Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “watershed”

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 199 records · Page 11

Sulfur x-ray absorption spectroscopy data from bedrock shale, soil, and floodplain sediment from the East River, Colorado watershed

This dataset includes sulfur x-ray absorption near edge spectroscopy (XANES) data collected on solid samples as a part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The data were collected in order to investigate the speciation of sulfur and degree of shale weathering in solid samples across the watershed and their impact on riverine export of sulfate. Solid samples, including shale, hillslope soil, and floodplain sediment samples collected in 2016-2018, were analyzed by bulk XANES. Density fractions of hillslope soil, including a light fraction representing particulate organic matter and a heavy fraction representing minerals are also analyzed by bulk XANES. Micro-focused XANES on a weathered shale sample (PLM6, 2.7 m) was also performed. Sample locations are included in the 'sample meta data.csv' file, and XANES data for each sample type are included in csv files.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Stable isotopes of carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), water and concentrations of greenhouse gases in a mountainous watershed (Crested Butte, Colorado)

Temperature and precipitation variability in response to climate change affects water cycling of watersheds and can potentially impact water quality, water availability, elemental and molecular fluxes, and biogeochemical processes. Here we report the measurements of light stable isotopes and greenhouse gases analysis to a large multidisciplinary project addressing watershed function. Water hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) stable isotopes of snow and water saturated soil were measured to constrain source contributions to groundwater and streamflow. In an effort to better constrain existing nitrogen and carbon cycling models in high-altitude ecosystems, carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) greenhouse gases concentrations and stable isotope signatures of CO2, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), and water were measured. This dataset includes one CSV file and one Excel file containing data including stable isotopes of carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), water and concentrations of greenhouse gases. The CSV and Excel files contain the same information/data but have included both versions for accessibility.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Machine Learning Assisted Gap-Filled Discharge Data for the East River Community Watershed, Colorado, for Water Years 2014-2021

This dataset contains a collection of machine learning assisted gap-filled discharge data created for all discharge stations across the East River Watershed, Colorado. This data was generated by using raw discharge data collected by Rosemary Carroll, and conducting a random forest machine learning analysis to gap-fill discharge data across all years at the hourly time level. Discharge data with gaps creates problems for analysis of measured and modeled fluxes of carbon and nitrogen exported out of each sub-watershed. Gap-filled data is also required as an input to surface water models, which helps to address our main research question related to how snowmelt timing impacts the timing and magnitude of nitrogen exports. Data is provided in one csv file.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Electrical Resistivity Tomography data from 2016 to 2018 at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset contains time-lapse Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) data along a transect located on the northeast-facing hillslope at the lower montane site (Pumphouse site) in the upper East River Watershed. The monitoring dataset covers the period from November 2, 2016, to August 6, 2018. In addition, the archive also contains a baseline dataset from October 9, 2016. The ERT transect consisted of 128 electrodes with an electrode spacing of 1.25 m. The acquisition system was located in the middle of the transect, about 50 m on one side, and included an MPT (Multi-Phase Technologies) ERT system, a mini computer, and batteries with solar panels. Acquisition occurred daily under normal circumstances. The first 16 electrodes (from the upper end of the transect) could not be used after the cable was damaged during the 2017–2018 winter. Also, due to multiple failures in the power system, the temporal resolution of the data is much lower in 2018 compared to 2016 and 2017. The data have been processed and used in Dafflon et al., 2023, and the baseline dataset was used in Falco et al., 2019 (see reference list). This archive contains the measurements (ER.zip containing csv files) for each of the 326 acquisition times and a filtered version where only electrodes 17 to 128 are included (ERT_sm.zip containing csv files). The archive also contains the baseline dataset and two acquisitions with full reciprocals (ERT_RB.zip containing csv files), as well as all the raw MPT files (ERT_raw_MTP.zip). The geometry (electrode position and elevation) is provided in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 13N Geoid2012AB in the file named ERT_Location.csv. The archive contains 1 *.csv data files, four *.zip files, and three metadata *.csv 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Multiple RGB ortho-mosaics and digital surface models in 2017 and 2018 across the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

