Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CSV”

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 469 records · Page 26

Temperature, Humidity, and Time-Lapse Video Data from the East River Watershed, Water Years 2024 and 2025

This dataset contains time-lapse imagery and distributed measurements of air temperature, relative humidity, dew point, and soil temperature across the East River basin from 3 October 2023 to 8 August 2025. Instruments were deployed at 19 sites as part of the DOE Grant: Seasonal Cycles Unravel Mysteries of Missing Mountain Water organized by Jessica Lundquist (University of Washington), Rosemary Carroll (Desert Research Institute), and Ethan Gutmann (National Center for Atmospheric Research). The data are published to support studies of surface climate or hydrologic processes in complex terrain. Measurements were collected with low-cost data loggers installed 2 m high on evergreen trees or buried just below the soil surface. Time-lapse cameras were deployed at three sites. Imagery from sites AP BONUS and AP5 (Avery Picnic) provides insight into large-scale seasonal snow cover variability. Imagery from site EL2 (Emerald Lake) shows smaller-scale snow patterns across a nearby meadow. Dataset files are organized by site and variable (air measurements, ground measurements, or time-lapse video). Air and ground measurements are packaged in LoggerData.zip, and time-lapse imagery is compiled into short videos stored in TimelapseVideos.zip. File-level metadata contains details for each file included in the dataset. A data dictionary provides units and descriptions for column or row names in all files. The locations metadata file describes site characteristics, locations, and associated GPS methods.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

How initial conditions-, structural-, and parameter-based model uncertainty interact and influence predictions in permafrost ecosystems: Modeling Archive

This dataset contains model output and input data, as well as source code examples for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model with the Dynamic Vegetation Model and Dynamic Organic Soil (DVM-DOS-TEM) for the field sites Imnavait creek and the Bonanza creek Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER). The data covers simulations from the last glacial maximum (LGM) until 2100 for a selection of paleo scenarios, setting the mean temperature of the LGM up to 10°C lower than pre-industrial conditions. The model structure was modulated to represent various model versions, and this dataset contains the relevant changes in the source code. The raw output data, the processed statistical data, the setup and processing scripts as well as parameter value distribution files from a parameter sensitivity analysis are included as well. Model outputs include active layer depth, organic soil carbon, soil layer depths, gross primary productivity (GPP) with and without nitrogen limitation, net primary productivity (NPP), soil liquid water content, heterotrophic, maintenance, and growth respiration, soil temperature, and vegetation carbon (*.nc files). 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Carbon flux measurements from chambers collected between April to October 2023 at Old Woman Creek, Huron, Ohio

This dataset contains carbon dioxide and methane gas flux measurements collected via chamber sampling at Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve in Huron, OH. These data were generated to understand temporal and vegetation patterns associated with wetland carbon cycling. Specifically, this dataset intends to answer how carbon dioxide and methane fluxes change monthly and hourly across sites with vegetation and without vegetation. Data includes chamber measurements that were measured in both sites with vegetation and without vegetation and that were collected hourly (7 AM to 7 PM or 5 AM to 10 PM and monthly (April to October). The file soilrespiration_data23.csv contains these data, and the metadata file (soilrespiration_chammetadata23.csv) and location metadata file (soilrespiration_locationmetadata23.csv) have information on locations where the chambers were placed and sampled in the wetland. Data processing was done on raw methane fluxes (Flux_CH4) to remove the influence of ebullition (Flux_CH4_ebullition) to get a diffusive flux (Flux_CH4_diffusive).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

15-minute Parker River gap-filled tide height and salinity data, PIE LTER, Plum Island Sound, MA (2014–2023), for ELM PFLOTRAN modeling

