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.

485 records · Page 27
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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

Data and scripts associated with a manuscript modeling microbial regulation of priming effects

This data package is associated with the publication “Modeling Microbial Regulatory Feedback in Organic Matter Decomposition Identifies Copiotrophic Traits as Key Drivers of Positive Priming” published as a preprint on BioRXiv by Ahamed et al. (2026); https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.11.607483. The package contains MATLAB scripts and saved simulation outputs used to implement a cybernetic model of microbial regulation during complex organic matter (OM) decomposition governing priming effects. It includes models of (i) single microbial functional groups (copiotrophic or oligotrophic degraders) and (ii) binary consortia composed of degraders and non-degraders with contrasting or common growth traits. Simulation results were generated using Monte Carlo analyses, with randomized key model parameters across a range of environmental mixing fractions of complex and labile OM. The dataset was created to provide a transparent and reusable computational framework for systematically exploring how microbial growth traits, metabolic regulation, and community composition influence OM decomposition dynamics and priming effects. 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 the variable definitions. This package includes: (1) annotated MATLAB code implementing the system of ordinary differential equations and cybernetic control laws; (2) saved output files containing data (e.g., biomass, substrates, enzyme levels, priming metrics); and (3) scripts for processing saved outputs and regenerating figures. Specifically, the data package contains three main MATLAB scripts: runPrimingModel.m, runPlotData.m, and runPlotSuppFigS1.m, along with this readme and supporting documentation. Users should begin with runPrimingModel.m, which contains the annotated code implementing the system of ordinary differential equations and cybernetic control laws. This script runs the Monte Carlo simulations of microbial OM decomposition and allows users to modify microbial trait definitions, adjust parameter distributions, or define new community configurations. Simulation outputs are automatically saved as .mat files in the folder named SavedData, which stores all pre-generated results included in this package. The second script, runPlotData.m, reads files from the SavedData folder and processes them to regenerate the figures presented in the manuscript. The third script, runPlotSuppFigS1.m, specifically generates Figure S1 in the Supplementary Material of the manuscript. The package also includes the aforementioned files in non-proprietary .txt format. If users intend to use them, they should first save the files in their respective .m or .mat formats prior to execution in MATLAB.

Biomass concentration↗
DOE OSTI2026

EXCHANGE Campaign 2 - Microbial Biomass Collapse (EC2-MBC): Carbon Availability Under Prolonged Flooding in Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystems

Our collective research focus is on investigating the interaction between carbon availability and microbial demands during prolonged flooding. Through laboratory experiments utilizing freshly collected soil samples from diverse transition zone environments, we aim to simulate flooding and understand the mechanisms governing carbon cycling under anoxic conditions. Our primary objective is to elucidate how carbon becomes available to microbes and how they utilize it, discerning between maintenance and investment processes. By examining soils from regions with differing native redox conditions, our aim is to gain comprehensive insights into carbon dynamics across various soil types. Future data types will be added to the ESS-DIVE data package as they are completed and will be version-controlled in the Change History section of EC2_MBC_README.pdf. This data package includes: EC2_MBC_README.pdf flmd.csv dd.csv EC2_SampleIdentificationKey.csv EC2_SoilMoistureKey.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Entisols.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Inceptisols.csv Processed_GHGFlux_Ultisols.csv Processed_Porewater_Iron_II.csv Processed_Porewater_Nutrients.csv Processed_Porewater_Sulfate.csv Processed_Probe_Measurements.csv Processed_Soil_HydrolyticEnzymes.csv Processed_Soil_MicrobialCN.csv Processed_Soil_NPOC_TN_SaltExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_NPOC_TN_WaterExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_OlsenPExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_SaltExtracted.csv Processed_Soil_Nutrients_WaterExtracted.csv Processed_DO_Probe.zip Processed_Temperature_Probe.zip

Carbon Cycling↗
DOE OSTI2026

EXCHANGE Campaign Degradation (ECD): Understanding Decomposition Dynamics Across Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystems

