Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Earth Science”

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 235 records · Page 13

Radiocarbon age at Teller and Kougarok field sites, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

With extreme climate warming in the Arctic, there is increasing focus on permafrost stability and improving understanding of the impacts of thawing permafrost. Understanding the stability of carbon in Arctic permafrost supports our understanding of the global carbon cycle. Organic (plant / wood) samples were collected from varying depths and landscape features at the Teller 33, Teller 47, Teller 51, Kougarok 64, and Kougarok 86 field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska in the summers of 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Carbon 13 and 14 isotopes were measured to find radiocarbon age for collected samples. We also report fraction modern and delta 14C. This dataset contains a *.csv file of radiocarbon measurements and a *.kml file of measurement locations. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy’s Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

EARTH SCIENCE > CLIMATE INDICATORS > PALEOCLIMATE ↗

Arctic shrub and Eriophorum leaf and root decomposition, northern Alaska, 2017-2018

This data package contains litter decomposition data collected from 170 plots of rapidly expanding shrub genera (Alnus, Betula, and Salix) and a widespread sedge (Eriophorum vaginatum) along a latitudinal and temperature gradient in northern Alaska. These data were produced from a litter bag experiment that took place from July 2017 to July 2018 and include mass loss and nitrogen loss decomposition metrics for both leaf and root litters. These raw data support a submitted manuscript that examines the variability in decomposition between shrub and graminoid leaf and root litters across a 1-year experiment across the graminoid-dominated Arctic tundra and reveals how deciduous shrub expansion affects litter decomposition in tundra ecosystems. Data are presented by site (n=5) and patch (shrub or sedge plot) in csv files. The site and plot location data and environmental measurement data are provided in Fraterrigo and Chen (2020). Additional methods regarding plot distribution and environmental measurements are in Chen et al. (2020) and Fraterrigo et al. (2024).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Fungal mat growth and leaf colonization at the TRACE warming experiment, Mar - Aug 2024, Luquillo, Puerto Rico

This data package contains processed measurements on the growth of litter mat-forming fungi and the time to leaf colonization at the Tropical Responses to Altered Climate Experiment (TRACE). Located near the Sabana Field Research Station in Luquillo, Puerto Rico, the TRACE site is located in a mature, closed-canopy tropical rainforest within the Luquillo Experimental Forest (LEF). These data quantify fungal mat growth and the time to leaf colonization of fungi species Gymnopus johnstonii and Marasmius crinis-equi. The experiment was conducted in ambient (control) and experimentally warmed plots (4°C above ambient) during spring and summer periods to assess how litter mat-forming fungi respond to a range of environmental conditions of tropical wet forests. The data files include tables of relative fungal mat growth rates, time to leaf colonization, averages of soil temperature (°C), and number of dry days before leaf attachment. The data are stored in comma-separated values (CSV) format and viewable with any text editor, spreadsheet, or statistical software (e.g., R, Python, Excel). Associated metadata describe plot identifiers, measurement descriptions, and processing steps.

Agaric fungi↗

L0 Data from the 2018 NGEE Arctic LiDAR and Imagery Unoccupied Aerial System Campaign at the Teller 27 Field Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

Airborne remote sensing data collected from Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) heavy-lift unoccupied aerial system (UAS) hexacopter platform operated by NGEE Arctic scientists from the EES-14 group at Los Alamos National Laboratory. These data were collected in July 2018 at a field site near mile marker 27 along the Teller road between Nome, Alaska and Teller, Alaska. A DJI Matrice 600 Pro Airframe and Routescene UAV LiDARSystem was used to collect LiDAR data along 12 flight paths, and DJI Phantom 4 Advanced was used to collect optical red/green/blue (RGB) imagery at regular intervals along 5 flight paths. This data package contains unprocessed data products (processing level 0) including flight paths, raw photos, and raw lidar data files (*.kml, *.jpg, and *.lpd formats). Ancillary aircraft data, flight mission parameters, and general flight conditions are also included (see Supplemental Files, *.rinex, and *.rtcm3 files). NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.- The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Maps of growing season gross primary production and net ecosystem exchange for Council Road Mile Marker 71, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, [2017-2023]

