Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “biogeochemical processes”

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

Temporal Study 2021-2022: Sample-Based Surface Water Chemistry and Organic Matter Characterization across Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of temporal variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides geochemistry and organic matter characterization data generated from samples collected at weekly or bi-weekly intervals at six sites across the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Related sensor data will be published separately and can be used to link sediment respiration rates to biogeochemical processing rates. The data package was originally published in November 2022. It was updated in November 2023 (v2; modified files) and April 2025 (new and modified files). See the change history section in readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC; reported as non-purgeable organic carbon; NPOC), total nitrogen (TN), total suspended solids (TSS), and ions; (5) averaged values from water chemistry data; (6) surface water sampling protocol; (7) sensor protocol; (8) readme; (9) methods codes; (10) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (11) folder of high resolution characterization of organic via 12 Tesla Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory). This folder contains two subfolders, one containing the .xml data files and the other containing instructions for using Formularity (https://omics.pnl.gov/software/formularity) and an R script to process the data based on the user's specific needs. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .ref, or .xml. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected our data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Groundwater level elevation and temperature data, Oct 2018-Dec 2021, Slate River Floodplain, Crested Butte, CO

This data package includes a time series of water level and temperature measurements from October 2018 to December 2021 in groundwater and surface water from the Slate River floodplain outside Crested Butte, CO, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? The data were recorded by pressure transducers were installed in four types of piezometers: 1) a network of gravel bed ("GB") drive-point piezometers with a 6-inch screen interval installed all at ~330 cm below ground surface. 2) a network of piezometers screened across the water table, used to measure evapotranspiration ("ET") using the White method. Each of these piezometers is screened along almost its entire length.3) a suite nested piezometers used the measure the vertical hydraulic gradient ("VHG") across the fines-cobble interface. Each of these piezometers uses a 6-inch screen length.4) a group of piezometers scattered across the boundaries of the floodplain, used to monitor boundary conditions ("BC") flowing into and out of the floodplain. With the exception of "SR-BD-WT", each of these piezometers is screened along its entire length. Within the data package, "FLMD.csv" describes file-level metadata and "dd.csv" defines column headers and universal terms across the dataset. The data package includes 11 "*data.csv" files, one for each piezometer type for each calendar year. Because piezometers have been added over time, not every sensor has data dating back to Oct 2018. Each "*data.csv" file has a corresponding "*_InstallationMethods.csv" file that describes the location, elevation, screen depth, sediment type and sensor metadata for each piezometer and pressure transducer.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Meteorological, reference evapotranspiration and estimated transpiration data, July 2020-Dec 2021, Slate River Floodplain, Crested Butte, Colorado

This data package includes a time series of meteorological data (air temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure, precipitation, wind speed, soil heat flux, incoming shortwave radiation, incoming longwave radiation, outgoing shortwave radiation and outgoing longwave radiation) from the Slate River floodplain outside Crested Butte, Colorado, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? The package also includes reference evapotranspiration calculated via the Penman-Monteith equation and an estimate of willow (Salix spp.) evapotranspiration using the method of Irmak et al., J. Hydrology, 2013. Due to two malfunctioning sensors (incoming shortwave radiation from Oct 2020-May 2021 and incoming longwave radiation from May 2021-March 2022), observed net radiation and calculated evapotranspiration are only included from July-October 2020. However, users may be able to extend calculated evapotranspiration using estimates of these two parameters from other sources. Both sensors have been replaced and data beyond 2021 be uploaded to this repository when it is available.Within the data package, "FLMD.csv" describes file-level metadata and "dd.csv" defines column headers and universal terms across the dataset. The data package includes 3 "*data.csv" files, two for meteorological data for 2020 and 2021 and one for reference evapotranspiration and transpiration data from 2020 ("SLT_OBJ2_PenmanMonteith_2020_data.csv"). Each "*data.csv" file of meteorological data has a corresponding "*_InstallationMethods.csv" file that describes the location, sensor model, sensor serial number and other metadata corresponding to each measured parameter. We also include a Jupyter notebook ("PenmanMonteithET_Calculations.ipynb") that details the assumptions and equations used to calculate daily and hourly reference evapotranspiration and daily willow transpiration from raw meteorological data.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