The EXploration of Coastal Hydrobiogeochemistry Across a Network of Gradients and Experiments (EXCHANGE) Degradation Experiment (EXCHANGE-D) is an in situ experiment designed to assess organic matter decomposition rates across coastal terrestrial-aquatic interfaces (TAIs), from coastal uplands through transition zones to wetlands. Through a network of partner scientists and coastal sites, we are testing how environmental gradients shape decomposition and carbon dynamics across terrestrial-aquatic interfaces. Using standardized tea bag substrates deployed across a network of diverse coastal sites, we compare decomposition rates at different fresh- and salt-water TAIs to develop transferable knowledge that improves the representation of organic matter degradation in coastal ecosystem models. For more information, please see https://compass.pnnl.gov/FME/EXCHANGE. This is Version 1 of the data package, which includes: ecd_README.pdf flmd.csv dd.csv ecd_soil_weom_L2.csv ecd_soil_ph_conductivity_L2.csv ecd_soil_gwc_L2.csv ecd_soil_teabag_degradation_L2.csv ecd_readme.pdf

coastal soils↗
DOE OSTI2026

Water Observations of Flow/No-Flow for the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado (June-July 2025 and 2026)

This dataset provides multi-year, ground-truth visual observations of surface water flow/no-flow conditions within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado, collected during June and July of 2025 and 2026. In June and July 2025, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) and Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (further details are provided within the CHESS Project Description). We obtained 377 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. These ground-truth observations were collected to validate classification maps from remote sensing data and model results within the East-Taylor Watershed. In 2025, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using a field-based app for the CHESS Campaign (Zerion iForm). Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included information about visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, and beaver activity. For 2025 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2025_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2025_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg and .jpeg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2025_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2025_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). In June and July 2026, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function SFA project. We obtained 365 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. The 2026 observations focused on collecting repeat measurements at the 2025 flow/no-flow observation locations conducted as part of the CHESS campaign. These ground-truth observations were collected to understand differences in flow/no-flow in 2026, given the unprecedented 2026 drought in Colorado. In 2026, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) Survey123. Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included repeat information from the 2025 water observation effort, including visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, beaver activity, and a new metadata component of estimated stream depth (for select locations). For 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2026_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2026_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2026_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2026_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). For 2025 and 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a location metadata file (locations.csv); (6) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (7) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. 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. 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. 2026-09-02: This dataset was updated to include 2026 water observation measurements. The 2025 observation files were also updated to ensure a consistent file naming convention across water observation years.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data from: "Towards CONUS-Wide ML-Augmented Conceptually-Interpretable Modeling of Catchment-Scale Precipitation-Storage-Runoff Dynamics"

This data package was generated to support the manuscript “Towards CONUS-Wide Machine Learning-Augmented Conceptually Interpretable Modeling of Catchment-Scale Precipitation-Storage-Runoff Dynamics.” It provides input files, model outputs, plotting data, scripts, notebooks, and documentation used to develop, evaluate, and reproduce Mass-Conserving Perceptron (MCP)-based hydrologic modeling experiments across 513 selected Catchment Attributes and Meteorology for Large-sample Studies in the United States (CAMELS-US) basins. The files are organized by modeling component and analysis purpose, including rainfall–runoff experiments, snow module experiments, coupled hydrologic-snow experiments, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) benchmark results, model skill metrics, initialization and epoch records, cell-state normalization files, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)-based model comparison files, and data used to generate manuscript figures. Tabular files can be opened using standard spreadsheet software or Python/R data-analysis tools. Python scripts, Jupyter notebooks, and selected MATLAB scripts are included for model execution, postprocessing, plotting, and statistical analysis. Quality assurance and quality control were conducted through the source-data selection and modeling workflow. Meteorological forcing, streamflow, and static catchment attributes were derived from the CAMELS-US dataset, and snow water equivalent data were derived from the University of Arizona (UA) Snow Water Equivalent dataset. Selected basins and time periods were screened during the associated research workflow to avoid missing observations or poor-quality cases. Static geospatial features were processed primarily using Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS) and Geospatial Data Abstraction Library (GDAL) workflows. Additional details are provided in the associated manuscript and documentation.