This dataset contains 15-minute tide height and salinity data from the Typha site along the Parker River, part of the Plum Island Ecosystems Long Term Ecological Research (PIE LTER) site in Plum Island Sound, Massachusetts (MA) 2014-2023. Tide height (in NAVD88) was compiled from measurements conducted at the mouth of Plum Island Sound and corrected for time lags. Gap-filling of missing periods were done by fitting tidal constituents to the time series. Salinity was measured (and is stored on ESS DIVE ) in 2022 and 2023 using HOBO U24-002 conductivity loggers. River discharge is the most important control on tidal river water salinity at the location (Vallino & Hopkinson, 1998). An artificial neural network was trained to predict river water salinity at the location using Parker River discharge (USGS station 01101000, Parker River at Byfield, MA) and gap-filled salinity observations from a long-term monitoring station ca. 3km downstream from the Typha site (LTER station ‘Middle Road’) as input variables to create continuous time series information. The data set was used in the spin up and simulations of a land surface model coupled to a biogeochemical reaction network (ELM PFLOTRAN) assessing impacts of hydrology and salinity input on methane fluxes in 2022 and 2023 (Sulman et al., 2024). Metadata files ELMPFLOTRAN_tide_salinity_dd.csv and ELMPFLOTRAN_tide_salinity_flmd.csv provide details on site location, data variables, and QA/QC methods .

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hourly gap-filled meteorological data from PIE LTER measurements (2004-2023) used as drivers to run ELM PFLOTRAN simulations

This dataset contains continuous gap-filled precipitation, solar radiation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and barometric pressure data recorded primarily at the Marshview Farm weather station within the Plum Island Long Term Ecosystems Research (PIE LTER) in Newbury Massachusetts (MA) from 2004 to 2023. We compiled the data set from published annual data packages in 15min resolution available on DataOne. Gaps were filled using different statistical techniques or available observations from the vicinity, e.g. the US-PLo and the US-PHM Ameriflux sites, also located within the PIE LTER. Flags are included in this dataset to indicate the origin of each data point. Metadata files ELMPFLOTRAN_met_dd.csv and ELMPFLOTRAN_met_flmd.csv contain more information on site locations, gap filling protocols, data variables, flags, and QA/QC methods. The data set was used in the spin up and simulations of a land surface model coupled to a biogeochemical reaction network (ELM PFLOTRAN) assessing impacts of hydrology and salinity input on methane fluxes in 2022 and 2023 (Sulman et al., 2024).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Geophysical survey associated with NEON AOP survey, East River, CO 2018

The package contains data layers developed and used in Falco et al. 2024: “EcoImaging: Advanced Sensing to Investigate Plant and Abiotic Hierarchical Spatial Patterns in Mountainous Watersheds". The package is part of the DOE Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA) project and includes geophysical measurements collected at the East River, Colorado, in conjunction with the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) survey conducted in June 2018. This dataset provide soil geophysical information and were used to investigate soil-plant relationships. The dataset consists of: - NEON_2018_EMI_survey.zip: the electromagnetic induction (EMI) survey as shape-file; - NEON_plot_TDR.csv: plot‑level data from Time‑Domain Reflectometry (TDR) measurements, providing: * volumetric water content (VWC) in percent (%); * soil temperature in degrees Celsius (°C); - file level metadata (flmd.csv) - data dictionary (dd.csv) file This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

Model Data Archive Associated with Manuscript "Fire-altered Carbon Pools Create Disturbance Memory in Stream Dissolved Organic Carbon"

This data package supports the publication “Fire-altered Carbon Pools Create Disturbance Memory in Stream Dissolved Organic Carbon” by Li et al. (2026). The package contains processed model inputs, configuration files, restart files, simulation outputs, scripts, and visualization products used to evaluate post-fire dissolved organic carbon (DOC) dynamics in the Naches River Watershed, Washington, USA, following the 2021 Schneider Springs Fire. The modeling workflow couples ELM-BGC, the biogeochemistry-enabled Energy Exascale Earth System Model Land Model; ATS, the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator for integrated surface-subsurface hydrology; and PFLOTRAN, a reactive transport model for multicomponent aqueous geochemistry. Together, these models simulate how wildfire-induced changes in vegetation, litter, coarse woody debris, and soil organic matter influence DOC production, transport, and reaction from burned hillslopes to stream networks. The archive includes preprocessed meteorological, geospatial, hydrologic, and biogeochemical forcing data; ELM-BGC-derived DOC source terms; ATS mesh files; PFLOTRAN reactive-transport inputs; model configuration files; spin-up and transient restart files; watershed-scale diagnostic outputs; stream concentration time series; and figures or visualization files used to inspect and reproduce key results. File types include Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) files for gridded forcing and model-coupling data, model input and configuration files for ELM-BGC, ATS, and PFLOTRAN, restart and simulation-output files generated by the modeling workflow, tabular or time-series diagnostic outputs, scripts for post-processing and figure generation, and image or visualization products associated with the manuscript. Use of the package depends on the intended task. Re-running the simulations requires the relevant modeling software, including ELM-BGC, ATS, and PFLOTRAN as ATS's geochemical engine. Inspecting outputs and reproducing figures requires Python with scientific plotting libraries such as Matplotlib, and three-dimensional model outputs may be viewed with ParaView. Geographic information system files or maps may be inspected with ArcGIS Pro or comparable GIS software. The data package is intended to enable traceability, reuse, and partial reproduction of the coupled land-to-watershed hydro-biogeochemical modeling workflow used to test how wildfire disturbance affects terrestrial carbon pools and downstream DOC dynamics.

