SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “estimating guidelines”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 343 records · Page 19

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Probabilistic estimation of depth-resolved profiles of soil thermal diffusivity from temperature time series: Supporting Data

This dataset consists of soil temperature time series that were used to estimate soil thermal diffusivity and its uncertainty trough the probabilistic modelling approach developed and presented in the article named "Probabilistic estimation of depth-resolved profiles of soil thermal diffusivity from temperature time series" and published in Earth Surface Dynamics. There are two compressed (.zip) files that contains synthetic (Synthetic_soiltemp_Teller.zip) and field (Field_soiltemp_Teller.zip) data. There is one MATLAB file that requires MATLAB to execute but any text editor can open it. The Synthetic_soiltemp_Teller.zip file includes 5 comma-delimited data files (.csv) each of which contains soil temperature time series generated through forward modeling (i.e., heat-conduction process in a heterogeneous medium using an explicit finite difference method) to mimic various types of temperature gradients, trend and fluctuations. These synthetic soil temperatures were used to investigate the impact of different environmental conditions on the uncertainty of thermal diffusivity estimates. The Field_soiltemp_Teller.zip file contains 28 comma-delimited data files (.csv) out of which (a) 27 files includes soil temperature time series recorded from 27 temperature probes located in a site along Teller Road about 40 km northwest of Nome, Alaska (64.72°N, 165.94°W), (b) one includes the name and coordinates of the 27 probes. These field soil temperatures were used to infer soil thermal diffusivity at numerous locations and depths in a discontinuous permafrost environment, and to evaluate the links between the estimated soil thermal diffusivity values and soil physical properties. The comma-delimited data files (.csv) of the synthetic and field soil temperature time series includes date and time (UTC) in the first column and soil temperature from 5 cm below the ground surface to 1.05 m depth (with 5 or 10 cm spacing between sensors) in the other columns. The measurements were acquired every 15 minutes. 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↗

DOE OSTI2024

Estimating soil thermal inertia profiles from the passive equilibration of a temperature probe: Supporting data and code

This dataset contains measurements of soil thermal properties and organic layer thickness at three field sites on the Seward Peninsula near Nome, Alaska, USA. Code is also provided for estimation of soil thermal properties from temperature data, including a forward heat transfer mode, a library of simulated temperature data, and an inversion scheme to retrieve thermal properties from temperature measurements (Lamb et al., 2025). This dataset and code is published in support of the manuscript “Estimating Soil Thermal Inertia Profiles from the Passive Equilibration of a Temperature Probe” by Lamb et al., 2025, in which an experimental thermal measurements technique is developed. The dataset contains measurements of soil thermal properties and organic layer thickness obtained with an industry standard thermal properties analyzer and direct observations, as well as data generated using the experimental technique to estimate thermal properties and soil structure from temperature observations. All data is reported in .csv format, and all code is written in Python 3.7 using standard packages. This research was performed as a part of the NGEE Arctic project, which aims to advance model predictions of arctic carbon cycle responses to a changing climate over the 21st Century.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↗

DOE OSTI2020

SPRUCE High-Resolution Minirhizotrons in an Experimentally-Warmed Peatland Provide an Unprecedented Glimpse at Fine Roots and their Fungal Partners: Supporting Data

Images were collected using first of their kind, non-destructive, high-resolution automated minirhizotrons (RhizoSystems, LLC) to assess the response of plant fine-root and fungal mycelium dynamics to elevated temperatures after 4-6 years of whole-ecosystem warming and exposure to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations (e[CO2]) in a peat bog where the SPRUCE (Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments) experiment is located. We focused on two SPRUCE experimental plots: Plot 10 has elevated temperature (+9°C) and plot 19 is a control (+0°C). Both have elevated carbon dioxide (e[CO2]). Changes in root and fungal abundance with warming were estimated from a timeseries of landscape-level mosaiced images for each plot by measuring the proportional abundance of five belowground classes: fine roots of vascular plants, ectomycorrhizas, fungal hyphae, fungal rhizomorphs, and fungal sporocarps. To examine root and fungal phenology responses to warming, the length per individual root or fungal structure (except fungal hyphae that did not grow linearly but rather increased in areal coverage) were measured per image area of a set of timeseries patch-level mosaiced images for each plot. The experimental work was conducted in a Picea mariana [black spruce] – Sphagnum spp. bog forest in northern Minnesota, 40 km north of Grand Rapids, in the USDA Forest Service Marcell Experimental Forest (MEF). This ecosystem, which is located at the southern margin of the boreal forest, is considered especially vulnerable to climate change and anticipated to be near its tipping point. These data were used in analyses published in Defrenne et al (2021). This dataset contains 5 data files in comma-separate values (*.csv) format and a compressed folder (*.zip) containing 383 JPEG (*.jpg) images. Data files contain landscape-level assessment of belowground class abundance, patch-level growth phenology, and environmental variables (originally published in Hanson et al., 2016 and Hanson et al 2020). Images were collected with automated minirhizotrons and analyzed for phenology. Additional metadata are provided: 5 data dictionaries and a file-level metadata file in comma-separate values (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

