Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “commonality”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Competition and cooperation: The plasticity of bacterial interactions across environments

Bacteria live in diverse communities, forming complex networks of interacting species. A central question in bacterial ecology is whether species engage in cooperative or competitive interactions. But this question often neglects the role of the environment. Here, we use genome-scale metabolic networks from two different open-access collections (AGORA and CarveMe) to assess pairwise interactions of different microbes in varying environmental conditions (provision of different environmental compounds). By computationally simulating thousands of environments for 10,000 pairs of bacteria from each collection, we found that most pairs were able to both compete and cooperate depending on the availability of environmental resources. This modeling approach allowed us to determine commonalities between environments that could facilitate the potential for cooperation or competition between a pair of species. Namely, cooperative interactions, especially obligate, were most common in less diverse environments. Further, as compounds were removed from the environment, we found interactions tended to degrade towards obligacy. However, we also found that on average at least one compound could be removed from an environment to switch the interaction from competition to facultative cooperation or vice versa. Together our approach indicates a high degree of plasticity in microbial interactions in response to the availability of environmental resources.

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology↗
DOE OSTI2025

Isolation and characterization of 24 phages infecting the plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Klebsiella sp. M5al

Bacteriophages largely impact bacterial communities via lysis, gene transfer, and metabolic reprogramming and thus are increasingly thought to alter nutrient and energy cycling across many of Earth’s ecosystems. However, there are few model systems to mechanistically and quantitatively study phage-bacteria interactions, especially in soil systems. Here, we isolated, sequenced, and genomically characterized 24 novel phages infectingKlebsiellasp. M5al, a plant growth-promoting, nonencapsulated rhizosphere-associated bacterium, and compared many of their features against all 565 sequenced, dsDNAKlebsiellaphage genomes. Taxonomic analyses revealed that theseKlebsiellaphages belong to three known phage families (Autographiviridae,Drexlerviridae, andStraboviridae) and two newly proposed phage families (CandidatusMavericviridaeand Ca.Rivulusviridae). At the phage family level, we found that core genes were often phage-centric proteins, such as structural proteins for the phage head and tail and DNA packaging proteins. In contrast, genes involved in transcription, translation, or hypothetical proteins were commonly not shared or flexible genes. Ecologically, we assessed the phages’ ubiquity in recent large-scale metagenomic datasets, which revealed they were not widespread, as well as a possible direct role in reprogramming specific metabolisms during infection by screening their genomes for phage-encoded auxiliary metabolic genes (AMGs). Even though AMGs are common in the environmental literature, only one of our phage families,Straboviridae, contained AMGs, and the types of AMGs were correlated at the genus level. Host range phenotyping revealed the phages had a wide range of infectivity, infecting between 1–14 of our 22 bacterial strain panel that included pathogenicKlebsiellaandRaoultellastrains. This indicates that not all capsule-independent Klebsiella phages have broad host ranges. Together, these isolates, with corresponding genome, AMG, and host range analyses, help build theKlebsiellamodel system for studying phage-host interactions of rhizosphere-associated bacteria.

Science & Technology - Other Topics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Calibration verification for stochastic agent-based disease spread models

Accurate disease spread modeling is crucial for identifying the severity of outbreaks and planning effective mitigation efforts. To be reliable when applied to new outbreaks, model calibration techniques must be robust. However, current methods frequently forgo calibration verification (a stand-alone process evaluating the calibration procedure) and instead use overall model validation (a process comparing calibrated model results to data) to check calibration processes, which may conceal errors in calibration. In this work, we develop a stochastic agent-based disease spread model to act as a testing environment as we test two calibration methods using simulation-based calibration, which is a synthetic data calibration verification method. The first calibration method is a Bayesian inference approach using an empirically-constructed likelihood and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling, while the second method is a likelihood-free approach using approximate Bayesian computation (ABC). Simulation-based calibration suggests that there are challenges with the empirical likelihood calculation used in the first calibration method in this context. These issues are alleviated in the ABC approach. Despite these challenges, we note that the first calibration method performs well in a synthetic data model validation test similar to those common in disease spread modeling literature. We conclude that stand-alone calibration verification using synthetic data may benefit epidemiological researchers in identifying model calibration challenges that may be difficult to identify with other commonly used model validation techniques.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Replacing non-biomedical concepts improves embedding of biomedical concepts

