Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Colorado”

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 217 records · Page 12

Southern Wyoming Ecological Forecasting: Monitoring Cheatgrass in Southern Wyoming and Northern Colorado to Inform Management Efforts Post-Mullen Fire

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is a prominent invasive species in the Intermountain West that has the potential to out-compete native plant species, reduce biodiversity, and reduce the quality of habitat for ungulates. Furthermore, because cheatgrass readily establishes in disturbed landscapes, it can potentially increase fuel loads and exacerbate wildfire risk. In 2020, the Mullen Fire burned 176,878 acres in Carbon and Albany Counties, Wyoming and Jackson County, Colorado. Large fires such as this one raise concern for partners at the United States Forest Service and the United States Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center, who are tasked with rapidly detecting and controlling invasive species in the post-fire environment. We developed a Random Forest model trained by in-situ field data and spectral indices such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index, and Enhanced Vegetation Index derived from Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager, Sentinel-2 MultiSpectral Instrument, and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission to detect and map cheatgrass presence during the 2021 growing season. The team successfully created a spectral cheatgrass detection map in the study area (RMSE = 13.71, R2 = 0.34). We also produced a NDVI time-series derived from Sentinel-2 MSI to analyze vegetation recovery patterns.

Dahlia Shahin↗

2022 TDM Review - Colorado Power Electronics (CPE)-NASA PPUP

This is the presentation of the Colorado Power Electronics Power Processing Unit Prototype (PPUP) Announcement of Collaborations Opportunity (ACO) project. The presentation will be given to the Technology Demonstration Mission (TDM) Annual Review process on March 1, 2022. The purpose of the project is to complete the technology development of a PPU that can operate multiple Hall thrusters over a range of power conditions of interest for NASA science missions.

Eric Pencil↗

FY22 X-Hab: Colorado School of Mines: Planetary Resource & In-Situ Material Habitat Outfitting for Space Exploration (PRISM-HOUSE)

The Colorado School of Mines (CSM) was awarded a project under the Moon to Mars eXploration Systems and Habitation (M2M X-Hab) Academic Innovation Challenge on June 10, 2021 for the proposed Planetary Resource & In-Situ Material Habitat Outfitting for Space Exploration (PRISM-HOUSE) lunar habitat system. The project deliverables have been executed concurrently with coursework in the CSM Space Resources program, specifically for the Space Resources Project I & II classes. A team was established in the fall semester of 2021 and a Systems Engineering process was followed to brainstorm initial concepts, determine objectives, flow down top-level requirements, and identify areas for which the project could best further the understanding of the overall system through targeted detailed design and design evaluation testing. This report summarizes the overall project, as well as specific work completed in the spring semester of 2022. PRISM-HOUSE is a lunar habitat system that is deployed on the lunar surface robotically and supports safe, long-term human occupancy while maximizing the use of in-situ resources and minimizing the mass of supplies and equipment that must be delivered from Earth. In this report, the team provides an overview and description of the objectives, the system, and how the current design was selected from various alternatives, as well as the resulting products of systems engineering tasks such as product and specification trees and flow-down requirements. A review of current risks and planned mitigation are reviewed. Four key PRISM-HOUSE systems are explored: the inflatable Habitat, External Structures & Environmental Protection (ESEP), Human Interior Goods (HIG), and ECLSS & Remote Outfitting (E&RO); for each, the team provides a detailed system description and an overview of analyses performed supporting final design, followed by a review of each Design Evaluation Test (DET) performed and resulting conclusions. The report closes with a suggestion of next steps.

Peter Corwin↗

Habitability Potential of Martian Hydrothermal Systems Constrained from Exploration of a Magma-Sediment Hydrothermal System in the Colorado Plateau

Mars has a crust predominately composed of basalt, which displays wide-spread processes including volcanic hydrothermal systems and reference within. There is an abundance of evidence of previous low temperature hydrous alteration; however, finding evidence of high-temperature hydrothermal activity has been challenging. Therefore, we are investigating a mafic dike and the surrounding metamorphic contact zone to constrain how to find such systems on Mars and their habitability potential on Earth and by extension Mars. DC Dike (DCD) is in the Colorado Plateau, in south-central Utah, and intruded the Entrada formation Sandstone between 3.8 and 4.6 Ma. We chose Mars analog instrumentation to make our results directly applicable to those on Mars: Visible-Near Infrared reflectance spectroscopy (VNIR), X-Ray Diffraction (XRD), and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). 21 samples were analyzed with an Ore Express VNIR with wavelengths from 350-2500 nm. Bulk mineralogy is determined by using a Panalytical XRD including for clay fraction and soil separation analysis. Finally, samples are prepped as thin sections and will be analyzed using a SEM. All these techniques will be used to constrain: the mineralogy of the system, how the hydrothermal system cooled, the habitability of the cooling system, and how DCD relates to similar dikes in the area and on Mars. All of these results will then be compared to similar systems Mars, and if they too could have been habitable environments.