iButton snow-ground interface temperature measurements in Los Alamos, New Mexico from 2023-2024

Snow/ground interface temperature measurements were collected at two sites in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Data were collected from November 29, 2023 to April 8, 2024 using iButton Link DS1921G-F5# Thermochron miniature temperature sensors (https://www.ibuttonlink.com/products/ds1921g). 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 3 hours from a total of 19 iButtons. iButtons were placed in pairs, with one iButton placed at the ground surface and another buried 1 - 5 cm below the ground surface. One buried iButton did not successfully collect data, and therefore was excluded from this dataset. Data were collected throughout the snow cover season so that snowpack characteristics could be derived using the temperature data. Specifically, this dataset was used as a validation source for a novel machine learning approach to estimating snow depth (see related publication). Sensors were placed in areas with bare ground or minimal grass coverage, located away from any large vegetation. At Site A (TA51), manual snow depths were collected as validation data. These measurements were taken next to iButtons periodically throughout the winter, and notes on other precipitation types were also recorded. At Site B (TA6 Meteorological Station), a nearby sensor collected snow depths throughout the winter. This dataset contains one *.csv file of snow/ground interface temperatures at two sites, one *.csv file of manually collected snow depths, and one *.kml file of sensor locations. 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↗

DOE OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Crown polygons and extracted reflectance for field sampling sites

This dataset contains (1) crown polygons for each tree, meadow, and shrub site sampled in the 2025 Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (in geojson format, .geojson) and (2) extracted reflectance, uncertainty, and shade estimates for each crown polygon from the 2018 National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and 2025 CHESS campaigns. (in CSV format, .csv). Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). Crown polygons were manually delineated for each site in the 2025 campaign using a combination of field-collected GPS data (doi:10.15485/3022418), RGB (red, green, blue) and false color reflectance mosaics (doi:10.15485/3013535), and LiDAR-derived (Light Detection and Ranging) canopy height (CHM) and digital surface (DSM) models (DOI and citation to be added upon publication). Where there was misalignment between the spectrometer- and LiDAR-derived data products, polygons prioritized alignment with the spectrometer-derived data products. Polygons were delineated conservatively to only select pixels representative of vegetation samples collected in the field. Crown polygons for 2018 are published at (doi:10.15485/1618130) and were developed using the same protocol. For each polygon, all pixels from all flightlines were extracted where the pixel centroid was contained within the polygon. For each pixel, we extracted the surface reflectance, uncertainty, and shade estimates. Details on the extracted datasets are available at (doi:10.15485/3013527, doi:10.15485/3013535). 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: This 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 OSTI2022

Belowground respiration, root traits, and soil characteristics of an East Tennessee deciduous forest, 2019-2020

This dataset contains empirical physiological, morphological, and chemical data of root systems, and elemental, nutrient content for soils collected on forty individuals of eight temperate tree species, between June 2019 and July 2020 at The University of Tennessee Forest Research Center and Arboretum in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The project used a novel methodology to empirically derive estimates of the autotrophic and heterotrophic components of soil respiration in-situ. The project consists of two measurement approaches. The first set of measurements uses a standard approach for measuring specific root respiration on excised root systems. The second used “in-situ root trays” This dataset includes 10 data files in comma separate (*.csv) ASCII format. Data include measurements of leaf and root functional traits for excised root systems and for living root systems housed within in-situ root trays, data on soil carbon and nitrogen pools, in-situ measurements of soil moisture and temperature, data on soil respiration rates for in-situ root trays (both as soil mass-based fluxes, and soil-area based fluxes), and data on the geographic coordinates and tree sizes of study trees. Forty study trees of eight temperate tree species were studied (five individuals per species). Two in-situ root trays were installed per species, each housing one entire root system comprising < 3 root orders, and still being attached to the tree via transportive root. All respiration measurements were conducted with the Li-6800 portable photosynthesis system (Li-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA). Root respiration measurements of excised root tissues were made using the Li-6800 and the Walz 3010-GWK1 gas exchange chamber (Heinz Walz GmbH, Effeltrich, Germany). Root scan images were analyzed using WinRHIZO. These images are companion files to this dataset and are contained in two compressed (*.zip) folders. Additional metadata are provided: 10 data dictionaries and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (*.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

