Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DETAIL”

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 379 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Dataset for Cruz-O'Byrne et al (2026): "Divergent biogeochemical responses in upland coastal forest soils to repeated flooding and shifts in water chemistry"

Hydrologic disturbances from accelerated sea-level rise and the increasing frequency and intensity of storms and tidal flooding are altering biogeochemical processes in upland coastal forests, transforming these ecosystems into wetlands. However, the initial effects of flooding on belowground biogeochemistry and the mechanisms driving greenhouse gas dynamics and soil organic matter stability during the early stages of this transition remain poorly understood. This dataset presents the results of a mesocosm experiment conducted in a controlled, highly instrumented laboratory environment, in which freshwater and brackish water pulses were applied to intact soil monoliths from a temperate upland coastal forest to examine how floodwater chemistry influences soil biogeochemistry and organo-mineral interactions. All data files are plain-text CSV (comma-separated value), and no special software is required to read them. Details about the content of each file are available in the document “Dataset_readme”. The dataset consists of the following data: • rcruzobyrne_moisture: Soil volumetric water content (VWC) • rcruzobyrne_GHG: Headspace greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration and fluxes • rcruzobyrne_methane_isotopes: Headspace methane isotope signature • rcruzobyrne_porewater: Porewater chemistry • rcruzobyrne_CDOM: Porewater colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) • rcruzobyrne_FTIR: Soil Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy Details of the experimental setup, data collection, and data analysis are provided in the manuscript by Cruz-O’Byrne et al (2026) Divergent biogeochemical responses in upland coastal forest soils to repeated flooding and shifts in water chemistry. Biogeochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-026-01340-0

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > GREENHOUSE GAS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi-resolution Arctic Shrub Cover Dataset Derived from UAS and Airborne SfM and LiDAR (2013-2025)

We synthesized 177 unoccupied aerial system flights and 77 airborne flights across the Arctic and created a multi-resolution benchmark data of low-to-tall shrub fractional cover leveraging Structure-from-Motion and Light Detection and Ranging. The resulting dataset covered a total of 1899 km2 across Alaska, Western Canada, Sweden, and Siberian Arctic, including key sites from the Oro Arctic to the High Arctic. The dataset is organized into 6 primary data collection directories (“Abisko,” “AWI,” “ERE,” “Fairbanks,” “NGEE,” “Toolik”), each containing site and flight subdirectories. Flight directories include shrub cover rasters (*.tifs) at 1 m, 5 m, and 30 m resolution, the canopy height model at 1 m resolution (*.tifs), and a bounding box *.kml file. For the AWI, Abisko, NGEE, and Fairbanks collections, we also include the GCC raster at 1 m resolution (*.tif). Files are organized by Collection > Site > Flight Name > Data Files. Flight rasters are in the local UTM zone and the .kml files are in the geographic coordinate system EPSG 4326. We also include a .csv file that details the source datasets for every flight. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments in the Arctic (NGEE Arctic) project is a research effort to reduce uncertainty in the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) by developing a predictive understanding of Arctic tundra ecosystems underlain by permafrost and to quantify feedbacks from the Arctic tundra to the Earth system. NGEE Arctic is supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Over Phases 1–3, observations made by the NGEE Arctic team across a gradient of permafrost landscapes in Arctic Alaska improved the representation of tundra processes in the land surface component of E3SM (the E3SM Land Model, ELM). Model improvements emphasized unique aspects of permafrost environments and explored reductions in model complexity while retaining predictive power. The Arctic-informed ELM developed by NGEE Arctic has been used to make novel predictions on processes ranging from permafrost thaw to soil biogeochemical cycling to Earth system feedbacks associated with the unique characteristics of tundra plants. In Phase 4, the NGEE Arctic team is evaluating our new predictive understanding under novel conditions across the Arctic domain. In collaboration with partners at long-term pan-Arctic research sites we are examining whether an Arctic-informed ELM can faithfully simulate interactions among surface and subsurface processes at site, regional, and pan-Arctic scales. In turn, we are using variety of tools to dynamically extend and evaluate ELM inference, with an emphasis on data synthesis and pan-Arctic model evaluation, reintegration of code with an evolving E3SM, scaling across heterogeneous Arctic landscapes, and the appropriate representation of the impacts of increasingly frequent Arctic disturbances.