This data archive is in support of the Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments in the Arctic (NGEE Arctic) publication "Integrating Characteristic Arctic Vegetation in a Land Surface Model Improves Representation of Carbon Dynamics Across a Tundra Landscape", by Murphy et al. (2025a). Murphy et al. (2025a) evaluated whether incorporating observed Arctic vegetation heterogeneity into ELM, the land model of the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), improved simulations of tundra carbon cycling. The associated model archive can be found at Murphy et al. (2025b). The study focused on the spatial patterns and net landscape-level growing season productivity and carbon uptake. As part of this evaluation, observationally derived maps of average growing season (June–August) net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and gross primary production (GPP) were developed for the same domain. These maps, which form the dataset described here, integrate eddy covariance flux tower, remote sensing, and vegetation community data to provide spatially explicit benchmarks for model evaluation. The maps provide spatially explicit estimates of average growing season NEE and GPP across 13 tundra vegetation communities within the study domain. By combining flux tower observations with Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer-Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) hyperspectral imagery and drone-based normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), these maps capture the heterogeneity of carbon fluxes associated with different Arctic vegetation types. While they represent average seasonal conditions rather than interannual variability, the maps provide a unique dataset for evaluating model performance, comparing vegetation community contributions to landscape-scale carbon cycling, and supporting regional analyses of Arctic carbon dynamics. This data archive contains 5 m resolution maps of vegetation communities, vegetation community average growing season GPP, and vegetation community average growing season NEE (three *.tif files), a User’s Guide (*pdf file), and Table 1 of the User’s Guide displaying vegetation community coverage and average growing season NEE and GPP values (*.csv file).

Murphy, Bailey [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000203995221)↗

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↗

WHONDRS River Corridor Sediment and Water Geochemistry and In Situ Sensor Data from 7 Perennial and 7 Intermittent Streams across San Antonio, Texas (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the effects of intermittency on sediment respiration. The dataset provides sediment and surface water geochemistry and in situ sensor data from 7 perennial and 7 intermittent streams in San Antonio, Texas. Each stream/site was visited both in summer during base flow (July-September 2023) and winter during peak flow (January-February 2024). Related data were collected and will be published separately in collaboration with A. Veach. The data package was originally published in April 2025. It was updated in June 2025 (v2; modified and new files) and September 2025 (v3; modified files). See the change history section in the 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 two folders of field photos and videos, one folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data and one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (6) field protocol; (7) a subfolder with sample data; and (8) a subfolder with sensor data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) surface water and sediment dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) surface water and sediment total nitrogen data and averages; (3) sediment grain size data; (4) sediment iron (II) data and averages; (5) wet sediment mass, dry sediment mass, water mass, and wet sediment volume in incubation and sediment ICR vials; (7) sediment incubation respiration rate data and averages; (8) normalized respiration rate data and averages; (9) methods codes; (10) sediment percent carbon and nitrogen; (11) sediment X-ray diffraction (XRD) data; (12) gravimetric moisture and averages; (13) a subfolder with sediment incubation respiration data, scripts, and plots; (14) surface water and sediment FTICR methods; and (15) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains five subfolders, one containing the sediment .xml data files, one containing the water .xml files, one containing the sediment CoreMS output files, one containing the water CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS). The sensor data subfolder contains (1) a subfolder with miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature data and plots; (2) miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature summary data; and (3) miniDOT installation methods. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4. CORRECTION: The data processing methods for FTICR described in “v3_WHONDRS_AV1_Methods_Codes.csv” mistakenly indicate that users should process the data in Formultitude. The corrected description should read: “Both unprocessed and processed data are provided to allow users flexibility in data processing. Instructions and scripts for processing the data using CoreMS are included.” CORRECTION: Carbon and nitrogen content are reported as percentages. The current column headers "01395_C_percent_per_mg" and "01397_N_percent_per_mg" are incorrect. These should read "01395_C_percent" and "01397_N_percent" and will be corrected in the next version of this data package.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Water quality data collected from the Muskegon River (MI, USA) using AquaBOT June-July 2024.