EARTH SCIENCE > BIOSPHERE > VEGETATION > LEAF CHAR↗

DOE OSTI2026

Meteoric 10Be Flux Calibration Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

This data package contains tabular and geospatial data used to quantify and model meteoric beryllium-10 fluxes in the East River watershed, Colorado, USA. The tabular component includes calibration-site data from five glacial moraine sites and includes environmental variables used to evaluate spatial controls on meteoric 10Be delivery, including elevation, mean annual precipitation (MAP), mean snow depth, and mean snow water equivalent (SWE). These site-level data were used to compare observed fluxes with environmental gradients across the watershed and to evaluate the effects of erosion correction on flux estimates. The package also includes supporting slope and curvature values used to assess topographic inputs to the erosion analysis. A second component of the data package contains updated manuscript tables and regression outputs used to summarize the relationships between meteoric 10Be flux and environmental predictors. These tables include meteoric 10Be sample information and AMS results, site-level environmental values, site-level meteoric 10Be inventory and flux values, watershed-averaged predicted fluxes, soil bulk density measurements, fine-fraction values, soil pH measurements, and regression statistics including slope, intercept, coefficient of determination, and p-value. The regression products include both standard linear regressions and regressions in which the intercept is constrained to pass through zero, and they support the analyses presented in the companion manuscript. Together, these tabular files provide the numerical basis for the manuscript tables and the regression-based interpretation of meteoric 10Be flux variability in a snow-dominated mountain watershed. The geospatial component of the package consists of GeoTIFF raster files used to generate the map products presented in Figures 2 and 6 of the companion manuscript. These rasters represent watershed-scale spatial layers for environmental variables and regression-based predictions of meteoric 10Be flux. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), GeoTIFF raster files (.tif), and upporting metadata files, including CSV data dictionaries and readme text files (.csv, .txt). The tabular files can be opened with standard spreadsheet software, and the raster files can be viewed and analyzed in GIS software such as ArcGIS Pro or QGIS. Together, these files document the numerical and spatial datasets used to calibrate and predict meteoric 10Be delivery in the East River watershed.

East River↗

DOE OSTI2023

Data associated with “Different methods of estimating riverbed sediment grain size diverge at the basin scale ” (v2)

This data package is associated with the publication “Different methods of estimating riverbed sediment grain size diverge at the basin scale” published in Frontiers in Earth Science (Regier et al., 2025). The distribution of sediment grain size in streams and rivers is often quantified by the median grain size (d50), a key metric for understanding and predicting hydrologic and biogeochemical function of streams and rivers. Manual methods to measure d50 are time-consuming and ignore larger grains, while model-based methods to estimate d50 often over-generalize basin characteristics, and therefore cannot accurately represent site-scale heterogeneity. Here, we apply a machine learning-enabled photogrammetry methodology (You Only Look Once, or YOLO) for estimating d50 for grains > 2 mm based on images collected from streams and rivers throughout the Yakima River Basin (YRB). To understand how such methods may help bridge the gaps in resolution and accuracy between manual and catchment characteristics model-based d50 estimates, we compared YOLO d50 values to manual and model-based estimates across the YRB. We found distinct differences among methods for d50 averages and variability, and relationships between d50 estimates and basin characteristics. Source images can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1892052. This data package was originally published in May 2023. It was updated August 2025 (v2; new and modified files). File and folder names were not revised to indicate changes. See the change history section in the readme for more details. In addition to the readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; (4) and subfolders containing data, figures, and scripts. The data folder contains datasets used for the analyses in the manuscript in image, text-delimited or geospatially-referenced formats. The figures folder contains the figures from the manuscript in different formats. The scripts folder contains all of the scripts used to complete the analyses in the manuscript. All files are .csv, .rds, .dbf, .prj, .shp, .shx, .jpg, .png, .R, .Rproj, or .pdf. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected some of these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2016