Embeddings are semantically meaningful representations of words in a vector space, commonly used to enhance downstream machine learning applications. Traditional biomedical embedding techniques often replace all synonymous words representing biological or medical concepts with a unique token, ensuring consistent representation and improving embedding quality. However, the potential impact of replacing non-biomedical concept synonyms has received less attention. Embedding approaches often employ concept replacement to replace concepts that span multiple words, such as non-small-cell lung carcinoma, with a single concept identifier (e.g., D002289). Also, all synonyms of each concept are merged into the same identifier. Here, we additionally leveraged WordNet to identify and replace sets of non-biomedical synonyms with their most common representatives. This combined approach aimed to reduce embedding noise from non-biomedical terms while preserving the integrity of biomedical concept representations. We applied this method to 1,055 biomedical concept sets representing molecular signatures or medical categories and assessed the mean pairwise distance of embeddings with and without non-biomedical synonym replacement. A smaller mean pairwise distance was interpreted as greater intra-cluster coherence and higher embedding quality. Embeddings were generated using the Word2Vec algorithm applied to a corpus of 10 million PubMed abstracts. Our results demonstrate that the addition of non-biomedical synonym replacement reduced the mean intra-cluster distance by an average of 8%, suggesting that this complementary approach enhances embedding quality. Future work will assess its applicability to other embedding techniques and downstream tasks. Python code implementing this method is provided under an open-source license.

algorithms↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data for Roebuck et al. (2025), "Differences in dissolved organic matter composition between rivers and estuaries is conserved across freshwater and saltwater coastal regions"

Dissolved organic matter (DOM) in coastal surface waters influences local water quality and is an important component of biogeochemical cycling in coastal systems, but the processes that alter DOM composition along lower reaches of rivers and estuarine waters are poorly understood. Roebuck et al. (2025) leveraged a spatially distributed community sampling effort in coastal ecosystems across two regions to identify broad spatial drivers of surface water DOM composition and identify transferable trends between saltwater and freshwater coastal systems. Samples were collected by community members from 47 locations within the mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes coastal regions.This dataset includes:* A selection of commonly reported absorbance and fluorescence peaks normalized to dissolved organic carbon concentrations* Parallel factor output from the EC1 fluorescence datasets* A selection of commonly reported absorbance and fluorescence peaks * Spectral indices output from matlab script for absorbance and fluorescence datasets* CO2sys calculations of pH changes under varying temperatures and a constant salinity, DIC, and alkalinity concentrationAll data files are plain-text CSV (comma separated value) and no special software is required to read them.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil biogeochemical properties and metrics of tree-mycorrhizal dominance for a 25-Ha forest in South Central Indiana, USA.

This data package contains a dataset used in the papers “Seeing the forest for all the trees: Mycorrhizal-associated nutrient economies are modulated by stem density and the synchrony between overstory and understory communities” and “Mycorrhizal associations of tree species influence soil nitrogen dynamics via effects on soil acid–base chemistry”. Four csv files are included along with a dataset. The dataset features chemical soil properties for a single sampling campaign within the 25 Ha Lilly-Dickey Woods Smithsonian Forest Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO) plot in South Central Indiana, USA (ldw_dat_raw.csv). Also included are separate files focused on pH (pH_data.csv), carbon and nitrogen (CN_data.csv), and nitrification rates (Nitrification_data.csv). These variables are commonly associated with the tree-mycorrhizal dominance of forest stands. In these data subsets, each soil variable was matched to a 10 meter radius neighborhood wherein metrics of tree-mycorrhizal dominance (basal area, stem count, importance value, etc.) were calculated. Models between these soil variables and dominance metrics were used to investigate how different assessments of mycorrhizal associated nutrient economies (MANE) capture these relationships. This research was performed as a part of the Smithsonian ForestGEO project. This data package can be used to explore spatial variability in soil chemistry within a mature hardwood forest, or it can be combined with the included tree data, other fine-scale spatial information, or other tree inventory data for the site to evaluate how soil chemistry varies with tree community composition or edaphic or topographic properties.