canopy height model↗
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 OSTI2026

Data and Scripts Associated with "Modeling Ecohydrological Responses of Vegetation to Urban Microclimates Using the E3SM Land Model"

This dataset supports the study of vegetation ecohydrological responses to urban microclimates using the land component of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (ELM) at four urban sites in Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. It includes the model inputs, simulation outputs, and associated scripts for running ELM simulations and analyzing the resulting data. The Model_Inputs folder includes static surface data, satellite-derived phenology (i.e., leaf area index), and atmospheric forcing data used to drive ELM simulations. Detailed descriptions of these datasets are provided in Section 2.3.2 of the associated manuscript. The Model_Outputs folder contains simulation results for the baseline, treatment, and ensemble experiments. Outputs from the baseline and treatment simulations are provided as raw ELM NetCDF files. Because the raw outputs from the 4,000-member ensemble are prohibitively large, the ensemble results are provided as summarized CSV files, which also serve as the source data for Figure 5 of the associated manuscript. The Scripts folder contains three components: E3SM, the core codebase of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM); elm-olmt, the Offline Land Model Testbed (OLMT) used to perform the simulations; and knoxville_elm, which contains the analysis scripts used to process model outputs and generate the figures and results presented in the associated manuscript. Additional information is provided in Scripts_readme.txt within the Scripts directory.

Lu, Xiaoman [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000306698780)↗
DOE OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Post-survey report for 2025 NEON AOP Assignable Asset collection of East River and Washington Gulch, Almont and Upper Taylor watersheds at Crested Butte, CO

This report contains details of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) Research Support Services (RSS) Assignable Asset (AA) flights of the East River, Almont and Upper Taylor watersheds near Crested Butte, CO, June–July 2025. The Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) contracted the NEON AOP AA flights to observe watersheds of interest near Crested Butte with remotely sensed data including high resolution LiDAR, imaging spectroscopy, and high-resolution camera imagery. The report includes a summary of the acquired flight lines over the planned survey areas, results of calibration flights, and results of the acquired data. The report details how the AOP has met the contracted delivery requirements in terms of the data delivered, quality of the data, and describes issues that resulted in data degradation or data loss. 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.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2024

3D Multiresolution Velocity Model Fusion with Probability Graphical Models

ABSTRACT The variability in spatial resolution of seismic velocity models obtained via tomographic methodologies is attributed to many factors, including inversion strategies, ray-path coverage, and data integrity. Integration of such models, with distinct resolutions, is crucial during the refinement of community models, thereby enhancing the precision of ground-motion simulations. Toward this goal, we introduce the probability graphical model (PGM), combining velocity models with heterogeneous resolutions and nonuniform data point distributions. The PGM integrates data relations across varying resolution subdomains, enhancing detail within low-resolution (LR) domains by utilizing information and prior knowledge from high-resolution (HR) subdomains through a maximum posterior problem. Assessment of efficacy, utilizing both 2D and 3D velocity models—consisting of synthetic checkerboard models and a fault-zone model from Ridgecrest, California—demonstrates noteworthy improvements in accuracy, compared to state-of-the-art fusion techniques. Specifically, we find reductions of 30% and 44% in computed travel-time residuals for 2D and 3D models, respectively, as compared to conventional smoothing techniques. Unlike conventional methods, the PGM’s adaptive weight selection facilitates preserving and learning details from complex, nonuniform HR models and applies the enhancements to the LR background domain.