Investigating the Simulink Auto-Coding Process

Model based program design is the most clear and direct way to develop algorithms and programs for interfacing with hardware. While coding "by hand" results in a more tailored product, the ever-growing size and complexity of modern-day applications can cause the project work load to quickly become unreasonable for one programmer. This has generally been addressed by splitting the product into separate modules to allow multiple developers to work in parallel on the same project, however this introduces new potentials for errors in the process. The fluidity, reliability and robustness of the code relies on the abilities of the programmers to communicate their methods to one another; furthermore, multiple programmers invites multiple potentially differing coding styles into the same product, which can cause a loss of readability or even module incompatibility. Fortunately, Mathworks has implemented an auto-coding feature that allows programmers to design their algorithms through the use of models and diagrams in the graphical programming environment Simulink, allowing the designer to visually determine what the hardware is to do. From here, the auto-coding feature handles converting the project into another programming language. This type of approach allows the designer to clearly see how the software will be directing the hardware without the need to try and interpret large amounts of code. In addition, it speeds up the programming process, minimizing the amount of man-hours spent on a single project, thus reducing the chance of human error as well as project turnover time. One such project that has benefited from the auto-coding procedure is Ramses, a portion of the GNC flight software on-board Orion that has been implemented primarily in Simulink. Currently, however, auto-coding Ramses into C++ requires 5 hours of code generation time. This causes issues if the tool ever needs to be debugged, as this code generation will need to occur with each edit to any part of the program; additionally, this is lost time that could be spent testing and analyzing the code. This is one of the more prominent issues with the auto-coding process, and while much information is available with regard to optimizing Simulink designs to produce efficient and reliable C++ code, not much research has been made public on how to reduce the code generation time. It is of interest to develop some insight as to what causes code generation times to be so significant, and determine if there are architecture guidelines or a desirable auto-coding configuration set to assist in streamlining this step of the design process for particular applications. To address the issue at hand, the Simulink coder was studied at a foundational level. For each different component type made available by the software, the features, auto-code generation time, and the format of the generated code were analyzed and documented. Tools were developed and documented to expedite these studies, particularly in the area of automating sequential builds to ensure accurate data was obtained. Next, the Ramses model was examined in an attempt to determine the composition and the types of technologies used in the model. This enabled the development of a model that uses similar technologies, but takes a fraction of the time to auto-code to reduce the turnaround time for experimentation. Lastly, the model was used to run a wide array of experiments and collect data to obtain knowledge about where to search for bottlenecks in the Ramses model. The resulting contributions of the overall effort consist of an experimental model for further investigation into the subject, as well as several automation tools to assist in analyzing the model, and a reference document offering insight to the auto-coding process, including documentation of the tools used in the model analysis, data illustrating some potential problem areas in the auto-coding process, and recommendations on areas or practices in the current Ramses model that should be further investigated. Several skills were required to be built up over the course of the internship project. First and foremost, my Simulink skills have improved drastically, as much of my experience had been modeling electronic circuits as opposed to software models. Furthermore, I am now comfortable working with the Simulink Auto-coder, a tool I had never used until this summer; this tool also tested my critical thinking and C++ knowledge as I had to interpret the C++ code it was generating and attempt to understand how the Simulink model affected the generated code. I had come into the internship with a solid understanding of Matlab code, but had done very little in using it to automate tasks, particularly Simulink tasks; along the same lines, I had rarely used shell script to automate and interface with programs, which I gained a fair amount of experience with this summer, including how to use regular expression. Lastly, soft-skills are an area everyone can continuously improve on; having never worked with NASA engineers, which to me seem to be a completely different breed than what I am used to (commercial electronic engineers), I learned to utilize the wealth of knowledge present at JSC. I wish I had come into the internship knowing exactly how helpful everyone in my branch would be, as I would have picked up on this sooner. I hope that having gained such a strong foundation in Simulink over this summer will open the opportunity to return to work on this project, or potentially other opportunities within the division. The idea of leaving a project I devoted ten weeks to is a hard one to cope with, so having the chance to pick up where I left off sounds appealing; alternatively, I am interested to see if there are any opening in the future that would allow me to work on a project that is more in-line with my research in estimation algorithms. Regardless, this summer has been a milestone in my professional career, and I hope this has started a long-term relationship between JSC and myself. I really enjoy the thought of building on my experience here over future summers while I work to complete my PhD at Missouri University of Science and Technology.