Craig, Matthew [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000288907920)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Custom surface reflectance, shade mask, and equivalent water thickness maps for the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (2025)

This dataset contains land surface reflectance estimates and additional derived products generated from NEON Imaging Spectrometer (NIS) data collected in the Upper Gunnison river basin during June and July of 2025. Data was collected over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). These products were derived from radiance and LiDAR data collected by the NEON Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) campaign funded by the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) (doi:10.15485/3017965). Products include per-pixel surface reflectance (rfl) and reflectance uncertainty (rfl_unc), observational data (obs), canopy equivalent water thickness (ewt), and shade masks. Atmospheric correction was performed per flightline using the ISOFIT (Imaging Spectrometer Optimal FITting) optimal estimation framework to estimate surface reflectance and the associated per-band reflectance uncertainty. Reflectance retrievals achieved a mean absolute error of 1.5% across diverse validation surfaces (see validation report.pdf). Equivalent water thickness was calculated from surface reflectance using the Beer–Lambert absorption of liquid water. Shade masks were generated based on the geometry between the sun angle, ground surface, and sensor at the time of flight. Data products are provided per-flightline and as mosaics for each domain. Flightline data products are provided as ENVI-formatted binary files (rfl, rfl_unc, ewt) and GeoTIFFs (shade). Reflectance and uncertainty mosaics are provided as tiled NetCDFs, while all other mosaicked products are provided as cloud-optimized GeoTIFFs. These formats are supported by common geospatial software (e.g., QGIS, ArcGIS, ENVI) and programmatic libraries in Python (e.g., rasterio, xarray, spectral, netCDF4) and R (e.g., terra, ncdf4). Processing workflows were designed to be equivalent to those used to generate the 2018 CHESS campaign airborne imaging spectroscopy data products (doi:10.15485/3013527). All outputs were co-registered to a common spatial grid to support time series analyses. CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgment: Data acquisition was performed under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC24K1005). Computational research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004) and was funded by EMIT Extended Mission Phase E Science.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Leaf Area Index (LAI) for meadow, shrub, tree, and understory vegetation

This dataset contains Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements made as part of the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) during June and July of 2025. Data were collected in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, across three study domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). Field observations of LAI were collected within 72 hours of airborne data collection by the National Ecological Observatory Network’s Aerial Observation Platform (NEON AOP). The NEON AOP collected waveform LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and imaging spectrometer data in 426 spectral bands from the visible to shortwave infrared. LAI measurements were collected using the LICOR LAI-2200C Plant Canopy Analyzer following protocols outlined in the instrument manual (LI-COR 2019). Sampling targeted four distinct vegetation types: meadows, shrubs, trees, and aspen forest understory. We have archived data separately by site type because different field methods were used for each. At meadow sites, measurements were made at the four corners of 1m x 1m plots, with the instrument moving inward toward the center of the plot. At shrub sites, we measured the canopies of individual shrubs. At tree sites, we made measurements within a 10m x 10m subplot centered around a focal tree, with 30 observations taken on a regular grid. At aspen understory sites, we measured overstory trees following the tree protocol and understory herbaceous vegetation following the meadow protocol. All measurements included above-canopy (A) and below-canopy (B) readings, with specific protocols for scattering correction measurements in direct-sun conditions. Data were processed using the R package `rlai` (Worsham 2025). This package includes functions to calculate LAI, gap fraction, apparent clumping factor (Ω), scattering correction, and other canopy metrics. Package contents: Full file descriptions appear in ‘flmd.csv’. Files named according to the convention ‘lai_*_summary_data_cleaned.csv’ contain summary values of LAI, apparent clumping factor (Ωapp), and scattering correction factors for each site. These are the analysis-ready products that most data users will work with. Files named ‘lai_*_metadata_cleaned.csv’ contain additional site-level observations made during field collection. We have also archived intermediate and supplementary data for users who wish to check our processing approach or apply alternative methods. ‘raw_lai_2200C.zip’ contains the raw files as read from the LI-COR instrument, with no processing applied, in TXT format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type, which are further subdivided by sampling area. Filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘intermediate_results.zip’ contains detailed output from the processing routines, in JSON format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘scattering_correction_logs.zip’ contains logfiles from the implementation of Kobayashi et al.'s (2013) scattering correction algorithm. The logfiles report values of several parameters at each iteration of the algorithm, as the model converges toward a stable solution. They are intended for users who want to verify scattering correction performance. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘spot_checks.csv’ reports LAI and other values for a small number of files processed with LI-COR FV2200 software (LI-COR 2013) using the same control parameters as in our R-based approach. Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). All zip files can be expanded with common archive utilities. TXT, CSV, and JSON files can be ingested into R or Python computing environments or read in common text editor utilities. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgement: Field and remote-sensing data acquisition was performed under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC24K1005). This work was also 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. * Todorov and Worsham are co–first authors.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Differences in urban plant community compositions across an urban-rural gradient in Knoxville, TN