Geochemistry & Geophysics↗
DOE OSTI2025

APOLLO: a facility-scale differentiable virtual accelerator at Fermilab FAST/IOTA

As the design complexity of modern accelerators grows, there is more interest in using advanced simulations that have fast execution time or yield additional insights like gradients. The FAST/IOTA facility has been working on implementing and experimentally validating an end-to-end digital twin that is both fast and gradient-aware, allowing for rapid prototyping of new software and experiments with minimal beam time costs. Our framework integrates physics and ML codes for linac and ring simulation through a set of generic interfaces between surrogate and physics-based sections. To reproduce device inputs and outputs, system state is exposed as a deterministic event loop in a specialized discrete event simulator architecture. Because Fermilab is undergoing control system transition, several APIs were implemented as final user interfaces - a fully asynchronous EPICS soft IOC, a gRPC-based Data Pool Manager (DPM), and legacy ACNET protocols. We discuss implementation details as well as challenges handling live data assimilation and future plans to extend modelling to main complex proton accelerators like PIPII and Booster.

Kuklev, Nikita [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2025

Real time computations of cryogenic He properties

The Fermilab PIP-II (proton improvement plan - II) project is being constructed at Fermilab to deliver $800\,MeV$ protons of $>1\,MW$ beam power to replace the present LINAC and provide protons to the remainder of the existing accelerator complex. The new LINAC consists of a warm front end, 23 superconducting RF cryomodules, and a beam transfer line to the existing complex. The cryomodules (CMs) are to be tested at Fermilab's CryoModule Test Facility (CMTF).An important measurement in cryogenic testing is the heat load of each CM. Traditionally, at Fermilab, these measurements were made collecting archived data offline and analyzing it. The new control system for PIP-II is being developed with the EPICS (Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System) framework, which allows us to compute the heat load in real time using the HePak library.We are exploring other $He$ properties, such as flow, where flow meters are not available, which can also be calculated in real time and fed back to the cryogenics engineers.This paper details the real time heat load calculation and $He$ flow software developed for CM testing at CMTF, as well as the first results from the prototype HB650 CM. Future plans for 2-phase $LHe$ flow will also be outlined.

Hanlet, Pierrick [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2025

Fermilab's controls development with virtual accelerator

Control Systems development is often the last thing considered when designing and building new equipment, e.g. a new detector or superconducting RF LINAC; however when the new equipment is installed, it is the first thing desired to be operational for testing. Due to frequent delays in building new equipment and project deadlines, control system development and testing is often curtailed. A way to alleviate this problem is to simulate the control system, though this will be challenging for complex systems.The Fermilab PIP-II (proton improvement plan - II) project is being constructed at Fermilab to deliver $800\,MeV$ protons of $>1\,MW$ beam power to replace the present LINAC for the remainder of the existing accelerator complex. The new LINAC consists of a warm front end (WFE), 23 superconducting RF cryomodules (of 5 types), and a beam transfer line (BTL) to the existing complex.The accelerator physics group has a parallel project to create a digital twin (DT) of the PIP-II accelerator. We have coupled the EPICS controls to this DT and are developing both the DT and EPICS software in parallel. This will allow us to develop the EPICS software framework, the HMIs, sequences, high level physics applications, and other services for use in a fully functional control system.This presentation will detail the work that we have performed to date and show demonstrations of controlling and monitoring the status of the accelerator, as well as future plans for this work.

Hanlet, Pierrick [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2024

Summary of Jefferson Lab LDRD on FFA@CEBAF Beam Dynamics Simulations

As Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab) looks toward the future, we are considering expanding our energy reach by using Fixed-Field Alternating Gradient (FFA) technology. Significant efforts have been made to design a hybrid accelerator which combines conventional recirculating electron LINAC design with permanent magnet-based FFA technology to increase the number of beam recirculations, and thus the energy. In an effort to further this progress, Jefferson Lab awarded a Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) grant to focus not on the design, but on detailed simulations of the designs created by the larger collaboration. This document will summarize the work performed during this LDRD, and direct the reader to other proceedings which describe elements of the work in greater detail.

Deitrick, K.↗
DOE OSTI2026

How nitrogen and oxygen shape SRF cavity performance

Nitrogen and oxygen-based surface treatments have revolutionized the performance of superconducting radiofrequency (SRF) cavities, enabling them to reach higher gradients and lower losses. However, the exact mechanisms by which these treatments improve cavity performance remain largely unknown. This work provides new insights into the role of nitrogen and oxygen in SRF cavity performance by using time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF-SIMS) to precisely quantify the concentrations and depth profiles of these impurities within niobium cutouts. We correlate these impurity profiles with detailed cavity performance measurements, including surface resistance and quality factor, and compare our findings with predictions from BCS theory. The results demonstrate that while both nitrogen and oxygen enhance performance, ten times more oxygen is required to achieve the same reduction in BCS resistance as interstitial nitrogen. We present a potential model in which the observed variation arises from nitrogen's greater effectiveness in trapping hydrogen, thus reducing the formation of niobium hydrides and enhancing superconducting gap.