Gualdoni, Matthew J.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Data and scripts associated with “Allometric scaling of hyporheic respiration across basins in the Pacific Northwest USA"

This data package is associated with the publication “Allometric scaling of hyporheic respiration across basins in the Pacific Northwest USA” submitted to JGR-Biogeosciences (Regier et al. 2025).This study used reach-scale modeled estimates of hyporheic aerobic respiration made by the River Corridor Model (Fang et al. 2020) and watershed characteristics across the Willamette and Yakima River basins to explore potential allometric scaling (i.e., power-law relationships between size and function) of cumulative hyporheic respiration across catchment-to-basin scales. Scaling was explored quantitatively via the R2, slope, and y-intercept of relationships between cumulative hyporheic respiration and watershed area, divided into hyporheic exchange flux (HEF) quantiles. We also explored relationships between allometric scaling and other watershed characteristics through linear regression, spatial patterns, and mutual information analyses. Our results also suggest variability of hyporheic respiration allometry for middle exchange flux quantiles, and in relation to land-cover. Our findings provide initial evidence that allometric scaling may be useful for predicting hyporheic biogeochemical dynamics across watersheds from reach to basin scales. This data package is associated with the GitHub repository found at https://github.com/peterregier/rc_wrb_yrb_scaling. The data package is organized into several key directories. The “data” folder contains multiple CSV files, including landscape heterogeneity, scaling analysis, and watershed boundary data. The “figures” folder has all figure files in both PDF and PNG formats. Core analysis scripts and figure generation scripts are in the “scripts” directory, systematically numbered for sequential execution. The root directory includes essential project files; please see the file ending in “flmd.csv” for a list and description of all files contained in this data package and the file ending in “dd.csv” for data dictionaries used to describe tabular column headers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Spatial Study 2021: Sensor-Based Time Series of Surface Water Temperature, Specific Conductance, Total Dissolved Solids, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen from across Multiple Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of spatial variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides two-hour time series hydrological and water chemistry sensor data, manual chamber open channel respiration data, handheld sensor water chemistry data, river substrate grain size photos, general environmental context photos, and field metadata (including qualitative information on instream and river corridor characteristics) collected during the same two-week period at 47 sites within multiple rivers throughout the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Grain size photos can be used to improve estimates of channel substrate D50 data. Related sample-based water chemistry data are published separately at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1898914.This dataset is comprised of four main folders, one containing three sensor-specific subfolders and the others containing photographs. The SFA_SpatialStudy_2021_SensorData main data folder includes file-level metadata (FLMD), data dictionary (dd), installation methods, field metadata, Ultrameter water chemistry data, field data collection protocols, international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file, and a readme file. The “Sensor_Manual_Specifications” subfolder contains pdf files from the manufacturer of each sensor with details on the sensor specifications. Each sensor subfolder (BarotrollAtm, MantaRiver, and MinidotManualChamber) contains a sensor data subfolder for timeseries data and a subfolder for plots and summary statistics. The BarotrollAtm Data subfolder contains In Situ Rugged BaroTROLL pressure and temperature data. The MantaRiver Data subfolder contains Eureka Manta+ 35B multisonde temperature, specific conductance, and pH data. The MinidotManualChamber Data subfolder contains PME MiniDOT Logger dissolved oxygen (mg/L and percent saturation) and temperature data. The folder SFA_SpatialStudy_2021_EnvironmentalContextPhotos contains environmental context photographs and videos. The folders SFA_SpatialStudy_2021_SedimentQuadratPhotos_Part1 and SFA_SpatialStudy_2021_SedimentQuadratPhotos_Part2 contain sediment quadrat photographs. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .jpg, .jpeg, .mp4, or .mov. This data package was originally published September 2022. It was updated January 2023 (modified files) and June 2024 (new and modified files). See the change history in data package readme for more details.We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Model Inputs, Outputs, and Scripts associated with: “Spatial microbial respiration variations in the hyporheic zones within the Columbia River Basin”

