Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DATA FORMAT > 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 505 records · Page 28

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↗

Surface water and groundwater FTICR-MS, NPOC, and TN from nine wetlands and three upland wells at the Tanglewood Biological Station, Alabama

This dataset supports a broader study examining wetland hydrobiogeochemical responses to flood disturbance and the subsequent impacts on watershed nutrient export. The study was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles. Samples were collected from nine wetlands and three upland wells at the Tanglewood Biological Station, Alabama in August 2024 and February 2025, during the dry and wet season, respectively. The contents include geochemistry (dissolved organic carbon measured as non-purgeable organic carbon; total dissolved nitrogen) and organic matter characterization (FTICR-MS). Related water level data from the same locations can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/2530253. Additional geochemistry will be published in a separate data package. For details on how to navigate this data package, see this infographic from the River Corridor SFA 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.This dataset is comprised of (1) a folder containing environmental context photos; (2) file-level metadata; (3) data dictionary; (4) field metadata; (5) readme; (6) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (7) the field protocol; and (8) a subfolder with sample data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) total nitrogen data and averages; (3) methods codes; and (4) a subfolder of 12 Tesla (12T) Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data. All files are .csv, .pdf, .jpeg, or .jpg.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Spatially Averaged Ice Contents of Ice-Wedge Polygon Cross-Sections to 3-m Depth, July 2013, Utqiagvik, Alaska

This dataset contains spatially averaged estimates of ice content (volume percent) for two-dimensional cross-sectional profiles (from trough center to trough center to a depth of 3 meters) of low- and flat-centered ice-wedge polygons (three of each type) located near Utqiagvik, Alaska. A combination of soil pits, trenches, and cores were used to describe, sample, and map the cross-section stratigraphy of soil horizons and ice wedges for each polygon at 6 depth intervals. Observed soil horizons were assigned to four types with increasing amounts of organic components (mineral, mineral/organic, organic/mineral, and organic). The average ice contents of each soil horizon type below the permafrost boundary and wedge ice were weighted by their cross-sectional area fractions to calculate spatially averaged estimates of ice content for each polygon. In the active layer, spatially averaged estimates of volumetric water contents were similarly determined and reported here as “ice” content to enable estimates of the soil’s structurally competent porosity and excess ice in permafrost layers. In this dataset, the file AK13_ice_contents.csv includes cross-sectional area fractions and spatially averaged ice contents for soil layers and horizon types at the six depth intervals. The file AK13_permafrost_ice_fractions.csv contains the calculated partitioning of ice contents into pore ice and excess ice fractions for the three permafrost-dominated depth intervals. In addition, there is a data dictionary file for each of these data files and a file-level metadata file. These data were generated by the Department of Energy’s Soil Carbon Response to Environmental Change Scientific Focus Area and were used as inputs to model simulations examining the consequences of thaw-affected subsidence and microtopography change on active layer thickness of low-relief polygonal tundra landscapes in a warming Arctic.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

FUN-BioCROP model with litter decomposition parameters derived from the LIDET dataset