Aerial imagery was collected at the Lower Montane site (Pumphouse) in the East River Watershed, Colorado during the spring, summer, and fall seasons of 2017 and 2018 to improve the understanding of seasonal vegetation dynamics and their drivers. The datasets include Red-Green-Blue (RGB) ortho-mosaics and digital surface models (DSMs) inferred from the Unoccupied Aerial System (UAS) acquired aerial RGB imagery for June 3, June 19, July 7, and August 14, 2017, and for March 14, April 26, June 1, June 18, July 6, and August 7, 2018. Real-Time Kinematic Global Positioning System (RTK-GPS) surveyed Ground control points (GCPs) were used to increase the reconstruction accuracy. The reconstructed RGB mosaics and DSMs have been trimmed to cover a similar spatial domain. The accuracy of the RGB mosaics is considered high (~10 cm). DSM accuracy is highest (~10 cm) where sufficient GCPS are available, and more difficult to assess elsewhere (see reconstruction reports for uncertainty estimates). The dataset includes a total of 20 GeoTIFF (.tif) files, 10 PDF (.pdf) files, 3 data CSV (.csv) files, and 2 metadata CSV (.csv) files. Feel free to contact the authors with any questions or collaboration interests.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↗

Meteorological and hydrological parameters for 17 locations of meteorological stations of the East River Watershed

The Data Package includes a set of csv files of input meteorological parameters for locations of 17 meteorological stations within the East River watershed. These meteorological datasets were downloaded from the (1) PRISM database--monthly precipitation, air temperature (minimum, mean, and maximum), vapor pressure deficit (minimum and maximum), and dewpoint temperature, and (2) NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis database – wind database. The datasets were used for calculations of the Potential Evapotranspiration (ETo), Actual Evapotranspiration (ET), Standard Precipitation Index (SPI) , Standard Evapotranspiration-Precipitation Index (SPEI) for the period from 1966 to 2021. The main research questions addressed are: the evaluation of the long-term temporal trends of climatic parameters, hierarchical clustering, and areal mapping/zonation of the East River watershed. Calculations were conducted in the Rstudio environment. The dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.The input datasets were downloaded from (a) PRISM database (the Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering at the Oregon State University), and (b) NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis database.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Solute chemistry for streams draining geomorphic features and varying land cover gradients in the East River watershed, Colorado

This dataset contains solute chemistry data and GPS coordinates for surface water samples collected in the East River watershed in the Elk and West Elk Ranges of Colorado from August 3rd through August 11th, 2022. Samples were collected from streams and groundwater seeps as part of a comprehensive analysis within the watershed of how different geomorphic features (such as landslides and rock glaciers) along with variations in land cover (such as the presence of vegetation) affect stream water quality in this Rocky Mountain headwater environment. This dataset includes concentrations of the following in a single csv file: fluoride, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, silicon, and total organic carbon (TOC). All concentrations are reported in mg/L. The sulfate data in this version have been updated to account for an earlier ion chromatograph instrument method error whereby sulfate and bromide peaks overlapped in calibration solution samples, biasing calculated sulfate concentrations low by 30-50%. Sulfate data reported herein are from a re-run of the samples performed in December 2024 using a corrected instrument method. All samples were stored under refrigerated conditions and filtered on initial collection.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NEON AOP Survey of Upper East River CO Watersheds: Waveform LiDAR Binary Data

The waveform Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data in this package were generated through a National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP) acquisition over watersheds of interest surrounding Crested Butte, Colorado. The remote sensing imagery acquired by the NEON AOP supports an interdisciplinary project on hydrology, biogeochemistry, and ecosystem functioning in a snow-dominated headwater environment. These waveform LiDAR data enable spatially continuous estimation of vegetation structure parameters to facilitate analyses of the major environmental drivers of structural and compositional variability. The package contains 97 compressed file archives in 7-zip (.7z) format, each corresponding to one acquisition flightpath. Within each .7z archive is a set of constituent files describing properties of the LiDAR waveforms, such as return intensity, geolocation, outgoing pulse and other behavior of the sensor and signals. Once downloaded, the files must first be unzipped using the widely distributed command-line software utility 7z, using the command '7z x \[filename\].7z \[target_directory\]'. All files within the .7z archives can be opened in IDL, MatLab, or the open-source R statistical computing environment. Further details about the data package are in the attached user guide (neon_aop_crbu_waveformlidar_userguide.pdf). This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

Geochemistry and Strontium Isotopes for Coal Creek Watershed, Colorado, 2021-2022