ATS↗

COMPASS-FME Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) Experiment Level 2 Sensor Data v2-1

This is the version v2-1 Level 2 (L2) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) experimental site. This manipulative, ecosystem-scale TEMPEST experiment addresses the potential for freshwater and estuarine-water disturbance events to alter tree function, species composition, and ecosystem processes in a deciduous coastal forest in MD, USA. The experiment uses a large-unit (2000 m2), un-replicated experimental design, with three 50 m × 40 m plots serving as control, freshwater, and estuarine-water treatments. Level 2 (L2) data consist of sensor observations from the COMPASS-FME synoptic sites, TEMPEST, and DELUGE. Compared to the L1 data, these are more consistent (always 15-minute timestamps for the entire year); better QA/QC’d (out of bounds, out of service, and extreme outlier values are removed); and more complete, with a gap-filled time series available alongside the main observations, and additional derived (calculated) variables. L2 data are intended to be rapidly and easily usable in analyses and simulations. However, algorithmic outlier identification always carries the risk of removing valid data, and Level 1 data may be more suitable for analyses that focus on variability or extreme events. This dataset includes: - An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc. - Site- and year-specific folders, each holding variable-specific Parquet (a high performance, space efficient format; see https://parquet.apache.org) data files for each site and plot in that year. - Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, detailed flood times, as well as a general description of the site. - Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are reported every 15 minutes. Please see v2-1 TEMPEST L2 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning. Data files are in Apache Parquet, a high performance, space efficient format for tabular data. These files can be read using R's `arrow` package (https://arrow.apache.org/docs/r/), with similar tools available in other languages. The TEMPEST flood events occurred on the following dates. They lasted for ~10 hours each day and delivered ~80,000 gallons to each plot; many data streams are available at 1 or 5 minute frequency during these periods. * Tests: Aug 25 (fresh plot) and Sep 9 (salt plot), 2021 * TEMPEST 1: June 22, 2022 * TEMPEST 2: June 6-7, 2023 * TEMPEST 3: June 11-13, 2024

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATU↗

COMPASS-FME Synoptic Sites Level 2 Sensor Data v2-1

This is the version 2-1 Level 2 (L2) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our synoptic field sites. COMPASS-FME is studying sites in two distinct regions, the Chesapeake Bay and the Western Lake Erie Basin. We established the network at seven "synoptic" (observational) sites along the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie coastlines, collectively generating over three million observations per month, to track and comprehend environmental changes where land and water intersect. Additionally, the two regions provide an interesting contrast of saltwater and freshwater coasts that allow us to differentiate the impacts of inundation and coastal water chemistries in two nationally important coastal systems. Level 2 (L2) data consist of sensor observations from the COMPASS-FME synoptic sites, TEMPEST, and DELUGE. Compared to the L1 data, these are more consistent (always 15-minute timestamps for the entire year); better QA/QC’d (out of bounds, out of service, and extreme outlier values are removed); and more complete, with a gap-filled time series available alongside the main observations, and additional derived (calculated) variables. L2 data are intended to be rapidly and easily usable in analyses and simulations. However, algorithmic outlier identification always carries the risk of removing valid data, and Level 1 data may be more suitable for analyses that focus on variability or extreme events. This dataset includes: - An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc. - Site- and year-specific folders, each holding variable-specific Parquet (a high performance, space efficient format; see https://parquet.apache.org) data files for each site and plot in that year. - Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, detailed flood times, as well as a general description of the site. - Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are reported every 15 minutes. Data files are in Apache Parquet, a high performance, space efficient format for tabular data. These files can be read using R's `arrow` package (https://arrow.apache.org/docs/r/), with similar tools available in other languages. Please see v2-1 L2 Sensor Package QStart.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning.