Hu, Hannah [Chicago U.]↗
DOE OSTI2024

Quantifying the Potential Atmospheric Leakage Risks Associated With the Geologic Storage of CO 2 in Saline Aquifers for Use in Voluntary Carbon Market Buffer Account Determination

Conference paper presented at 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-17), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, October 20–24, 2024. This paper presents the results of a detailed study into the potential atmospheric leakage risks associated with the geologic storage of CO 2 in saline aquifers. This study included a detailed literature review, a re-creation of existing CO 2 leakage models put forth by other authors and, lastly, the development of an enhanced model that can be utilized for assessing the potential losses to the atmosphere of stored CO 2 across a variety of potential project parameters. The results of this study indicate that, across broad ranges of input parameters for mechanisms that have the potential for CO 2 loss from the storage complex to the atmosphere, there is an extremely low risk of CO 2 leakage to the atmosphere, with the median leakage risk estimated to be 0.1% of total injected CO 2 . The risk of leakage from real-world storage projects is likely to be even lower than those estimated through this study.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

EOSPAC User's Manual: Version 6.5 Second Edition (Rev. 3)

The EOSPAC utility package is a collection of interface routines, which can be used to access the SESAME data library and perform various data adjustments and interpolations on the SESAME data. The SESAME data library contains both thermodynamic (e.g., equation of state) and transport coefficients (e.g., opacity and conductivity). Note, for simplicity, the term EOS (equation of state) used herein includes both thermodynamic variables and transport coefficients. The EOSPAC utility package is designed to be used by physics codes (henceforth ”host codes”) written in multiple languages and on multiple platforms. The remainder of this manual is organized into several sections. Chapter 2 discusses conventions such as data organization and routine names. Chapter 3 provides a general overview of basic theory and models implemented within EOSPAC. Chapter 4 provides a general overview of how to use the EOSPAC interface library. Chapters 5 to 7 describe the public interfaces of EOSPAC in detail. Chapter 8 provides a brief introduction to some related tools, which may be of use to the user. Chapter 9 provides details related to some selected numerical features of EOSPAC. Chapter 10 gives examples for using the interface routines described in chapters 5 to 7. Chapter 11 provides technical support contact information. Chapter 12 contains a brief set of acknowledgments. Chapter 13 contains a list of referenced documents. Finally, chapter 14 lists the “table types: mnemonic conventions”, “table types: grouped by category, sorted by name”, “table types: eospac version 5 cross reference”, “options: setup phase”, “data information parameters”, “meta-data information parameters”, “options: interpolation phase”, and the “error codes”.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Catalytic Upgrading of Renewable Feedstock (Final Technical Report)

The goal of this DOE-funded project was to investigate the fundamental science related to the development of homogeneous (de)hydrogenation catalysts in order to enable energy-relevant transformations of bio-relevant chemical feedstocks including ethanol. The primary focus was to improve the activity of ethanol upgrading catalysts, specifically informed through mechanistic studies, in order to enable rational design optimization strategies. Following in depth mechanistic studies, targeted reaction optimization approaches included ligand redesign to improve catalyst stability, developing new carbon-carbon bond forming reactions using ethanol as a precursor, and examining photochemically-mediated reactions, ultimately to integrate within other reactor designs such as continuous flow reactors. The high modularity of the catalyst components (ligands) has enabled the preparation and analyses of multiple catalyst precursors. These studies uncovered an unexpectedly beneficial substitution pattern of the ligand structure that led to the development of new catalysts that are the best in class for upgrading ethanol to butanol with a turnover number of 155,890 and a turnover frequency of 12,690 h –1 . In addition to upgrading ethanol to butanol, cascade reaction sequences were developed to form new C-C bonds using ethanol as a bio-relevant feedstock, providing access to platform chemicals from renewable sources. As part of the reaction discovery process, new mechanistic details were uncovered that provided insights into: a) catalyst speciation, b) decomposition pathways, c) carbon monoxide releasing pathways, and d) carbon-carbon and carbon hydrogen bond breaking pathways. Most of these outcomes were previously not known; however, they provide important directions for new catalyst design strategies. Finally, use of high throughput and in situ photochemical reaction analyses enabled detailed studies into changes to the catalyst structure upon irradiation. Irradiation was found to improve hydrogen transfer catalysis, by promoting a ligand dissociation event.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