The geochemistry and strontium isotope data for Coal Creek Watershed, Colorado, consists of cation, anion, and 87Sr/87Sr isotope values from samples collected at 8 stream location along Coal Creek, samples from two groundwater springs within the watershed, and a shallow subsurface piezometer. All stream and spring samples were collected between June and October, 2021, and the shallow, near stream piezometer sample was collected in July of 2022. These data were collected to evaluate how groundwater contributions to Coal Creek originating from shallow vs deep flow paths respond seasonal drying. Understanding of groundwater-surface water interactions in montane systems in critical for the future of water availability in the Western US as groundwater contributions are expected to become more important for sustaining summer stream flows. This data package contains: (1) a csv of all cation samples; (2) a csv of all anion samples; (3) a csv of all 87Sr/87Sr isotope samples; and (4) a csv of locations for each sampling site. The dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Integrated Hourly Meteorological Database of 20 Meteorological Stations (1981-2022) for Watershed Function SFA Hydrological Modeling

This dataset contains (a) a script “R_met_integrated_for_modeling.R”, and (b) associated input CSV files: 3 CSV files per location to create a 5-variable integrated meteorological dataset file (air temperature, precipitation, wind speed, relative humidity, and solar radiation) for 19 meteorological stations and 1 location within Trail Creek from the modeling team within the East River Community Observatory as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA). As meteorological forcings varied across the watershed, a high-frequency database is needed to ensure consistency in the data analysis and modeling. We evaluated several data sources, including gridded meteorological products and field data from meteorological stations. We determined that our modeling efforts required multiple data sources to meet all their needs. As output, this dataset contains (c) a single CSV data file (*_1981-2022.csv) for each location (20 CSV output files total) containing hourly time series data for 1981 to 2022 and (d) five PNG files of time series and density plots for each variable per location (100 PNG files). Detailed location metadata is contained within the Integrated_Met_Database_Locations.csv file for each point location included within this dataset, obtained from Varadharajan et al., 2023 doi:10.15485/1660962. This dataset also includes (e) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and (f) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. Review the (g) ReadMe_Integrated_Met_Database.pdf file for additional details on the script, methods, and structure of the dataset.The script integrates Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering’s PRISM gridded data product, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s NCEP-NCAR Reanalysis 1 gridded data product (through the `RCNEP` R package, Kemp et al., doi:10.32614/CRAN.package.RNCEP), and analytical-based calculations. Further, this script downscales the input data into hourly frequency, which is necessary for the modeling efforts.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Disentangling the Impacts of Microtopography and Shrub Distribution on Snow Depth in a Subarctic Watershed: Toward a Predictive Understanding of Snow Spatial Variability: Supporting Data and Code

This repository contains R code and associated datasets for reproducing the analysis described in the manuscript titled “Disentangling the Impacts of Microtopography and Shrub Distribution on Snow Depth in a Subarctic Watershed: Toward a Predictive Understanding of Snow Spatial Variability” (DOI: 10.1029/2024JG008604). The provided scripts facilitate a comprehensive analysis of snow depth variability influenced by microtopography and vegetation distribution in a subarctic watershed. Included datasets are high-resolution spatial maps of snow depth, terrain elevation, vegetation height, and distance from shrubs taller than 1 meter, all formatted as text files (.txt). These data are fully describe in doi:10.15485/2316038. Users can adapt the provided R scripts to accommodate different data formats or larger spatial domains, noting that some output files may require modification due to their size.The code includes implementations for boosted regression tree analysis adapted from methods outlined in Elith et al. (2008). Users interested in understanding or modeling landscape-scale snow distribution patterns, particularly in Arctic or subarctic ecosystems, will find this package useful. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Stream bed topography in 2016 at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset contains stream bed topography data from the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado. It is intended to support hydro-biogeochemical analyses for the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA). The stream bed was surveyed using a RTK-GPS (Real-Time Kinematic Global Positioning System) and a total station at hundreds of locations during two field campaigns, conducted in October 2015 and October 2016. The two surveys were merged into a single product under the assumption of minimal changes in stream bed topography between the years. A LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) derived ground surface elevation product from 2015 (see reference below) was used to interpolate the stream bed topography and estimate water depth at the time of the LiDAR survey. The dataset includes three GeoTIFF products, two *.csv data files, and three *.csv metadata files. Feel free to contact the author with any questions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Time-lapse imagery in 2017 and 2018 at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