CO2 and CH4 leaf-level fluxes and soil porewater concentrations from common vegetation patches in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands

This dataset contains leaf-level flux and soil porewater concentration measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4 ) in plots in the footprint of Ameriflux sites US-LA2 and US-LA3. Leaf fluxes in US-LA2 were measured on patches dominated by Sagittaria lancifolia and co-dominated by Sagittaria lancifolia and Typha latifolia. In US-LA3, fluxes were measured from distinct Juncus roemerianus and Spartina alterniflora patches. The porewater concentrations were collected across a vertical profile (~50 cm depth) at centric locations within 25 m2 plots where we measured the leaf fluxes. US-LA3 included an additional set of measurements in open water spots. We aimed to evaluate differences in leaf fluxes and porewater pools of CO2 and CH4 of representative ecohydrological patches across a salinity gradient. We also used this dataset to help develop ELM-Wet, a more realistic representation of wetland carbon biogeochemical processes within the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model version 1 (ELM v.1). The files can be opened with regular text editors or spreadsheet programs. Version 2.0 (8/26/2025): This is the latest version of this dataset. The update includes additional samples of soil porewater CH4/CO2 concentrations from June-2021 to November-2022, as well as minor adjustments made to V1 samples via changing Henry's solubility to account for porewater salinity. Additionally leaf-level measurments of spectral indices, PSRI, NDVI, and PRI have been added to complement Leaf-level flux measurements. All V1 data sets have been integrated into V2 sheets, ensuring data from the previous version is contained with the additional samples and consistent with V2 metadata.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Modeled estimates of permafrost hydrology and related fields for pan-Arctic region over the period 1980-2100

This dataset contains gridded estimates of total runoff (mm/day); subsurface runoff (mm/day); snow water equivalent (SWE, mm/day); vertical upward water flux of combined surface evaporation, evapotranspiration, and snow sublimation (mm/day); and soil temperature (C) across the pan-Arctic basin from simulations of the Permafrost Water Balance Model (PWBM v4). These data were generated to allow researchers to advance understanding of the changes unfolding in the Arctic's terrestrial water cycle under the influences of climate warming, hydrological cycle intensification, and permafrost thaw. The dataset will enable researchers to address important questions spanning multiple disciplines. For example, how will rising river flows exported to the coast impact critical zone ecosystems, near-shore ice dynamics, and ocean biogeochemical processes. Spatial resolution is 25x25 km with N=39926 grid cells spanning the domain. Three forcing datasets were used to drive simulations at an implicit daily time step over the period 1980-2100. Daily air temperature, precipitation, and wind speed data from the WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA5 reanalysis (W5E5) were used for meteorological forcings over the period 1980-2019. Simulations for the period 1980-2100 used meteorological data from two global climate models; IPSL-CM6A-LR and MPI-ESM1-2-HR. The PWBM hydrological outputs are organized by grid and month in gzipped ASCII text files within each archived tar file. Soil temperature is organized by grid cell and day of year from DOY 205 to DOY 260. No special software is required to work with these data. The package contains spatial domain and river basin information files. These data are most useful for analyses of the spatial and temporal variations in terrestrial hydrology and soil thermal dynamics. A manuscript describing the model simulations and associated analysis has been accepted for publication in The Cryosphere (Rawlins and Karmalkar, 2024).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Rhizosphere Soil Biogeochemical Data and Photosynthetic Data of Vicia Faba in a Rhizobox