This repository contains the code and data necessary to run the FUN-BioCROP (Fixation and Uptake of Nitrogen-Bioenergy Carbon, Rhizosphere, Organisms, and Protection) model with litter decomposition parameters derived from a modified Monte Carlo simulation that used the Long-term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team dataset. Related publication:Juice, S.M., Ridgeway, J.R., Hartman, M.D., Parton, W.J., Berardi, D.M., Sulman, B.N., Allen, K.E., & Brzostek, E.R. Reparameterizing litter decomposition using a simplified Monte Carlo method improves litter decay simulated by a microbial model and alters bioenergy soil carbon estimates. Description of Files: FUNBioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd R code with FUN-BioCROP model that can be run with 10 different sets of parameters for litter decomposition (Baseline, LIDET, or eight other best parameter sets identified in the modified Monte Carlo simulation. CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R Code with CORPSE model functions, called by FUNBioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd Model Input Data: bulk.csv, bulk_till.csv, rhizo.csv, rhizo_till.csv, litter.csv Initial C and N (kg C or N/m2) pool values for each soil compartment, final values from spin up. All five files have the same columns: (Column - Description - Units) uFastC - Unprotected fast decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 uSlowC - Unprotected slow decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 uNecroC - Unprotected necromass carbon - kg carbon/m2 pFastC - Protected fast decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 pSlowC - Protected slow decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 pNecroC - Protected necromass carbon - kg carbon/m2 livingMicrobeC - Carbon in living microbial biomass - kg carbon/m2 uFastN - Unprotected fast decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 uSlowN - Unprotected slow decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 uNecroN - Unprotected necromass nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pFastN - Protected fast decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pSlowN - Protected slow decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pNecroN - Protected necromass nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 inorganicN - Inorganic nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 CO2 - Carbon in carbon dioxide - kg carbon/m2 livingMicrobeN - Nitrogen in living microbial biomass - kg nitrogen/m2 Model Input Data: FluxTower_AvgSoilT.csv: Average daily soil temperature (oC) at 10 cm depth at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) Energy Farm flux tower from 7/2008-3/2016. (One year of averaged data) Model Input Data: FluxTower_AvgSoilVWC.csv: Average daily soil volumetric water content (VWC) at 10 cm depth at UIUC Energy Farm flux tower from 7/2008-3/2016. (One year of averaged data) Model Input Data: input_CCS_LIDET Study.csv: This file has daily data to run FUN-BioCROP (Column - Description - Units): yr - calendar year - year doy - day of year (1 to 365) (no leap year) - day anpp - aboveground NPP (DayCent) - kg C/m2/day bnpp - belowground NPP (DayCent) - kg C/m2/day aglivc - live aboveground biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 bglivcj - live juvenile fine root biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 bglivcm - live mature fine root biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 aglivn - live aboveground biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 bglivnj - live juvenile fine root biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 bglivnm - live mature fine root biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 nyr - simulation year - year cult - indicates a cultivation event (0 or 1) crop - indicates a new crop (0 or 1) fert - indicates a fertilizer event (0 or 1) frst - indicates the first day of the growing season (0 or 1) harv - indicates a harvest event (0 or 1) last - indicates the end of the growing season (0 or 1) croptype - crop type (0=none; 1=alfalfa; 2=corn; 3=grass clover pasture; 4=soybean; 5=wheat) cropsrl - crop specific root length - mm/g root cultrhizmix - fraction of rhizosphere mixed with bulk soil during cultivation (0.0-1.0) - fraction cultlitmix - fraction of litter mixed with bulk soil during cultivation (0.0-1.0) - fraction harvremov - fraction of above ground biomass removed during harvest (0.0-1.0) - fraction fertamt - fertilization amount - g N/m2 lifehist - plant life history (0 = annual, 1 = perennial) froot_turnover_c - amount of C in fine root turnover - kg C/m2 froot_turnover_n - amount of N in fine root turnover - kg N/m2 agrd_turnover_c - amount of C in aboveground biomass turnover - kg C/m2 agrd_turnover_n - amount of N in aboveground biomass turnover - kg N/m2 leaf_litter_fastfrac - Fast decomposing fraction of leaf litter (0.0-1.0) - fraction root_litter_fastfrac - Fast decomposing fraction of root litter (0.0-1.0) - fraction root_diameter - root diameter - mm root_length - root length - mm root/m2 rhizo_frac - fraction of total soil volume that is rhizosphere (0.0 - 1.0) - fraction date - date in format YYYY-MM-DD Instructions: Save the model code ("FUN-BioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd") and accompanything files (data streams and CORPSE function code) in the same folder. In model code "Chunk 3: Load CORPSE Data Streams" set the working directory (setwd) to the folder with the files saved in step #1. In "Chunk 5: Define LIDET parameter sets" select the litter decomposition parameter set to be used in the run, and comment out all other sets. If changing any parameter values, edit them in "Chunk 6: Load parameters." Run all chunks up to and including "Chunk 10: Prepare Data for Export." In "Chunk 11: Export Output Data" edit data frames for export and filenames, as necessary. "Chunk 12: Graph Total Soil C" makes a figure of C remaining over the model run period. Description of each model chunk (in file FUN-BioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd): Chunk 1: Remove all functions, clear memory. Removes all functions from R environment, clears the memory. Chunk 2: Load Packages. Loads packages necessary to run the code. Chunk 3: Load CORPSE Data Streams. Sets the working directory and loads the data files necessary to run CORPSE. Chunk 4: Load CORPSE Functions. Loads the R script with CORPSE functions from the working directory, "CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R". Chunk 5: Define LIDET parameter sets. Has ten different parameter sets for litter decomposition tested in this study: Baseline parameters, LIDET parameters, and the other 8 best performing parameter sets identified in the modified Monte Carlo. To run the model, all but one parameter set must be commented out. Chunk 6: Load Parameters. Loads all fixed parameters to run the model. Data frame with definitions of parameters is in the CORPSE function script "CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R" Chunk 7: Prepare Data Streams. Takes data streams loaded in Chunk 3 and puts them in the format necessary to run the model. The model is coded to run at least two sites at a time, so if only one site is being run it must be run in duplicate. Individual data tables of daily values are created in this chunk from the input data file. Chunk 8: Set Initial Conditions. Creates data tables of soil C and N pools for each soil compartment (rhizo_till, rhizo, bulk_till, bulk, litter) and loads initial values into the data tables. Creates lists for each soil compartment to hold model output. Chunk 9: Load FUN Data and Set Up Matrices. Uses DayCent data to calculate FUN input data: root and leaf N demand, total N demand, plant CN, leaf N available for retranslocation, and litter production. Creates matrices for FUN model outputs. Chunk 10: Run Model. Runs the model. Chunk 11: Prepare Data for Export. Combines data from each day saved as lists into data frames for each soil compartment. Adds values from all soil compartments together to calculate total soil values, creates separate data frames for each soil C and N pool (e.g., protected slow C) for the total soil value. Adds different C and N pools together to calculate total soil C and N for all layers. Creates data frame of ratio of protected to unprotected SOC. Organizes FUN data for export. Chunk 12: Export Results. Exports CSV files of model results to the working directory. Chunk 13: Graph Total Soil C. Makes figure of C remaining over time. Related Links: Original FUN-BioCROP model: https://github.com/BrzostekEcologyLab/FUN-BioCROP LIDET dataset: https://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TD023