R. A. Slank↗

Interactions Between Thresholds and Spatial Discretizations of Snow: Insights From Estimates of Wolverine Denning Habitat in the Colorado Rocky Mountains

Thresholds can be used to interpret environmental data in a way that is easily communicated and useful for decision making purposes. However, thresholds are often developed for specific data products and time periods, changing findings when the same threshold is applied to datasets or periods with different characteristics. Here, we test the impact of different spatial discretizations of snow on annual estimates of wolverine denning opportunities in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, defined using a snow water equivalent (SWE) threshold (0.20 m) and threshold date (15 May) from previous habitat assessments. Annual potential wolverine denning area (PWDA) was thresholded from a 36-year (1985 – 2020) snow reanalysis model with three different spatial discretizations: 1) 480 m grid cells (D480), 2) 90 m grid cells (D90), and 3) 480 m grid cells with implicit representations of subgrid snow spatial heterogeneity (S480). Relative to the D480 and S480 discretizations, D90 resolved shallower snow deposits on slopes between 3050 and 3350 m elevation, decreasing PWDA by 10%, on average. In years with warmer and/or drier winters, S480 discretizations with subgrid representations of snow heterogeneity increased PWDA, even within grid cells where mean 15 May SWE was less than the SWE threshold. These simulations increased PWDA by upwards of 30% in low snow years, as compared to the D480 and D90 simulations without subgrid snow heterogeneity. Despite PWDA sensitivity to different snow spatial discretizations, PWDA was controlled more by annual variations in winter precipitation and temperature. However, small changes to the SWE threshold (± 0.07 m) and threshold date (± 2 weeks) also affected PWDA by as much as 82%. Across these threshold ranges, PWDA was approximately 18% more sensitive to the SWE threshold than the threshold date. However, the sensitivity to the threshold date was larger in years with late spring snowfall, when PWDA depended on whether modeled SWE was thresholded before, during, or after spring snow accumulation. Our results demonstrate that snow thresholds are useful but may not always provide a complete picture of the annual variability in snow-adapted wildlife denning opportunities. Studies thresholding spatiotemporal datasets could be improved by including 1) information about the fidelity of thresholds across multiple spatial discretizations, and 2) uncertainties related to ranges of realistic thresholds.

Justin M. Pflug↗

Geothermal Heat Pump Case Study: Colorado Mesa University

Geothermal heat pumps can be great alternatives to air conditioners and furnaces, and require less electricity to run. This case study focuses on Colorado Mesa University and is part of a series: https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-heat-pump-case-studies.

case study↗

Partial resolution of sources of n-alkanes in the saline portion of the Parachute Creek Member, Green River Formation (Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado)

Systematic variations in the 13C contents of individual extractable n-alkanes (C16-C29) can be modelled quantitatively and interpreted as indicating contributions from at least five distinct sources. These appear to be cyanobacterial (C16-C18, delta 13C = -37% vs PDB), phytoplanktonic (C16-C23, delta = -32%), chemoautotrophic bacterial (C20-C29, delta = -38%), phytoplanktonic or heterotrophic bacterial (C20-C29, delta = -30%), and vascular plants (C23-C29, delta = -29%). Hydrous pyrolysis of related kerogens yields large quantities of additional n-alkanes with different and much more uniform delta values. The latter materials are apparently derived from the thermolysis of aliphatic biopolymers whose presence in the Green River Oil Shale has been recognized visually.

Non-NASA Center↗

Raw soil carbon dioxide, moisture, temperature and micrometeorological data in the East River Watershed, Colorado June 2021-June 2024. (DE-SC0021139)

This dataset contains raw data from four tripod stations along an elevation gradient on Snodgrass Mountain in the East River Watershed, CO, USA. Each station contains a datalogger connected to 3 soil Carbon Dioxide CO2 gas probes, 3 soil temperature/moisture sensors and a micrometeorological station. Sensors are scanned every minute, and the 30 minute average is reported. The file snodgrass_soil_ESS.csv contains raw data, a row of column descriptors, and units of measurements. some data processing and QA/QC was done to filter out data from sensors that went bad and extreme outliers. CO2 sensors that went bad were replaced with new sensors as soon as possible. This research was performed to investigate the ecohydrological linkages of belowground carbon processes in the East River watershed forested communities to better understand how these ecosystems will respond to a changing cold-season moisture input. This is the second version of this data set and was modified on 10/01/2024. The primary change in the data was the addition of data from the fall of 2022 to June of 2024. In addition, minor QA/QC was done to filter out data from sensors that went bad and extreme outliers. THe filtered data are now NA's in this data frame and primarily the CO2 sensors. Limited to no QA/QC has been done on the other environmental data. This is now the third version of the data set, and was modified 03/25/2026. The primary change in the data was the addition of data from the June of 2024 to December 2025. Further r QA/QC was done with the new data to filter out bad data from faulty sensors and extreme outliers. The filtered data are now NA's in this data frame and primarily the CO2 sensors. Limited to no QA/QC has been done on the other environmental data. ##This additional data was funded under DE-SC0024218( Responses of Plant and Microbial Respiration Sources to Changing Cold Season Climate Drivers in the East River Watershed)