ESS-DIVE CSV File Formatting Guidelines Reporting ↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil physical and chemical measurements for topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The package is part of the DOE Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA) project and includes soil physical and chemical measurements from topsoils collected at the East River, Colorado, in conjunction with the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) survey conducted in June 2018. The soil measurements include soil bulk density, soil volumetric water content, soil microbial biomass C (Carbon), N (Nitrogen) and C:N (C to N ratio), soil DNA yield, soil total extractable organic C, soil total extractable N, soil extractable nitrate, soil extractable ammonium, soil dissolved inorganic N, soil dissolved organic N, soil pH, soil TOC400 (total organic carbon at 400°C), soil ROC (residual oxidizable carbon), soil TIC (total inorganic carbon), soil TOC (total organic carbon), soil TC (total carbon), soil N, soil OM (organic matter) loss on ignition. Additional associated site metadata can be found in the ESS-DIVE package 10.15485/1618130. The dataset includes (1) 2018_NEON_soil_physical_chemical_measurements.csv: soil physical and chemical measurements indexed by soil sample IGSNs; (2) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs); (3) flmd.csv: file level metadata file; and (4) dd.csv: data dictionary 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 (Catchment Hydrology and ↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil microbiome resilience to short-term (30 days, 90 days) and long-term (1000 days) drought

This dataset contains data used for the paper "Drought duration does not impact soil microbiome resilience". The Related References will be updated with a full citation when available. Increasing global droughts exert large but poorly understood effects on the microbial communities and ecology of soil. Microbial communities generally show resilience and return to pre-drought conditions when short-term droughted soils are rewet; soils exposed to long-term drought, however, often show a lag upon rewetting, after which microbial communities may or may not return to their pre-stressed conditions. Though short-term droughts have been widely studied, long-term drought manipulation experiments remain rare, especially those that compare microbial response to short-term and long-term drought in tandem. We conducted a 1000-day drought simulation in controlled laboratory conditions with soil cores collected from a tidal freshwater ecosystem in Washington state, USA, and subsequently exposed them to rewetting for two weeks. We also included short-term (30-day and 90-day) drought and rewet treatments to directly compare microbial community and organic matter responses across drought durations. We found distinct microbial taxa belonging to Firmicutes and Actinobacteria enriched after the 1000-day drought, but not after the short-term droughts. While we hypothesized that the microbial community would recover from a short-term drought after rewetting to resemble pre-drought conditions, our results revealed community dissimilarities between rewet and pre-drought conditions across all drought durations. These findings suggest unique microbial life history strategies within certain microbial phyla that make them successful colonizers during an extended drought period, and the influence of environmental and physiological context on microbial responses to rewetting. The 16SrRNA gene amplicon dataset contains processed DNA sequences in the form of an ASV table with raw unrarefied read counts and representative sequences in .fasta format as described in the ESS-DIVE amplicon sequence reporting format (https://ess-dive.gitbook.io/amplicon-sequencing-reporting-format/instructions). The Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FTICR-MS) dataset consists of processed files containing presence absence data of molecular formulae and molecular characterization of FTICR resolved peaks. The Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) dataset contains files relevant to NMR spectra and peaks. A sample key file and a sample metadata file is included for the FTICR/NMR and 16S dataset respectively.

1000-day drought↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data from: "Reply to ‘The challenge of defining effectively-no-snow’"

This repository contains the data and code associated with the paper titled "Reply to ‘The challenge of defining effectively-no-snow’" published in Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 2026. In this reply, we argue that the 10th percentile of peak SWE (Snow Water Equivalent), which we propose in the original article, can be used as intended given it's a standardized, impact-based benchmark for comparing snow conditions across regions, not as a literal measure of snow absence. We present new evidence with SNOwpack TELemetry (SNOTEL) data showing that years meeting the threshold are overwhelmingly associated with subsequent drought (given United States Drought Monitor conditions), supporting its hydrologic and societal relevance. We conclude that while the distinction between "effectively no snow" and "zero snow" should be clearly communicated, the original definition remains appropriate for assessing impacts on snow-dependent water systems. The file code_nree_ML_reply_2026.Rmd contains the main processing scripts which analyze the SNOTEL data. Data from the US Drought Monitor was downloaded at: https://usdmdataservices using the Get Drought Severity Statistics By Area Percent' option, saved to the *_HUC4_delineated.csv files (Hydrologic Unit Code), which are labeled accordingly. 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 > TERRESTRIAL HYDROSPHERE > SNOW/ICE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Vegetation Warming Experiment: Landscape-scale digital camera imagery for vegetation phenology, Utqiagvik, Alaska, 2021