Urban forests, or vegetation in areas under heavy human influence, provide many ecosystem services to urban residents such as localized cooling via evapotranspiration, shade, filtering of air pollution, and the associated health benefits of natural spaces. In order to quantify the magnitude of localized cooling by trees growing in varying levels of urbanization (based on % impervious surfaces, e.g., buildings, pavement), urban forest species composition, tree size, and tree density must be characterized. As a part of Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) urban forest temperature study, we conducted tree censuses in five Knoxville city parks where ORNL meteorological stations are deployed. Moreover, we measured every woody plant ≥ 5 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) within a 50 m radius of each site’s meteorological station for its DBH and species identification. When possible, individuals were identified down to species. Certain genera (Quercus spp., Carya spp., Pinus spp.) were identified down to genera in interest of time. Individual and total site basal area were calculated from measured DBH data. Results show notable differences in urban plant community compositions and total woody plant basal area across sites, with more urban sites closer to downtown (West View and SEEED) having lower tree basal area than the more suburban sites (West Hills, Cumberland Estates, and Victor Ashe). We identified 54 species across all sites, with West Hills and Victor Ashe having the highest species diversity. Our results show differences in forest compositions and sizes across Knoxville, which are currently informing ORNL’s evapotranspiration estimates for each site. Data Summary: Census data for West Hills (WH), Cumberland Estates (CE), Victor Ashe (VA), West View (WV), and Socially Equal Energy Efficient Development or SEEED (SD) urban forests in Knoxville, TN, USA, including tree size based on diameter at breast height (DBH; 1.3 m), species identification (Latin and common names), and basal area per stem (BA=π×[.5*DBH]^2). Field data are summarized in this file: “Community_Composition_Data.CSV”. Site-specific data detailing each site’s coordinates, number of stems measured at DBH, average tree DBH, α-diversity (number of species present), and total site basal area (sum of individual basal areas per site) are in this file: “Site_Comparisons.CSV”.

Warren, Jeffrey [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000206804697)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Highly functional microspheres facilitating Diels–Alder network formation

Introducing particles to dynamic covalent networks is a common approach to improve their performance. However, network formation can be impacted by their size and functionality. The influence can be predicted by common theories for small molecular precursors, but it is unclear whether they are applicable to precursors bearing numerous reactive groups and micrometer-scale dimensions. In this work, an experimental study was undertaken using dynamic covalent networks formed by the Diels–Alder reaction between furan and maleimide groups. The gelation behavior of the Diels–Alder networks was studied using rheometry to track their network formation at 40 °C with varying maleimide-functionalized microsphere loading. The highly functional microspheres can interact with the furan precursor, aiding in the formation of the Diels–Alder networks. A 5 wt% microsphere sample can reduce the gelation time by 23% and facilitate network formation in an unbalanced stoichiometry near the critical composition to form a percolating network.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

LLM Benchmarking with LLaMA2: Evaluating Code Development Performance Across Multiple Programming Languages

The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) has opened new possibilities for automating various tasks in software development. This paper evaluates the capabilities of the LLaMA 2-70B model in automating these tasks for scientific applications written in commonly used programming languages. Using representative test problems, we assess the model's capacity to generate code, documentation, and unit tests, as well as its ability to translate existing code between commonly used programming languages. Our comprehensive analysis evaluates the compilation, runtime behavior, and correctness of the generated and translated code. Additionally, we assess the quality of automatically generated code, documentation, and unit tests. Here, our results indicate that while LLaMA 2-70B frequently generates syntactically correct and functional code for simpler numerical tasks, it encounters substantial difficulties with more complex, parallelized, or distributed computations, requiring considerable manual corrections. We identify key limitations and suggest areas for future improvements to better leverage AI-driven automation in scientific computing workflows.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-RC2 Cook Agronomy Farm - Conventional Till

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-RC2 Cook Agronomy Farm - Conventional Till. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-RC2 Cook Agronomy Farm - Conventional Till produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - RC2 operated from 2013-2016 at the R.J. Cook Agronomy Farm, as part of a cluster of 5 towers (RC1 to RC5) operated for the Regional Approaches to Climate Change (REACCH) USDA-supported research project. The tower predates the Longterm Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) site common experiment, which was established in nearby fields at the Cook Agronomy Farm in 2017. Cook Agronomy Farm is in the high-precipitation agroecological zone of the Columbia Plateau’s dryland cropping region. Wheat-based crop rotations are grown annually. RC2 had conventional tillage management (reduced-till) since at least 1998. It was contrasted with RC1, which had no-till management over the same time period. RC2 captured the same tillage practices as the US-CF2 site established in 2017 as part of LTAR common experiment. However, the towers have distinct footprints, aspects, and soil series composition.