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↗

Montane Conifer, Aspen, Meadow, and Sagebrush Metagenome Resolved Genomes and Traits in East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

Climate change is driving vegetation shifts in mountain watersheds, with unknown impacts on biogeochemical cycles. We hypothesize that these shifts will reshape soil microbiomes and associated biogeochemical processes. As a part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we assessed microbiome and microbial functional trait differences between soils under conifer, aspen, forby meadows, and sagebrush across the East River Watershed, CO, controlling for elevation and aspect.Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from soils 0-20cm in depth across three locations in the watershed—Headwaters, Upper Reaches, and Lower Reaches from August 3-11th 2016. Each location was further subdivided into two blocks, with one block on a west facing aspect, and two on the east aspect of the valley. Within blocks, two samples per vegetation type were taken (one at each depth). This resulted in 66 samples, which were sequenced at JGI and can be found under the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project Gs0118068. Metagenomes were assembled through an inhouse pipeline (see methods), binned using four autobinners (concoct, maxbin2, metabat2, and vamb) and consolidated using dastool. The consolidated bins from all metagenomes were pooled, filtered by completeness (>75%) and contamination (<25%), and dereplicated at 95% ANI using drep. The dataset includes a zip file of 687 genomes (Vegtype_MAGS.zip), the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes, a csv file with MAG quality metrics and taxonomy from Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) and National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) taxonomic representative genome proteins (EastRiver_Vegtype_drep_genome_info.csv), and a file containing MAG quality metrics and taxonomy (gtdb_drep_bin_taxonomy.csv). The dataset additionally includes a sample metadata file (EastRiver_Vegtype_sample_metadata.csv), a metadata file used to register associated samples with IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), a Google KML file for the sampled locations (sample_collection_sites.kml), a location metadata file (locations.csv), a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv), and a data dictionary (dd.csv) 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Groundwater elevation data for monitoring wells within the East and Taylor River basins, Colorado (USA)

This dataset is comprised of temporal variations in groundwater elevation data for the 24 monitoring wells located throughout the East River watershed. Seasonal to annual variations in groundwater elevations are a critical property of mountainous watersheds needed to understand both hydrological and below ground biogeochemical processes. Such data serve as a critical constraint for numerical models describing coupled groundwater-surface water behavior within the watershed. Additionally, the offset between the maximum and minimum groundwater elevations defines the extent of the bedrock weathering zone, with annual excursions in the groundwater hydrographic (i.e., the rising and falling hydrographic limbs) imposing primary controls on bedrock saturation state and redox conditions that govern biogeochemical reactions impacting nitrogen, carbon, and metals cycling. Manufacturer-specific software is used to download pressure data from each transducer, with broadly available spreadsheet software (e.g. Microsoft Excel) used to convert temporal variations in water pressure to elevations in units of meters above mean sea level. As additional monitoring wells are installed within the East River watershed and new groundwater monitoring wells are installed in the Taylor River watershed, temporal groundwater elevation data will be included as a part of this master dataset. Details regarding the metadata associated with each monitoring well location, including well depths, screened intervals, well location coordinates, and bedrock type, are included, as is a standard operating procedure for generating groundwater elevation data from water pressure values recorded by the pressure transducers. This dataset includes: (1) a zip file (East_River_Watershed_Compiled_Groundwater_Elevation_Data_Plots.zip), containing (a) PNG of groundwater hydrographs, (b) a CSV file with groundwater elevation data, and (c) CSV file containing metadata organized by location; (2) an Excel file (East_River_Watershed_Compiled_Groundwater_Elevation_Data_Plots.xlsx) with the groundwater elevation data, groundwater hydrographs, and metadata organized by location; (3) a Word file (Groundwater_elevation_data_protocols.docx) and a PDF file version (Groundwater_elevation_data_protocols.pdf) containing field protocols and methods; (4) a location metadata (locations.csv) file; (5) a file level metadata (flmd.csv); and (6) data dictionary (dd.csv) 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2D reactive transport model of shale chemical weathering and biogeochemical fluxes along a mountainous hillslope, East River Watershed, Colorado: Input files and simulation results