This data package is associated with the publication “Spatial microbial respiration variations in the hyporheic zones within the Columbia River Basin” published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences (Son et al. 2022) available at doi: 10.1029/2021JG006654. This data package includes the key model inputs/outputs of the river corridor model for the Columbia River Basin (CRB) and the model source codes, which were used in the manuscript. The model is a carbon-nitrogen-coupled river corridor model (RCM), and the model is used to quantify hyporheic zone (HZ) aerobic and anaerobic respiration at the NHDPLUS stream reach scales. The RCM used in this study combines empirical substrate models derived from observations and three microbially driven reactions to compute respiration of the HZ for each National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) reach within the CRB. The reactions in HZs of each NHD reach include anaerobic respiration and two-step anaerobic respiration via denitrification. Our HZ respiration estimates are limited to the lotic (or flowing) stream/river systems, and do not account for the respiration process in water column. Note that the RCM only simulates the HZ’s contribution to the dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the streams, and the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere are not modelled. The model computes at hourly timesteps because of the fast reaction rates. The key input data of the model are exchange flux, residence time, and stream solute (dissolved organic carbon (DOC), dissolved oxygen (DO), and nitrate concentrations). These inputs are constant over time and represent long-term averaged values.This modeling framework successfully quantified HZ respiration components over multiple scales. It revealed key mechanisms driving the spatial variation of HZ aerobic and anaerobic respiration in reaches with varying hydrologic and substrate conditions. Thus, this modeling study offers a testing hypothesis in different river system (e.g., climate and biomes) for the HZ respiration processes, and can be used as a sampling design tool for large-scale HZ experimental studies.This dataset contains five folders: (1) model_inputs, (2) model_outputs, (3) Rscripts, (4) figures, and (5) model_codes. It also contains a readme, file level metadata (FLMD), and data dictionary (dd). Please see the FLMD for a list of all the files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. The model_inputs folder contains the model inputs used to drive the model simulations. The model_outputs folder contains key model output files from the river corridor model. The Rscripts folder contains the Rscripts for pre- and post- processing model results. The figures folder contains the raw figures associated with the manuscript. The model_codes folder includes key model source codes/input files. All files are .jpg, .jpeg, .out, .e, .od, .dat, .sub, .F90, .0, .R, .sbx, .cpg, .sbn, .shx, .shp, .dbf, .prj, .tfw, .tif, .xml, .pdf, or .csv.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Videos, photos, and AI-derived grain size data associated with “High-throughput AI Video Surveys Enable Reproducible Multiscale Sediment Size Mapping, with Implications for Hydrobiogeochemical Parameterization”

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript “High-throughput AI Video Surveys Enable Reproducible Multiscale Sediment Size Mapping, with Implications for Hydrobiogeochemical Parameterization” under review. This data package includes five data types: 1) raw photos and videos from drone survey and walking smartphone surveys; 2) images derived from raw videos; 3) manual labeling of reference scales; 4) metadata for all images and photo resolution derived from artificial intelligence (AI) models or manual labels, 5) grain size data obtained from AI models for all photos, 6) metadata and grain size data after quality control, 7) summaries of sample efficiency for all data, and 8) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) data used to support hydro-biogeochemical (HBGC) parameter estimation. Such data is used to 1) demonstrate significant improvements in accuracy, efficiency, and quality control for grain size data collection with the help of AI models, 2) study the spatial heterogeneity of grain size and observation reproducibility based on tens of thousands of data points generated by the AI models, and 3) evaluate the impacts of grain size heterogeneity on key HBGC parameters across sediment-to-reach and hourly-to-yearly scales. In particular, the data package contains 116 folders and 179696 files. The files include 41 videos in .mov format, 64047 photos in .jpg format, 13541 video-derived photos in .png format, 12747 segmentation mask data in .tif format, 12747 segmentation data in .json format, 24771 .csv files that with metadata and grain size for each individual photo as well as water depth and velocity data from CFD and observation, 51791 .txt files of raw AI predicted labels, and 11 flight record data in .srt format. The summary for all metadata and grain size statistics information is included in “Scales_V3_NG.csv” and “Statistics_V3_NG.csv”. The summary for data that pass data quality control (QC) level 0-2 is included in “QCStatistics_V3_NG.csv”. The QC level 0 represents photos whose photo resolution is positive, excluding photos that miss reference scale. The QC level 1 means reference scale circularity uncertainty is less than 5% for smartphone images while representing photo resolution is larger than 0.44 mm/pixel for drone images. The QC level 2 means excluding photos whose grain number is less than 100, a minimum number of grains recommended by classic literature. The summary for each video’s name, length, frame rates, survey area, grain number, survey efficiency, etc. can be found in “QCSummary_V3_NG.csv”. The summary for site name, GPS coordinates, and number of images at each site can be found in “SitesSummary_V3_*.csv” files. Overall computational efficiency summary is reported in Table 4 of accompanying manuscript. Additionally, the nitrate concentration data used in this work was downloaded from an existing dataset published on ESS-DIVE (Boat-Dragged Sensor Hanford Reach.csv; Conner A. et al., 2020). We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Port of Benton, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the data were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate data collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