NSA Site Science: Use of ARM Observations from Northern Alaska to Evaluate and Improve Prediction Capabilities

The Arctic is warming at a rate nearly double that of the rest of the planet, leading to profound changes in atmospheric, oceanic, and ice processes. The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility has played a significant role in Arctic research, operating observatories in Alaska's North Slope for over 25 years. These observatories provide a rich, and wide-reaching dataset that offers insight into atmospheric processes in northern Alaska. This report details the results of a nine-year research project (2015–2024) supported by the DOE Atmospheric Systems Research (ASR) program, that leverages data from ARM’s deployment of observing facilities at Utqiaġvik (known as the North Slope of Alaska, or NSA, site) and Oliktok Point, Alaska. The project was conducted in two phases: - Phase 1 (2015–2019): Focused on understanding key atmospheric processes at Oliktok Point, including cloud formation, high-latitude precipitation, aerosol-cloud interactions, and cloud properties. - Phase 2 (2019–2024): Extended the research to the broader North Slope region, using data from both Oliktok Point and Utqiaġvik. Topics explored included surface energy budgets, atmospheric stability, ice nucleation processes, and microphysics in Arctic clouds. The project resulted in numerous research products, including 50 peer-reviewed publications and dissertations, 169 presentations, and 10 data products. These products cover a variety of topics, including: - Cloud Macro- and Microphysical Properties: Arctic clouds play a crucial role in energy transfer, and accurate representation in models is critical. The study explored cloud transitions, ice crystal shapes, and dual-wavelength radar data to understand ice crystal habits and size distributions. - Aerosol Properties and Processes: The team examined aerosol sources in the Arctic, including industrial emissions and natural sources. Observations showed significant spatial gradients in aerosol concentrations due to human activities and wildfire smoke. The influence of aerosols on cloud formation and the surface energy budget was also assessed. - Aerosol-Cloud Interactions: Research revealed that aerosols might suppress cloud ice production, affecting cloud radiative forcing and precipitation. The impact of local industrial emissions on cloud properties was also investigated. - Contextualizing the North Slope of Alaska in the context of the broader Arctic: To understand broader trends, the project evaluated large-scale circulation patterns and the influence of weather systems on the Arctic. Studies indicated that large-scale processes play a significant role in temperature patterns and the timing of snowmelt. - Advancing ARM Observational and Modeling Capabilities: The project developed new radar data products and advanced measurement techniques, including clutter mitigation and drizzle detection. Uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) and tethered balloon systems (TBS) were deployed to gather detailed atmospheric data. Additionally, the project supported 10 early career scientists, providing training and mentorship to undergraduate interns, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and early career researchers. These efforts contributed to the advancement of ARM research capabilities and fostered a new generation of scientists skilled in Arctic atmospheric research. Ultimately, this ASR-supported project has provided valuable insights into Arctic atmospheric processes and their broader climate implications. Recommendations for future work include continuing support for long-term observing at Arctic locations to foster additional research, further exploration of aerosol-cloud interactions and the potential impacts of enhanced industrialization of the Arctic, and expanded use of uncrewed systems to gather data in this remote and harsh environment. Additionally, the data products developed by this work, and the data products developed through the ARM infrastructure, leave a treasure-trove of additional information that should be explored for many years to come to gain additional insight into physical processes in the Arctic atmosphere that drive the rapid changes occurring in at high latitudes and their global impact.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