Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “soils”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1998

A Conceptual Approach to Assimilating Remote Sensing Data to Improve Soil Moisture Profile Estimates in a Surface Flux/Hydrology Model: Overview - Part 1

Knowledge of the amount of water in the soil is of great importance to many earth science disciplines. Soil moisture is a key variable in controlling the exchange of water and energy between the land surface and the atmosphere. Thus, soil moisture information is valuable in a wide range of applications including weather and climate, runoff potential and flood control, early warning of droughts, irrigation, crop yield forecasting, soil erosion, reservoir management, geotechnical engineering, and water quality. Despite the importance of soil moisture information, widespread and continuous measurements of soil moisture are not possible today. Although many earth surface conditions can be measured from satellites, we still cannot adequately measure soil moisture from space. Research in soil moisture remote sensing began in the mid 1970s shortly after the surge in satellite development. Recent advances in remote sensing have shown that soil moisture can be measured, at least qualitatively, by several methods. Quantitative measurements of moisture in the soil surface layer have been most successful using both passive and active microwave remote sensing, although complications arise from surface roughness and vegetation type and density. Early attempts to measure soil moisture from space-borne microwave instruments were hindered by what is now considered sub-optimal wavelengths (shorter than 5 cm) and the coarse spatial resolution of the measurements. L-band frequencies between 1 and 3 GHz (10-30 cm) have been deemed optimal for detection of soil moisture in the upper few centimeters of soil. The Electronically Steered Thinned Array Radiometer (ESTAR), an aircraft-based instrument operating a 1,4 GHz, has shown great promise for soil moisture determination. Initiatives are underway to develop a similar instrument for space. Existing space-borne synthetic aperture radars (SARS) operating at C- and L-band have also shown some potential to detect surface wetness. The advantage of radar is its much higher resolution than passive microwave systems, but it is currently hampered by surface roughness effects and the lack of a good algorithm based on a single frequency and single polarization. In addition, its repeat frequency is generally low (about 40 days). In the meantime, two new radiometers offer some hope for remote sensing of soil moisture from space. The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Microwave Imager (TMI), launched in November 1997, possesses a 10.65 GHz channel and the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) on both the ADEOS-11 and Earth Observing System AM-1 platforms to be launched in 1999 possesses a 6.9 GHz channel. Aside from issues about interference from vegetation, the coarse resolution of these data will provide considerable challenges pertaining to their application. The resolution of TMI is about 45 km and that of AMSR is about 70 km. These resolutions are grossly inconsistent with the scale of soil moisture processes and the spatial variability of factors that control soil moisture. Scale disparities such as these are forcing us to rethink how we assimilate data of various scales in hydrologic models. Of particular interest is how to assimilate soil moisture data by reconciling the scale disparity between what we can expect from present and future remote sensing measurements of soil moisture and modeling soil moisture processes. It is because of this disparity between the resolution of space-based sensors and the scale of data needed for capturing the spatial variability of soil moisture and related properties that remote sensing of soil moisture has not met with more widespread success. Within a single footprint of current sensors at the wavelengths optimal for this application, in most cases there is enormous heterogeneity in soil moisture created by differences in landcover, soils and topography, as well as variability in antecedent precipitation. It is difficult to interpret the meaning of 'mean' soil moisture under such conditions and even more difficult to apply such a value. Because of the non-linear relationships between near-surface soil moisture and other variables of interest, such as surface energy fluxes and runoff, mean soil moisture has little applicability at such large scales. It is for these reasons that the use of remote sensing in conjunction with a hydrologic model appears to be of benefit in capturing the complete spatial and temporal structure of soil moisture. This paper is Part I of a four-part series describing a method for intermittently assimilating remotely-sensed soil moisture information to improve performance of a distributed land surface hydrology model. The method, summarized in section II, involves the following components, each of which is detailed in the indicated section of the paper or subsequent papers in this series: Forward radiative transfer model methods (section II and Part IV); Use of a Kalman filter to assimilate remotely-sensed soil moisture estimates with the model profile (section II and Part IV); Application of a soil hydrology model to capture the continuous evolution of the soil moisture profile within and below the root zone (section III); Statistical aggregation techniques (section IV and Part II); Disaggregation techniques using a neural network approach (section IV and Part III); and Maximum likelihood and Bayesian algorithms for inversely solving for the soil moisture profile in the upper few cm (Part IV).