This data package contains input files and simulation results for a two-dimensional (2D) reactive transport model used to quantitatively analyze the coupled hydrological and biogeochemical processes governing shale weathering and associated biogeochemical fluxes under realistic environmental conditions in the high-elevation East River Watershed. These data support the conclusions presented in Stolze et al. (Water Resources Research, under review), "Model-based interpretation of solute exports and carbon partitioning during shale weathering in a mountainous hillslope". The model simulates atmospheric-subsurface gas exchange, subsurface water flow, and shale weathering processes under dynamic, year-scale conditions along a shale-underlain hillslope located in the East River watershed. The simulations were performed using the PFLOTRAN flow and reactive transport code and executed on the Perlmutter supercomputer to leverage its large-scale parallel computing capabilities. The data package contains two zipped folders, "model_input_files" and "simulation_results", and one readme.txt file. "model_input_files" contains the necessary input files to run the calibrated base-base model presented in Stolze et al. (Water Resources Research, under review). "simulation_results" contains a single hdf5 file ("Output_2D_hillslope_model.h5") which includes the results of simulation performed using the base-case model. This file can be opened with HDFView 3.1.4, Python, or MATLAB. "readme.txt" contains relevant information about the base-case model and provides guidelines on how to run the associated input files provided in the folder "model_input_files". Furthermore, readme.txt provides information regarding the model results provided in "Output_2D_hillslope_model.h5" such as matrix dimensionality and output units. Field datasets used to evaluate model performance were collected at three monitoring wells located along a hillslope transect (PLM1, PLM2, and PLM3). Dissolved ion concentration data were collected from November 2016 to October 2021 for Ca, Mg, DIC, Na, K, SO4 (Dong et al., 2025 - dic_npoc_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1660459; Williams et al., 2025 - anion_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1668054; Dong et al., 2025 - cation_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1668055). Note that we used the files named er_PLM1_xx_yy, er_PLM2_xx_yy, and er_PLM3_xx_yy where xx stands for the name of the aqueous species and yy stands for the depth where the measurements were performed. Soil water content ([0 - 1] m) and water table depth were collected from November 2016 to October 2021 (Wan et al., 2024 - Dynamic_water_table__depthsFig2b.csv and Soil_water_content_Fig4e.csv - DOI:10.15485/2322567). Gaseous CO2 concentration were collected from October 2020 to December 2021(Wan et al., 2024 - Soil_CO2_concentrations_Fig4h.csv - DOI:10.15485/2322567) Gaseous CO2 flux from the subsurface to the atmosphere were collected in the vicinity of PLM2 from October 2019 to May 2022 (Wu et al., 2025). Soil microbial biomass concentration was measured from August 2016 to June 2017 (Sorensen et al., 2019 - 2017_East_River_Pumphouse_Microbial_Biomass__1_.csv - DOI:10.15485/1577267) All field data are published as CSV files compatible with Microsoft Excel, MATLAB, and Python, or as text files. The coordinates of the monitoring wells and the CO2(g) flux sensor in the coordinate system WGS84 are: -PLM1: [38.9197710 ; -106.9492750] -PLM2: [38.9201580 ; -106.9487170] -PLM3: [38.9207843 ; -106.9483668] -PLM4: 38.9210060 ; -106.9479528] -CO2(g) flux sensor: [38.9199180 ; -106.9489906] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a Department of Energy User Facility using NERSC award BER-ERCAP 23980, BER-ERCAP 28550, and BER-ERCAP 33789.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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↗

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↗

Hyporheic zone, river, and groundwater metagenome resolved genomes and rpS3 genes in East River Watershed, Colorado USA Summer 2020, 2021

Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from water filter collected across 8 locations along the East River Watershed, CO, and 1 nearby groundwater well. The purpose was to look for connectivity and similarities across the network and to see the impact of the groundwater. As a part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we assessed community composition and strain similarities between the sites and we also compared it to previous metagenomic studies within the watershed looking at floodplain (Matheus Carnevali et al. 2021) and hillslope (Lavy et al. 2019) microbiomes. Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from filters across 8 locations during August 2020 and July 2021. This resulted in 32 samples. The groundwater sample was sequenced at UC Berkley's QB3. The other 31 samples were sequenced at University of Maryland. Metagenomes were assembled using four autobinners and the best bins were selected using dasTool. The genomes were dereplicated at 95% with dRep and the subset of winning genomes were manually curated based on visual inspection of taxonomic profile, GC content, coverage, and a set of 51 bacterial single copy genes (BSCG), and 38 archaeal signal copy genes (ASCG). The dataset includes a zip file of 311 genomes (HZ_River_SW_MAGS_Dereplicated_95.zip). The dataset additionally includes a zipped file of ribosomal protein small subunit 3 (rpS3) proteins from the hyporheic zone and river data (rpS3_Proteins_HZ_River.zip), a metadata file used to register associated samples with IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), a location metadata file (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.

DNA↗