Here we share the data in column format via csv files for pH, redox, and dissolved oxygen collected at hourly resolution from microelectrodes. Dissolved organic carbon concentrations collected from TOC are also provided in a similar format but are composited samples from hourly microdialysis collection. This provided resolution of diel rhizosphere dynamics belowground. Plant physiological data was also collected at every 5 min for 24 hr cycles in order to capture diel dynamics aboveground. This data was used to parameterize the reaction transport model eSTOMP-ROOTS, which examines the rhizosphere biogeochemistry of a growing Vicia faba plant. The aim was to investigate plant activity and belowground biogeochemical processes, particularly their impact on mineral-organic associations in the rhizosphere. We combined in-situ rhizosphere microsensor and plant physiological measurements with a 3-D plant-soil reactive transport model to explore the behavior of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the rhizosphere. Over several days, microdialysis probes placed at the root-soil interface in live soil showed distinct daily patterns of DOC concentration in the pore water. Spikes in DOC concentrations during the day aligned with peaks in leaf-level photosynthesis, accompanied by decreasing redox potential and dissolved oxygen levels, and increasing pH in the rhizosphere. This new mechanistic modeling framework, which integrates aboveground plant physiological data with non-destructive, high-resolution monitoring of rhizosphere processes, offers significant potential for studying the factors that control carbon storage in soils.

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↗

Metagenome-assembled genomes from topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The Watershed Function Science Focus Area (WF SFA) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is working to build a mechanistic understanding of the distribution and dynamics of biogeochemical processes in mountainous watersheds and their response to perturbation. In June 2018, the NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) Airborne Observatory Platform (AOP) performed a taskable airborne imaging campaign to collect visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR data across 330 km2 in the Upper East River at Crested Butte, CO. We conducted a parallel ground sampling campaign to sample vegetation traits, as well as soil physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics. We collected these samples from 438 sites across 12 locations spanning much of the elevation, topographic, and geologic variability across the study area. A subset of 250 samples were used for soil metagenomics which is presented here. In addition, at each site, vegetation samples were collected to measure species-specific leaf water content and leaf mass area, foliar elemental composition and foliar CN stable isotope ratios. Soil samples were collected to measure soil physical properties which include bulk density and soil texture analysis. A suite of soil chemical properties was measured from the samples collected at each site, including pH, organic matter, concentrations exchangeable cations, total elemental composition, and the concentrations of extractable N pools (e.g. total free amino acids, ammonium, nitrate, dissolved organic N, and total dissolved N). Additionally, we have measured soil microbial biomass CN stoichiometry. Here, we present 1982 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community from topsoil collected from during NEON 2018 campaign. All metagenomes were sequenced at JGI (Joint Genome Institute) (GOLD Study ID: Gs0149986). Metagenomes were assembled using JGI Metagenome Workflow (10.1128/mSystems.00804-20). The dataset includes (1) zip files for 1982 MAG fasta files (neon_genomes1-5.tar.gz, split into 5 tarballs to keep tarballs under 0.5 GB), (2) neon_Gs0149986_samples_soilproperties_metagenomes.csv: the sample information together with the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes and the associated soil physical and chemical measurements in NMDC (National Microbiome Data Collaborative) compliant format, (3) neon_Gs0149986.kml: location bounding box file for the sampled locations, (4) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register Internationall Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), (5) flmd.csv: file level metadata file, and (6) dd.csv: data dictionary file. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

Data for Machado-Silva et al. (2024), "Short-Term Groundwater Level Fluctuations Drive Subsurface Redox Variability"

This dataset contains the analytical data reported in Machado-Silva et al. (2024) as part of the COMPASS-FME project, which seeks to advance a scalable, predictive understanding of the fundamental biogeochemical processes, ecological structure, and ecosystem dynamics that distinguish coastal terrestrial-aquatic interfaces from the purely terrestrial or aquatic systems to which they are coupled. The dataset consists of water quality parameters as well as redox potential, water content, and electrical conductivity. These data were collected in 2022 in Crane Creek (CRC), Portage River (PTR), and Old Woman Creek (OWC). Each of these sites included uplands (UP), transitions (TR), wetland-transition edge (WTE), and wetland (W) zones. The sites represent replicates of the Lake Erie terrestrial-aquatic interface under fluctuating water levels and are located in well-preserved areas with natural or restored marsh and forest cover.This dataset consists of a single data file (Machado_Silva_et_al_2024_EST_data.csv) that is in comma-separated value (CSV) format. No special software is required to read it.This dataset uses the ESS-DIVE Hydrologic Monitoring Reporting Format 1.0.