QA/QC-ed Groundwater Level Time Series in PLM-1 and PLM-6 Monitoring Wells, East River, Colorado (2016-2022)

This data set contains QA/QC-ed (Quality Assurance and Quality Control) water level data for the PLM1 and PLM6 wells. PLM1 and PLM6 are location identifiers used by the Watershed Function SFA project for two groundwater monitoring wells along an elevation gradient located along the lower montane life zone of a hillslope near the Pumphouse location at the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA. These wells are used to monitor subsurface water and carbon inventories and fluxes, and to determine the seasonally dependent flow of groundwater under the PLM hillslope. The downslope flow of groundwater in combination with data on groundwater chemistry (see related references) can be used to estimate rates of solute export from the hillslope to the floodplain and river. QA/QC analysis of measured groundwater levels in monitoring wells PLM-1 and PLM-6 included identification and flagging of duplicated values of timestamps, gap filling of missing timestamps and water levels, removal of abnormal/bad and outliers of measured water levels. The QA/QC analysis also tested the application of different QA/QC methods and the development of regular (5-minute, 1-hour, and 1-day) time series datasets, which can serve as a benchmark for testing other QA/QC techniques, and will be applicable for ecohydrological modeling. The package includes a Readme file, one R code file used to perform QA/QC, a series of 8 data csv files (six QA/QC-ed regular time series datasets of varying intervals (5-min, 1-hr, 1-day) and two files with QA/QC flagging of original data), and three files for the reporting format adoption of this dataset (InstallationMethods, file level metadata (flmd), and data dictionary (dd) files).QA/QC-ed data herein were derived from the original/raw data publication available at Williams et al., 2020 (DOI: 10.15485/1818367). For more information about running R code file (10.15485_1866836_QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) to reproduce QA/QC output files, see README (QAQC_PLM_readme.docx). This dataset replaces the previously published raw data time series, and is the final groundwater data product for the PLM wells in the East River. Complete metadata information on the PLM1 and PLM6 wells are available in a related dataset on ESS-DIVE: Varadharajan C, et al (2022). https://doi.org/10.15485/1660962. These data products are part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area collection effort to further scientific understanding of biogeochemical dynamics from genome to watershed scales. 2022/09/09 Update: Converted data files using ESS-DIVE’s Hydrological Monitoring Reporting Format. With the adoption of this reporting format, the addition of three new files (v1_20220909_flmd.csv, V1_20220909_dd.csv, and InstallationMethods.csv) were added. The file-level metadata file (v1_20220909_flmd.csv) contains information specific to the files contained within the dataset. The data dictionary file (v1_20220909_dd.csv) contains definitions of column headers and other terms across the dataset. The installation methods file (InstallationMethods.csv) contains a description of methods associated with installation and deployment at PLM1 and PLM6 wells. Additionally, eight data files were re-formatted to follow the reporting format guidance (er_plm1_waterlevel_2016-2020.csv, er_plm1_waterlevel_1-hour_2016-2020.csv, er_plm1_waterlevel_daily_2016-2020.csv, QA_PLM1_Flagging.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_2016-2020.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_1-hour_2016-2020.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_daily_2016-2020.csv, QA_PLM6_Flagging.csv). The major changes to the data files include the addition of header_rows above the data containing metadata about the particular well, units, and sensor description. 2023/01/18 Update: Dataset updated to include additional QA/QC-ed water level data up until 2022-10-12 for ER-PLM1 and 2022-10-13 for ER-PLM6. Reporting format specific files (v2_20230118_flmd.csv, v2_20230118_dd.csv, v2_20230118_InstallationMethods.csv) were updated to reflect the additional data. R code file (QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) was added to replace the previously uploaded HTML files to enable execution of the associated code. R code file (QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) and ReadMe file (QAQC_PLM_readme.docx) were revised to clarify where original data was retrieved from and to remove local file paths.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