Time-lapse imagery was collected using an automated RGB camera mounted on a pole at the base of the northeast-facing hillslope at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado. The imagery was intended to support a better understanding of plant dynamics and their controls during the growing season. The dataset includes RGB images archived in four zip files (containing imagery in JPEG format), corresponding to photos taken from the hillslope and the adjacent floodplain during 2017 and 2018. A fifth zip file contains a few AVI movies that compare imagery between the two years. The AVI files can be read with most media players applications. The archive contains a total of five *.zip files and three csv metadata files (flmd.csv, dd.csv, and locations.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↗

Groundwater and river water elevations and temperature from 2017 to 2022 across Meander Z in the East River Watershed, Colorado

This dataset includes groundwater and river water elevations and temperature data collected in the East River watershed located in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The data were collected in order to investigate the coupling between hydrology and biogeochemical processes in the floodplain. Data was collected at ten groundwater locations in Meander Z (MZ), located just upstream of the confluence with Brush Creek and two river locations directly adjacent to Meander Z from 2017-2019. From 2019-2022, data was collected at five groundwater locations in Meander Z. Note that location names, not location identifiers (IDs), are used in the related publication Dewey et al. (2022). Both location IDs and names are included in data files. Files in this dataset include the main data files for each location zipped into a single folder (waterlevel_data.zip), an installation methods file describing sensor installation (InstallationMethods.csv), a file containing field metadata including GPS (Global Positioning System) coordinates and ground surface elevations (transducers_locations.csv). This dataset also includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. This dataset conforms to the ESS-DIVE hydrological reporting format. 2026-04-27 Update: The river water elevation data files (ER-MZR1.csv and ER-MZR2.csv) were corrected. The data for these two locations were inadvertently swapped in the original published data. 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↗

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↗

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↗

Denudation, solute export, landscape evolution modeling, and geographic information system data for the East River watershed, Colorado, USA (2020-2024)

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of lithologic controls on denudation, solute export, carbon-scaling relationships, and transient landscape evolution in the East River watershed near Crested Butte, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the Figure 2 map, including drainage, hillshade, lithology, sample locations, and basin polygons, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. One group of tables reports sample-level and catchment-level information for river-sediment samples analyzed for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample names, outlet elevations, geographic coordinates, upstream drainage area, rock-type classes, production-rate scaling scheme, analyzed nuclide, catchment-averaged denudation rates, and associated lower and upper analytical uncertainties. Sample and catchment attributes provide the basis for comparing denudation rates across intrusive, shale, sedimentary, and mixed-lithology settings. A second group of tables reports supporting information for landscape-evolution modeling and the mapped geologic framework of the study area. Included files list parameter values and definitions for the two-phase landscape-evolution simulations, summarize full-domain model erosion fluxes and topographic metrics for different simulation configurations, provide a fixed-area carbon-model scaling table, and summarize mapped geologic units within the East River study domain, including geologic code, formation name, lithologic description, mapped area, and lithologic class grouping. Model outputs and geologic summaries support interpretation of transient landscape behavior and its relation to the mapped distribution of shale, intrusive, sedimentary, and surficial units. A third group of tables reports hydrologic and hydrochemical information used to quantify dissolved export from the watershed. Included files provide site-level values for drainage area, mean annual solute export, standard error of annual export, area-normalized solute yield, and equivalent weathering rate for five East River monitoring sites, along with metadata describing the number, sampling cadence, and date range of discharge records and partial and full total dissolved solids observations used in the solute-yield analyses. The package also contains a supplementary daily ion-load time series with daily mean discharge, discharge observation counts, dissolved concentrations, and daily loads for calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, fluoride, dissolved silica, charge-balance bicarbonate, and total dissolved solids. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, a package-tree text file, and a readme text file.

10Be↗

Synoptic NO3 in Slate River Watershed, Colorado (2022)

The synoptic nitrate (NO3) dataset in the Slate River Watershed, Colorado consists of NO3 data collected at 19 locations three times during the summer of 2022. Stream samples were collected in early summer (early July), mid summer (late August), and late summer (late September). The samples include mainstem, tributary, and point source input water samples. These data were collected to evaluate spatiotemporal variability in stream NO3 during the summer, and evaluate anthropogenic controls on stream NO3 dynamics. This data package contains: (1) a csv of all NO3 samples and (2) a csv of locations for each sampling site. The dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. 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 > BIOSPHERE > ECOSYSTEMS > FRESHWATE↗