Chi, Jinshu [The Hong Kong University of Science a↗
DOE OSTI2026

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-RC1 Cook Agronomy Farm - No Till

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-RC1 Cook Agronomy Farm - No Till. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-RC1 Cook Agronomy Farm - No Till produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - RC1 operated from 2013-2016 at the R.J. Cook Agronomy Farm, as part of a cluster of 5 towers (RC1 to RC5) operated for the Regional Approaches to Climate Change (REACCH) USDA-supported research project. The tower predates the Longterm Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) site common experiment, which was established in nearby fields at the Cook Agronomy Farm in 2017. Cook Agronomy Farm is in the high precipitation agroecological zone of the Columbia Plateau’s dryland cropping region. Wheat-based crop rotations are grown on an annual planting schedule. RC1 was in no-till management since 1998, and was contrasted with RC2, which had conventional, reduced-tillage management. RC1 captured the same tillage practices as the US-CF1 site established in 2017 as part of LTAR common experiment. However, the towers have distinct footprints, aspects, and soil series composition.

Chi, Jinshu [The Hong Kong University of Science a↗
DOE OSTI2024

SCEC/USGS Community Stress-Drop Validation Study: How Spectral Fitting Approaches Influence Measured Source Parameters

Spectral source parameters used to estimate an earthquake’s stress drop (⁠Δσ⁠) can vary significantly across measurement approaches. The Statewide California Earthquake Center/U.S. Geological Survey Community Stress‐Drop Validation Study was initiated to compare source parameter estimates, focusing initially on a dataset from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. As part of that validation effort, here we focus on one potential source of uncertainty: whether spectral fitting approaches alone, applied to a common set of spectra from the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence result in different source parameter estimates. By using a common set of benchmark spectra analyzed across a consistent frequency band of 1–40 Hz, we eliminate many sources of variability. A subgroup of validation study participants volunteered to estimate the low‐frequency displacement (⁠Ω 0 ⁠) and corner frequency (⁠ƒ c ⁠) by fitting a smooth function to benchmark displacement spectra. Participants used linear‐ or log‐sampled spectra, assumed a Brune or Boatwright spectral model, and applied different misfit criteria. We compare 17 approaches used to estimate ⁠Ω 0 ⁠, ƒ c ⁠, and Δσ for 54 earthquake spectra. Our results reveal that 35% of events have Δσ estimates within a factor of two, whereas others exhibit variations exceeding an order of magnitude. The variability in and can largely be attributed to whether a spectrum is consistent with the smooth function of an idealized simple crack model. The trade‐off between Ω 0 and ƒ c may be more pronounced when using linearly sampled spectra, as higher frequency spectral bumps control the fits. As expected, methods that assumed a Boatwright model tended to have lower Ω 0 and somewhat higher ƒ c compared to those assuming a Brune model, although resulting Δσ estimates are similar. Finally, when compared to the overall validation study results, the fitting approach alone may account for between 5% and 90% (25% on average) of the total variability in spectral Δσ⁠.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Differential Seismic Phase Detection Probability as a Potential Discriminant of Explosions and Earthquakes

Deep learning models trained to estimate the probability of seismic P and S phases are rapidly expanding the scale of local event detections. Here, we evaluate the potential for deep learning model output phase detection probabilities to contribute to event‐type classification, particularly discrimination of single‐fired borehole explosions and earthquakes at local distances (<300 km). Motivated by the empirical success of P/S amplitude ratios, we consider the difference between P and S pick probability output from previously developed phase detection models, P prob −S prob ⁠, as a discriminant. Test data include M L ∼1–4 earthquakes and explosions observed by common seismographs in ten geologically diverse localities. Depending on the picking model and training data, binary classification using P prob −S prob with at least three stations can achieve approximately equivalent classification accuracy as P/S amplitude ratios without requiring any customization. Joint classification with P/S and P prob −S prob improves accuracy for most quality control scenarios. Pick probabilities are an efficient attribute to consider in explosion discrimination because they can be automated byproducts of event detection. They avoid the binary choice of picking or not picking weakly visible S waves common to explosions.

Duan, Chenglong [Rice Univ., Houston, TX (United S↗