Crosson, William L.↗
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 ↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Olivine Dissolution and Formation of Secondary phases in Ultramafic Soils

Introduction: Olivine has been proposed as an indicator for the duration of water-rock interaction within Martian rocks and sediments [1-3]. The use of olivine as a mineralogical indicator for past aqueous alteration on Mars requires interpretation of a complex combination of factors including pH, temperature, and composition [5,6]. Here, we examine the persistence of natural olivine within terrestrial ultramafic soils (Fe/Mg-rich, Al-poor) developing under different climatic conditions and the incipient dissolution of emplaced forsterite (Fo) and fayalite (Fa) surfaces to investigate environmental effects on incipient olivine dissolution, olivine persistence in soils, and formation of secondary phases. Methods: Field Sites. We examined olivine weathering and secondary material formation in ultramafic soils at 6 sites in the Klamath Mountains (KM) of northern California with a mean annual temperature of ~12.8℃ and precipitation of ~55.7-95.4 cm/year [7], and soil pH of ~6.5-7.3; 4 sites in the Tablelands (TB) of Newfoundland, Canada with a mean annual temperature of <3.9℃ and precipitation of ~120.0 cm/year [8], and soil pH of ~7.7; and at 3 sites at Pickhandle Gulch (PG), Nevada with a mean annual temperature of ~14.4℃ and precipitation of ~14.1 cm/year [7], and soil pH of ~8.5. Sampling sites span an age range of ~12.1-50+ kya in the Klamath Mountains [9,10] and ~13-30 kya in the Tablelands [11]. Pickhandle Gulch sites are undated. Parent Material and Soil Analyses. Polished thin sections of bulk soil prepared by Wagner Petrographic, Inc were carbon-coated and analyzed on a JEOL 2100 SEM in back-scattered electron mode in the EMIL lab at UNLV and at the 13-ID-E synchrotron beamline at Argonne National Laboratory using µXRF, µXRD, and XAS. Soil and parent material samples were powdered in a Fritsch pulverisette and analyzed by XRD and soil by VNIR. Soil preparation is further described in [12]. Disk Preparation, Burial, and Collection. Fo disks were cut from a column prepared via hot-pressing and Fa disks by sintering synthetic fayalite powder, see [13] for detail. Disks were polished to a 0.25-micron level with diamond grit. Disks were buried in 3 KM soils, 4 TB soils, and 3 PG soils, collected after exactly 365 days, and washed gently with 100% reagent grade ethanol to remove potential adhered soil material. Weathered disks and soil samples were stored in a -20℃ freezer until analysis. Unaltered control disks prepared identically to the buried disks were stored at -20℃ for the duration of the experiment. Disk Analyses. One Fo and Fa disk from each climate zone was analyzed on a variable pressure Zeiss Supra 40VP SEM at Northern Arizona University. A separate Fo and Fa disk from each climate zone was analyzed by XPS using a Physical Electronics VersaProbe II at the Penn State Univ. Materials Characterization Lab after a Na-dodecyl sulfate wash and ozonation to remove carbon contamination as in [14]. VNIR measurements were conducted at Johnson Space Center using an ASD FieldSpec3 under ambient lab conditions on a separate Fo and Fa disk from each climate zone. One separate Fo and Fa control sample was analyzed for each technique for comparison with weathered samples. XPS uncertainty was determined from 5 repeat measurements on controls. Results: Bedrock and Soil Results Olivine is present in the parent material in the KM and TB. Olivine is found in ~12.1 ka KM soils but is absent from all older soils, while persisting into the oldest (>20 ka) TB soil (Figure 1). In both locations, olivine is found as cores surrounded by a serpentine rind (Figure 2). VNIR spectra from the analyzed soils possess strong OH-associated spectral features at ~2.33 µm indicating the presence of Mg-rich phyllosilicates as well as ferric-oxide features at ~0.92 µm in the KM (Figure 3). Primary crystalline silicate grains mostly incorporate Fe2+, while poorly crystalline weathering rinds are best fit by ferric oxide XAS standards (Figure 4). µXRF also shows that Fe and Ni concentrate in weathering rinds and Cr remains within interior silicate grains (Figure 4). Buried Sample Results All Fo surfaces exhibited formation of dissolution features including shallow pitting not observed on controls. Dissolution features were most visually widespread on the KM disk (Figure 5). Leaching of Mg from KM and TB Fo disks was evident from <1.6 Mg/Si ratios measured by XPS (Figure 6). Fe-rich precipitates in SEM (Figure 5) and Fe presence in XPS scans (Figure 6) indicate Fe deposition onto KM and TB Fo disk surfaces. The appearance of a spectral feature at 0.55 µm in the VNIR spectra from the TB Fo suggests this Fe is ferric (Figure 7). The PG Fo appears least altered, with minimal formation of dissolution features in SEM (Figure 5), a Mg/Si ratio inconsistent with leaching (~2) (Figure 6), and VNIR spectra almost identical to the control sample. Analysis of Fa surfaces is ongoing. The higher temperatures and more acidic pH in the KM soils likely drive the faster dissolution of the Fo disks described above. While the TB soils experience greater precipitation than in the KM, the cooler temperatures and more basic soil pH facilitate observable but more limited alteration. The dry climate and basic soil pH at PG lead to minimal dissolution of the PG disk surfaces.