The Pan-Arctic Vegetation Cover (PAVC) database v1.1

The Pan-Arctic Vegetation Cover (PAVC) database contains synthesized field-data observations of vegetation cover from 978 Arctic Alaska plots with observations from 2010 to 2021. The cover datasets contain plot data at both the plant functional type (PFT) and species-level resolution, with standardized PFT definitions and species names. We synthesized publicly available point-intercept and visual estimate plots from the Arctic Vegetation Archive of Alaska, the Alaska Vegetation Plots Database, the North Slope Science Catalog, and the National Ecological Observatory Network; as well as previously unpublished data from the Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic).Users will find four synthesized datasets, 4 associated data descriptor (dd) files, and 1 metadata file in the PAVC database:synthesized_species_fcover.csv contains fractional cover (fcover) for unique accepted species names, where names include vegetation identified at the family, genus, species, subspecies, and variety levels, as well as general functional types across all 5 data sources. The synthesized_species_fcover_dd.csv accompanies this dataset with header information.synthesized_pft_fcover.csv contains fcover for the following PFTs: non-vascular plants with lichen and bryophyte subcategories, trees with deciduous and evergreen subcategories, shrubs with deciduous and evergreen subcategories, graminoids (grasses), and forbs (herbaceous flowering plants) measured as total cover. Litter and “other” cover are also included as total cover. Additional “types” include water and bare ground, which were measured as top cover. The synthesized_pft_fcover_dd.csv accompanies this dataset with header information.species_pft_checklist.csv is a lookup table containing the translation from a dataset species name to an accepted species name and to a PFT. This table can be used to clarify our species to PFT adjudications, and to aid users in assigning their own PFTs. Any issues found in this checklist should be reported in the Issues tab of our github.survey_unit_information.csv contains auxiliary information about the plots synthesized in this database. It contains useful information for filtering plots of interest based on temporal, geospatial, and contextual information about the plot surveys.flmd.csv contains metadata information about each file in the database.This research was performed as a part of the NGEE Arctic project. The NGEE Arctic project 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↗

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 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 OSTI2023

Spatial Study 2022: Water Column, Sediment, and Total Ecosystem Respiration Rates across the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v2)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of spatial variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin and is associated with the manuscript “Sediment-associated processes account for most of the spatial variation in ecosystem respiration in the Yakima River basin” submitted to Nature Communications Earth & Environment (Garayburu-Caruso et al., in review). The dataset provides ecosystem metabolism estimates generated from streamMetabolizer (Appling et al.; 2018) using data collected during the same five-week period at 48 sites within multiple rivers throughout the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Additionally, it includes the scripts used for the analysis and producing the figures in the manuscript. The contents include streamMetabolizer inputs and outputs and additional relevant data needed to generate the main manuscript results. The data included are: total ecosystem respiration, water respiration, calculated sediment-associated respiration, gross primary production outputs from the river corridor model for the Yakima River Basin, median grain size (d50), depth, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pressure, and annual oxygen consumption. The associated GitHub repository can be found at https://github.com/river-corridors-sfa/SSS_metabolism. Samples collected during this study were labeled as “Second Spatial Study” or “SSS.” Raw time series sensor data, total suspended solids, and depth data from SSS were published at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1969566. A subset of data from the SSS samples were published in the contiguous United States (CONUS)-Scale Model-Sample (CM) study data package available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1923689 that presents data from across the CONUS. They include dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC), total nitrogen (TN), grain size, aerobic sediment respiration, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature. Parent IDs and Site IDs are consistent between the SSS and CM data packages, and they can be mapped directly so data across packages can be used together. Field metadata for the samples in this da This dataset is comprised of one main data folder with four subfolders. The main data folder contains of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) total/water column/sediment respiration; (4) gross primary production (GPP); (5) median grain size (d50); and (6) annual oxygen consumption. The “Figures” subfolder contains the figures used in the paper and all intermediate files (including geospatial files). The “Published_Data” contains a readme directing the user to download the public data to reproduce analyses and figures. The “Scripts” folder contains all scripts used in the analyses that were not part of running StreamMetabolizer. Lastly, the “Stream_Metabolizer” folder contains all files associated with running StreamMetabolizer including (1) model input files, (2) model output files, (3) processing scripts, (4) histogram plots of the outputs, and (5) an R project. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .Rmd, .Rproj, .html, .png, .txt, .qgz, .cpg, .dbf, .prj, .shp, .shp.ea.iso.xml, .shp.iso.xml, .shx, .sbn. ta package can be found at either link. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