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATU↗

CHESS 2025: Field-collected vegetation attributes and site photos

This dataset represents field observations of vegetation samples collected as part of the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) during June and July of 2025. Samples were collected in the field using tablet computers and digital forms, with target data differing by sample type (individual trees, individual shrubs, or 1-meter square plots of meadow and subshrub vegetation). Field samples were collected within 72 hours of airborne data collection using the National Ecological Observatory Network’s Aerial Observation Platform (NEON AOP). The NEON AOP collected waveform LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and imaging spectrometer data in 426 spectral bands from the visible to shortwave infrared. Remote sensing data for the project is available on ESS-DIVE (DOI and citation to be added upon publication). Field data collected included canopy height and per-species horizontal proportional cover for meadow plots, species identity and height information for shrubs, as well as species identity, height, diameter at breast height, and health assessment information for trees. Photos of the focal site and surrounding landscape were taken for all sampling sites and are included in this archive. Green leaves or needles were collected for plant trait and foliar chemistry analysis. This data is archived separately (DOI and citation to be added upon publication). High-precision geospatial data for each sample (crown perimeter polygons for trees and shrubs, plot boundaries for meadow plots) is available here (Henderson et al., 2026). Field and remote sensing protocols largely followed those of a previous field and airborne imaging campaign performed in 2018 (described in Chadwick et al. 2020). Field data from the 2018 campaign can be found here (Chadwick et al., 2020 doi:10.15485/1618130). Because different field measurements were taken for meadow, shrub, and tree sites, data from these three sample types are archived as separate tables (chess_meadow_site_cleaned.csv, chess_shrub_site_cleaned.csv, chess_tree_site_cleaned.csv). Meadow proportional cover data is stored in a separate table (chess_meadow_cover_cleaned.csv). Taxonomy was treated identically between sample types, and the dataset shares a common set of voucher specimens (chess_voucher_IDs_cleaned.csv), as well as a single species list (chess_species_list_cleaned.csv). All taxonomic determinations were performed to the species level, and adhere to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) backbone taxonomy as of January 10th, 2026 (GBIF Secretariat 2023). 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: 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↗

Predicted aboveground biomass of Typha angustifolia in an upland brackish tidal marsh, PIE LTER, Byfield, MA (2022-2024)

This dataset contains predicted monthly aboveground Typha angustifolia biomass per sample and per square meter in a brackish tidal marsh site dominated by Typha angustifolia near the Parker River in the upper estuary of the Plum Island Sound, Massachusetts (MA) during the growing seasons (May-September) of 2022, 2023, and 2024. This site is also located within the Plum Island Ecosystems Long Term Ecological Research Station (PIE LTER). Allometric equations were developed from dry weight data and associated maximum heights collected in 2022 and 2023. The goal of this study was to investigate the difference in aboveground biomass between the site’s marsh interior (MI) and the creek bank (CB). Metadata files (Typha_biomass_predictions_dd.csv and Typha_biomass_predictions_flmd.csv) contain detailed information on variable definitions, calculations, sampling methods, and the location of the site.

DATE↗

Typha angustifolia non-destructive biomass data from an upland tidal brackish marsh, PIE LTER, Byfield, MA, (2022-2024)

This dataset contains non-destructive measurements of key features of Typha angustifolia samples. These samples were measured during the growing season in 2022, 2023, and 2024 in an upland brackish tidal wetland along the Parker River, Byfield, Massachusetts (MA), which is within the Plum Island Ecosystems Long Term Ecological Research Station (PIE LTER). Measurements were taken to investigate the difference in above ground biomass between two locations, the marsh interior (MI) and the creek bank (CB) and to support an allometric equation used to predict aboveground Typha angustifolia biomass per square meter. No QA/QC procedures were applied to the data. Metadata files Typha_biomass_observations_dd.csv and Typha_biomass_observations_flmd.csv contain detailed information on variable definitions, sampling methods, and the location of the site.

