominated to higher share of rainfall as soils wetted up after a dry period Compensatory plant water uptake by aspen from the deep layer (90 cm), while uptake from soil depths that became drier (60 cm) declined Strong differences between water sources and availability beneath aspen and spruce, respectively

Sprenger, Matthias↗