A D Feldman↗
NASA NTRS2001

Ectomycorrhizal fungal associates of Pinus contorta in soils associated with a hot spring in Norris Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Molecular methods and comparisons of fruiting patterns (i.e., presence or absence of fungal fruiting bodies in different soil types) were used to determine ectomycorrhizal (EM) associates of Pinus contorta in soils associated with a thermal soil classified as ultra-acidic to extremely acidic (pH 2 to 4). EM were sampled by obtaining 36 soil cores from six paired plots (three cores each) of both thermal soils and forest soils directly adjacent to the thermal area. Fruiting bodies (mushrooms) were collected for molecular identification and to compare fruiting body (above-ground) diversity to below-ground diversity. Our results indicate (i) that there were significant decreases in both the level of EM infection (130 +/- 22 EM root tips/core in forest soil; 68 +/- 22 EM root tips/core in thermal soil) and EM fungal species richness (4.0 +/- 0.5 species/core in forest soil; 1.2 +/- 0.2 species/core in thermal soil) in soils associated with the thermal feature; (ii) that the EM mycota of thermal soils was comprised of a small set of dominant species and included very few rare species, while the EM mycota of forest soils contained a few dominant species and several rare EM fungal species; (iii) that Dermocybe phoenecius and a species of Inocybe, which was rare in forest soils, were the dominant EM fungal species in thermal soils; (iv) that other than the single Inocybe species, there was no overlap in the EM fungal communities of the forest and thermal soils; and (v) that the fungal species forming the majority of the above-ground fruiting structures in thermal soils (Pisolithus tinctorius, which is commonly used in remediation of acid soils) was not detected on a single EM root tip in either type of soil. Thus, P. tinctorius may have a different role in these thermal soils. Our results suggest that this species may not perform well in remediation of all acid soils and that factors such as pH, soil temperature, and soil chemistry may interact to influence EM fungal community structure. In addition, we identified at least one new species with potential for use in remediation of hot acidic soil.

Pinus/microbiology↗
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 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↗