CULM_D_1↗

Data and scripts associated with “Moisture content modulates DOM thermodynamic regulation of oxygen consumption in drying streambed sediments”

This data package is associated with the publication “Moisture content modulates DOM thermodynamic regulation of oxygen consumption in drying streambed sediments” published in Scientific Reports (Garayburu-Caruso et al., 2026). The package contains processed data products and scripts used to quantify how drying and re-inundation of riverbed sediments influence dissolved organic matter (DOM) thermodynamic properties and their relationship with sediment oxygen (O₂) consumption across 33 stream sites in the contiguous United States. The data package contains DOM thermodynamic metrics (e.g., Gibbs free energy of carbon oxidation and thermodynamic efficiency), and O₂ consumption along with watershed-scale climate and land-cover metrics used as explanatory variables in the analyses. Underlying unprocessed and processed ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry data, oxygen consumption rates from laboratory moisture-manipulation experiments, within-sample environmental properties, sediment moisture content and contextual field measurements are archived separately at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2428003 (Laan et al., 2024) and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1923689 (Forbes et al.,2023). A preliminary version of this data package was published in February 2026 at the time of manuscript submission. It was updated in June 2026, at the time of manuscript acceptance, to include the finalized data and additional metadata (readme, data dictionary, and file level metadata). For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a 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. At the top level, the data package is organized into five main folders: (1) Data, (2)Figures, (3) Map, (4) GAM_Reulsts, and (5) src. The Data folder contains analysis-ready tabular files with oxygen consumption rates, DOM thermodynamic properties by site and treatment, site-level environmental variables, watershed-scale metrics, and other derived variables referenced in the manuscript. The Figures folder contains static image files associated with the main text and supplemental figures, while the Map folder includes spatial data and map-layer files used to create the sampling-location map. The GAM results folder contains the results for each of the general additive model (GAM).The src folder contains R scripts used to perform data processing, statistical analyses (including clustering, generalized additive models, and threshold analysis), and figure generation. This data package is associated with a GitHub repository found at https://github.com/WHONDRS-Hub/ECA_DOM_Thermodynamics.

Dissolved organic matter↗

Topsoil bulk geochemical compositions - An updated harmonized global dataset

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

Patch-level CO2 and CH4 fluxes and porewater concentrations in experimental wetlands, 5 and 10 PPT saltwater intrusion simulations, Louisiana 2023-2024

This dataset containes carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) flux measurements collected from wetland vegetation patches dominated by Typha domingensis and Panicum hemitomon to assess greenhouse gas flux responses to experimental saltwater intrusion (SWI) pulses. Measurements were conducted before, during, and after simulated SWI events at target salinities of approximately 5 parts per thousand (ppt) with durations of 6, 10, and 17 days and 10 ppt with a duration of 48 days, alongside a control wetland (with no salinity added, flood manipulation only). These data were generated to evaluate how the magnitude and duration of SWI alter wetland carbon exchange and related biogeochemical and plant responses. This data package includes flux measurements from the wetland surface (i.e, soil/water surface and enclosed vegetation) and from the soil/water surface only; porewater and surface water concentrations of CO2 and CH4; salinity, pH, electrical conductivity collected in porewater (at 5, 10, and 20 cm soil depths) and in surface water; soil redox potential; leaf spectral indices, leaf vapor pressure deficit, stomatal conductance; water level, salinity, and photosynthetically active radiation; and aboveground biomass.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL RESPIRA↗

Multispectral UAV imagery of experimental freshwater wetlands under 5 ppt saltwater intrusion, Louisiana, 2023 and 2024

Multispectral imagery was collected using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to evaluate how freshwater vegetation responds to short-term simulated saltwater intrusion events. The purpose of this data collection was to understand how plant health changes in response to acute salinity exposure, which is increasingly relevant in coastal wetland ecosystems facing sea level rise and storm surge events, such as in coastal Louisiana. Three experimental saltwater intrusions were conducted at a salinity of approximately 5 parts per thousand (ppt) for durations of 6-days, 10-days, and 17-days. UAV flights occurred both before and after each treatment. The resulting imagery was processed using Pix4DMapper software to georeference the images and generate orthomosaics. The multispectral sensor used in this study captures reflectance in five bands: blue, green, red, red-edge, and near-infrared. The uploaded data consist of georeferenced .tif orthomosaics for each spectral band, which are compatible with GIS software for vegetation analysis. This imagery can be utilized in investigations into vegetation stress, remote sensing of freshwater wetland ecosystems, and modeling of plant response to environmental changes.

EARTH SCIENCE > BIOSPHERE > ECOSYSTEMS↗

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