This dataset contains processed output from AquaBOT, which combines 30-second interval measurements of GPS location and YSI water quality parameters (temperature (degrees Celsius), dissolved oxygen (mg/l), specific conductance(microSiemens/cm at 25 degrees Celsius), and turbidity (NTU)), for 3 sections of the Muskegon River in Michigan, USA. The file aquabot2024_MuskegonRiver.csv has information on locations, dates and times, and observations. The data were processed by removing observations recorded before and after AquaBOT was in the water and observations where no data values were recorded. No other QA/QC was done. This research was performed as part of the DOE Research Development and Partnership Pilot award “Expanding Collaborative Capacity to Address Climate Resiliency in the Great Lakes Region”, which aims to expand collaborations between researchers at Central Michigan University and U.S. Department of Energy labs and projects focused on enhancing climate resilience in Great Lakes communities and ecosystems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Plant Characteristics, Porewater, Gas Flux, and Soil Biogeochemistry at Council Road Site Mile Marker 71, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2023

Data collected at Council, AK (64°51’35.0”N 163°41’59.1”W) during a summer campaign in 2023. Water data consists of soil porewater collected by centrifuging soil cores and also by field collection with porewater samplers (rhizons). Gas data consists of CO2, CH4 and N2O surface soil fluxes measured with a portable FTIR analyzer. Plant and root data consists of biomass, root length, diameter and mass. Soil data consists of total C and N. Air, water and soil samples span two main locations: a thermokarst wetland and an upland tussock. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).This dataset was generated to broadly address the following research question: how will climate change (i.e., thawing permafrost, landscape change) alter the ecosystem flux (sink versus source) of important greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4 and N2O?Description of the contents of this data package: This dataset contains 5 different individual .csv files containing plant, soil, water and gas data. No software is needed to utilize them. PFTCover: Plant functional type ground cover in 1x1 meter plots. SoilCores: Solidphase and porewater phase soil biogeochemical variablesPlantData: Above and belowground plant traits. GasFlux: Surface plant-soil gas measurementsFieldPorewater: Field collected porewater biogeochemical variables

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

iButton snow temperature measurements at Teller 27 and Kougarok 64, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019-2020

Snow temperature measurements were collected at the NGEE Arctic Teller Road Site at mile marker 27 (TL_MM27) and at the Kougarok Road Site at mile marker 64 (KG_MM64) on the Seward Peninsula. Data were collected from October 1, 2021 to August 16, 2022 using iButton Link DS1926-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g) and Tinytag TGP-4017 internal sensors (https://www.micronmeters.com/product/tgp-4017-internal-sensor-40-to-85-c-40-f-to-185-f) deployed across the Kougarok and Teller sites. These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snowpack temperatures at a higher spatial resolution than what is normally achieved. iButton data were collected every 4 hours beginning on October 1, 2021. Tinytag data collection began between October 9, 2021 and October 12, 2021 depending on the specific Tinytag and data were collected every 30 minutes. In total, data were collected from 236 iButtons and 30 Tinytags. This dataset contains four *.csv files of near-ground surface temperatures at various locations throughout each study site and four *.shp files of sensor locations. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Sensors were placed both inside and outside of vegetation to better capture the spatial variability of snow properties across each domain.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

iButton and Tinytag snow temperature measurements at Teller 27 and Kougarok 64, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021-2022

Snow temperature measurements were collected at the NGEE Arctic Teller Road Site at mile marker 27 (TL_MM27) and at the Kougarok Road Site at mile marker 64 (KG_MM64) on the Seward Peninsula. Data were collected from October 1, 2021 to August 16, 2022 using iButton Link DS1926-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g) and Tinytag TGP-4017 internal sensors (https://www.micronmeters.com/product/tgp-4017-internal-sensor-40-to-85-c-40-f-to-185-f) deployed across the Kougarok and Teller sites. These sensors are a cost-efficient way to collect snowpack temperatures at a higher spatial resolution than what is normally achieved. iButton data were collected every 4 hours beginning on October 1, 2021. Tinytag data collection began between October 9 and October 12, 2021 depending on sensor installation date. Tinytag data were collected every 30 minutes. In total, data were collected from 236 iButtons and 30 Tinytags. This dataset contains four *.csv files of near-ground surface temperatures at various locations throughout each study site and four *.shp files of sensor locations. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Sensors were placed both inside and outside of vegetation to better capture the spatial variability of snow properties across each domain. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Assessment of Extinction‐, Satellite‐, and Model‐Based Vertical Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) Retrieval Methods Using Airborne CCN Measurements Over the Southern Great Plains