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↗

Data for Stetten et al. (2025), "Biogeochemical controls on iron speciation and cycling across upland to shoreline gradients in freshwater and estuarine coastal soils (Lake Erie and Chesapeake Bay, United States)"

Coastal environments are dynamic interfaces that mediate carbon and nutrient exchanges between terrestrial landscapes and open waters, but it is unclear how biogeochemical reactions, in particular iron (Fe) redox transformations, affect the understanding and prediction of coastal ecosystem functions. This dataset includes measurements from two freshwater sites in the Western and Central basins of Lake Erie (Ohio, United States) and two estuarine sites in the Chesapeake Bay (Maryland, United States); the analytical results were reported by Stetten et al. (2025) in Science of the Total Environment. It was produced as part of the COMPASS-FME project, which seeks to advance a scalable, predictive understanding of the fundamental biogeochemical processes, ecological structure, and ecosystem dynamics that distinguish coastal terrestrial-aquatic interfaces from the purely terrestrial or aquatic systems to which they are coupled. The sites were sampled in November 2022 (CRC), December 2022 (MSM), February 2023 (GCW), and March 2023 (OWC); site codes follow those used by Pennington et al. (2025).The dataset consists of the following soil data:- Solid data (Fe concentration, etc.)- Porewater data (sulfate, sulfide, etc.)- Linear combination fitting results of X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES) spectra; i.e., quantitative results of the oxidation state of Fe, indicated as a proportion of pure Fe(III) and Fe(II) model compounds- Linear combination fitting results of EXAFS (extended X-ray absorption fine structure) spectra, indicated as proportion of of Fe-model compounds (illite, smectite, etc.)Each data type has a single file in comma-separated value (CSV) format. No special software is required to read it.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Groundwater and surface water head from 2019 to 2022 at the Tims Branch in Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina.

This dataset contains groundwater and surface water head measurements for investigating hydro-biogeochemical processes in Tims Branch at the Savannah River Site, SC. Water levels were monitored using pressure transducers installed in surface water gauges and piezometers across three subsites in Tims Branch, identified as Wfloc, Snon (Snon1 and Snon2), and Sfloc. A barometric pressure logger was deployed in piezometers to correct pressure transducers from atmospheric pressure. Manual water level measurements were taken to calibrate transducer data. The dataset consists of at least paired groundwater and surface water head time series for each subsite, provided as individual CSV files. These data support analyses of surface-groundwater interactions, hydrologic controls on redox processes, and broader synthesis of wetland hydrology at the Savannah River Site.

ESS-DIVE CSV File Formatting Guidelines Reporting ↗

Soil and groundwater environmental sensor data, Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana, March 2023 - March 2024

This study evaluates how environmental parameters that integrate biogeochemical processes vary with water table fluctuations in the freshwater Wax Lake Delta (WLD) in Louisiana, U.S.A. This data package contains seven *.csv files and one Excel file that compiles all the data from the individual .csv files. This dataset reports high frequency (15-min) observations of water level, soil redox potential, specific conductance, and pH made for one year along elevation transects located on the older, proximal (OT) and younger, distal (YT) ends of a deltaic island. Water depth relative to the ground surface (cm; HOBO U20L-04; error ± 0.4 cm), water pH and temperature (HOBO MX2501), and specific conductance and temperature (HOBO U24-001) sensors were installed in March 2023. Water depth was corrected for barometric pressure recorded by a separate logger secured to a platform above the highest water level. Soil redox probes (SWAP ORP-40-4-B) were also installed in March 2023. Each probe had four Pt sensors (2 mm width) placed at 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, and 40 cm below the ground surface. Redox data were referenced to an external Ag0/AgCl (3M KCl) reference probe placed in saturated ground and recorded on CR1000X dataloggers (Campbell Scientific) powered by solar panels. A second reference probe was positioned near the primary reference probe for backup and data correction. The tops of the soil redox probes and soil moisture probes were flush with the soil surface so that sensors are reported at their indicated depths below ground surface. Here, we report data collected between 15 March 2023 to 15 March 2024 for all sensors, with some differences due to exact dates of sensor placement or data gaps associated with sensor malfunction. For example, water depth at OT4 was not recorded between March to November 2023. Data flags indicate whether a value is valid (1) or was excluded from data analysis in the associated manuscript (-1).