Images captured using a StarDot NetCam SC phenocamera looking east from the top of the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) Sled Shed, Utqiagvik, Alaska. The camera was installed to remotely monitor plant phenology and operation of the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) TEST group's ZPW (Zero Power Warming) chambers during the growing season of 2021. Images were captured from early spring (1 April) through to mid fall (22 October). Snowmelt, vegetation growth and senescence, and snow accumulation were captured. Images were uploaded to the BNL FTP server every hour, then from 2021-07-09 images were recorded every 10 minutes until the end of data collection on 2021-10-22. Images have been combined in *.zip format (6.1 GB). Closer fields of view (northeasterly) were also captured using 4 Wingscapes TimelapseCam cameras mounted on a mast on the sled shed. These cameras were operated from 2021-06-19 to 2021-09-22, with images recorded every 30 minutes from 9:00 to 16:30 Alaska daylight time (AKDT, UTC-8). Individual jpg images from each camera have been combined in zip format. The data package includes a metadata document with example fields of view from each camera (*.pdf). The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Vegetation Warming Experiment: Chamber and ambient plot digital camera imagery for vegetation phenology, Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska, 2021

Time lapse photography of experimental plots within five warming chambers (ZPWs) and paired control plots located on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO), Utqiagvik, Alaska. Images were recorded from 17 June to 19 September, 2021 to capture vegetation dynamics during the growing season. Vegetation phenology, including green up and senescence were captured. Images were recorded daily at 30 minute intervals, from 09:00 - 16:30 Alaska daylight time (AKDT, UTC-8), using Wingscapes TimelapseCam Pro cameras. The target species was Carex aquatilis. Individual jpg images from each camera have been combined in zip format. The data package includes a metadata document with example fields of view from each camera (*.pdf). The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Digital camera imagery for vegetation phenology, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019-2021

Time lapse camera images from Kougarok mile marker (MM) 64 and Teller MM 27 NGEE-Arctic field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, captured from July 2019 to August 2021. Thirty three Wingscape Timelapse Pro cameras were deployed targeting patches of low and tall shrubs (including Alnus sp. and Salix sp.) and general vegetation and landscape views. Images from were recorded at hourly intervals from 11 AM to 2 PM, continuously for 25 months and capture vegetation phenology, snow accumulation and snow melt events. This data package includes images (*.jpg), organized by site and camera ID, and metadata with details of the cameras used, number of images recorded, start and end dates, GPS locations and example fields of view. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Digital camera imagery for vegetation phenology, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2022-2023

Timelapse camera images from Council Mile Marker (MM) 71, Kougarok MM 64, Kougarok Fire Complex (KFC), and Teller MM 27 NGEE-Arctic field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, captured from July 2022 to July 2023. Eight Wingscape Timelapse Pro cameras, and thirty-one Power-interval Camera Automation Modules (PiCAMs) designed by Brookhaven National Laboratory?s Terrestrial Ecosystem Science and Technology (TEST) group were deployed targeting patches of low and tall shrubs (including Alnus sp. and Salix sp.) and general vegetation and landscape views. Images from Wingscape cameras were recorded at hourly intervals from 11 AM to 2 PM, and images from PiCAMs were recorded at 5 hourly intervals from 12 AM to 8 PM, continuously for 12 months and capture vegetation phenology, snow accumulation and snow melt events. This data package includes images (*.jpg), organized by site and camera ID, and metadata with details of the cameras used, number of images recorded, start and end dates, GPS locations and example fields of view. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

WaterTAP-REFLO models of Solar Still, Solar Still ZLD, Enhanced Evaporation pond results for baseline analysis

This folder contains results from models that were adapted into WaterTAP-REFLO. The files contain inputs and outputs for solar still, solar still ZLD, and enhanced evaporation pond unit process models for 4 different locations in the USA: Phoenix, Miami, Houston, and Baltimore. The WaterTAP-REFLO implementation may be different and thus may have different results. The data structure and content are described in a ReadMe.txt file. For WaterTAP-REFLO documentation and/or contact the developers please see: https://github.com/watertap-org/watertap-reflo.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