Abstract Accurate estimates of the vertical profile of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentration are crucial to better quantify aerosol‐cloud interactions. We assessed the correlation between the vertical CCN concentrations obtained from extinction‐, satellite‐, and model‐based retrieval methods and airborne CCN concentrations collected at 0.24% supersaturation within the 3, 9, 27, and 81 km regions centered over the U.S. Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement User Facility Southern Great Plains (SGP) site during the spring and summer of 2016. The extinction profiles at a wavelength 355 nm were provided by the ground‐based Raman lidar. Our analysis showed moderate correlation between dry‐corrected extinction and airborne CCN data. We found the retrieved number concentration of CCN (RNCCN) method showed regression best‐fit slopes close to unity and consistent prediction errors for the majority of the data. The Lenhardt et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt‐16‐2037‐2023 ) method showed similar conclusions but only during spring, whereas the Mamouri and Ansmann (2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp‐16‐5905‐2016 ) method showed poor correlation. The Shinozuka et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp‐15‐7585‐2015 ) satellite‐based method exhibited reasonable agreement during summer but poor correlation during periods where both high (∼1,400 #/cm 3 ) and low (∼50 #/cm 3 ) airborne CCN concentrations were observed. The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service reanalysis modeled 3‐D CCN data set showed a moderate to weak positive correlation but performed poorly at high airborne CCN concentrations. Our analysis suggests the extinction‐based RNCCN method performed better than other methods across most observation periods under the diverse meteorological conditions observed at the SGP site.

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 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↗

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↗

TEMPEST3 surface runoff water chemistry and organic matter composition

Coastal flooding, driven by storm surges and sea level rise, can mobilize organic matter (OM) via runoff, while introducing compositionally distinct OM (e.g., estuarine OM) into the system. To understand event-scale OM dynamics, we monitored source waters and surface runoff during an ecosystem-scale field manipulation experiment, TEMPEST (Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments), in June 2024. The TEMPEST experiment is part of the COMPASS-FME (Coastal Observations, Mechanisms, and Predictions Across Systems and Scales – Field, Measurements, and Experiments) project and designed to investigate biogeochemical and ecological impacts of freshwater and seawater flooding on coastal terrestrial-aquatic interface ecosystems by simulating freshwater and seawater storm events in two 2000m2 coastal upland forest plots (freshwater and brackish seawater plots). The temporal coverage of this dataset is during the TEMPESTⅢ event (June 11-13, 2024). This dataset contains: - Surface runoff discharge measured by flumes - Sensor data (specific conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) - Particle size distribution - Total suspended sediment concentrations (TSS), particulate and dissolved organic carbon (POC, DOC) concentrations, total nitrogen and total dissolved nitrogen (TN, TDN) concentrations - Bulk particulate and dissolved OM compositions (stable C and N isotopes of particulates and optical measurements of chromophoric dissolved OM) - High resolution mass spectrometry analysis data - Water isotope data All data files are plain-text CSV (comma-separated value), and no special software is required to read them.

COMPASS-FME↗

NDVI and Multispectral Images, UAS Flights, Council Road Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, June 2022

The dataset contains Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and multispectral images collected on June 18, 2022 using an UAS (Unmanned Aerial System) Yuneec H520, Mapir Survey 3, and Parrot Sequoia cameras. This data was created to accompany the following datasets:- NGEE Arctic CO2, CH4 and Energy Eddy-Covariance (EC) Flux Tower Auxiliary Measurements, Council Road Mile Marker 71, Seward Peninsula, Alaska (https://doi.org/10.5440/1526749)- Sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence/eddy covariance measurements at NGEE Arctic Council site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2022 (https://doi.org/10.15485/2466175)- NGEE Arctic Meteorological Data from Instrumented PCDC Stations, Council Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2018 - 2023 (https://doi.org/10.5440/1529604)Survey 3 is RGN (Red, Greeen, Near Infra Red) camera with 87° Horizontal Field of View (HFOV) (19mm) f/2.8 Aperture, 550nm/660nm/850nm (Red+Green+NIR) filter transmission and produced geo referenced jpg and raw format images. Parrot Sequoia is a camera with 16 megapixel RGB (Red, Green, Blue) sensor and 1.2 megapixel monochrome sensors in discrete spectral bands: Green (550nm - 40Nm Bandwidth), Red (660nm - 40nm Bandwidth), Red Edge (735nm - 10nm Bandwidth) and Near Infrared (790nm - 40nm Bandwidth).The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