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

Topsoil bulk geochemical compositions - An updated harmonized global dataset

Mineral weathering is a key biogeochemical process because of the capacity of minerals to stabilize organic matter. However, predicting soil weathering status across large spatial areas still isn’t possible due to a lack of global data and theoretical frameworks. To address this knowledge gap, multiple global datasets of bulk topsoil geochemical compositions have been harmonized using R. These datasets document topsoil bulk geochemical compositions across five continents (n = ~16,000 observations). Source data for these observations include the EuroGEOSurveys Geochemical Baseline Database (FOREGS), the US Geological Survey National Geochemical Database (NASGLP), the Geochemical Atlas of Australia (GAA), the US Geological Survey Alaska Geochemical Database (AGD84), the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS), the European Geochemical Mapping of Agricultural Soil (GEMAS), Ecorespira-Amazon (ERA), the New Zealand Geochemical Baseline Survey (NZ_GBS), and the African Soil Information Service (AFSIS). Major elements observed include Aluminum (Al), Calcium (Ca), Iron (Fe), Potassium (K), Magnesium (Mg), Sodium (Na), Titanium (Ti), Manganese (Mn), Phosphorus (P), Carbon (C), and Sulfur (S). This data package includes the harmonized dataset itself, and the R scripts necessary to harmonize these datasets, in addition to metadata that describes all columns, files, and databases used in this project. Methods & Sampling Step 1 – Databases of geochemical data identified This study aimed to leverage existing measurements of topsoil geochemical data. Databases were first identified and deemed appropriate for inclusion if they were measuring soils and performed these measurements on the <2mm soil fraction. Databases such as NCSS and AGD84 needed more post processing to include in the database and this was done using the NCSS_datamerge_031626 R file and Alaska_USGSmerge_031626 R file, respectively. Step 2 – Database harmonization Once appropriate databases were identified, they were harmonized for ease of analysis using the R script Database_Harmonization_031826. This included removing columns from original datasets that would not be used in analysis (removed columns are noted in the code). Then, data cleaning procedures specific to each dataset were undertaken. This includes standardizing columns to include units and adding metadata columns regarding procedures for analyzing specific elements. Functions for standardizing measurements and units are outline in R files: calculate element_mg_kg_031626, calculate_oxide_wt_perc_031626, change_oxide_caps_031626, and conv_2_numeric_031626. This also included adding a unique identifier for each sample to identify it with its respective database (see CD_ID in data dictionary). Geographic information: Data reflect a compilation of datasets collected globally. Geographic areas covered by each of the datasets include: - EuroGEOSurveys Geochemical Baseline Database (FOREGS) - European continent - North American Soil Geochemical Landscapes (NASGLP) - continental United States and limited parts of Canada (see database key for more details) - National Geochemical Survey of Australia (GAA) - Australia - Alaska geochemical database (AGDB4) - Alaska - National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) - Global measurements, but concentrated in the continental United States - Geochemical data for arable land and land under permanent grass cover in continental Europe (GEMAS) - continental Europe - Ecorespira-Amazon (ERA) - Geochemical data from the Amazon basin - Geochemical baseline data for New Zealand (NZGBS) - New Zealand - Geochemical data collected across continental Africa (AfSIS) - Measurements across Africa

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

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↗