Juice, Stephanie↗

Laboratory time series moisture manipulative experiment from sediment across San Antonio, Texas: time series aerobic respiration and geochemistry

This dataset supports a broader study examining the effects of wetting and drying on hyporheic zone respiration. The dataset provides data generated from a laboratory moisture manipulation experiment. The contents include time series aerobic respiration and moisture; dissolved oxygen; sediment geochemistry data; and field metadata (including qualitative information on instream and river corridor characteristics). Samples were collected as part of the WHONDRS Allison Veach collaboration (AV1). The data package associated with the AV1 study is available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2529428. AV1 sampling occurred across 7 perennial and 7 intermittent streams in San Antonio, Texas. Each stream/site was visited both in summer during base flow (July-September 2023) and winter during peak flow (January-February 2024). This study uses subsamples from a subset of AV1 samples. The original field samples were labeled as AV1_###. Subsequent subsamples for this study were labeled as EV_###. The labels from the field samples and the EV subsamples can be mapped directly based on the digits following the prefix and underscore (i.e., EV_001 is a subsample from AV1_001). See the critical details section below for more details on sample naming. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) field protocol; and a (6) a subfolder with sediment sample data from the incubation experiment. The sample data subfolder contains (1) effect size; (2) iron (II); (3) gravimetric moisture; (4) respiration rates; (5) raw dissolved oxygen values and plots; (6) specific conductance; (7) pH; (8) temperature; (9) a summary containing mean, median, and standard deviation values of each data type for each treatment (wet and dry); and (10) methods codes. All files are .csv or.pdf.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Meteorological Variables and Energy Fluxes at the Pumphouse Site, Crested Butte, CO 2017-2019

This data contains output from the pumphouse eddy covariance tower that includes shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, net radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, as well as sensible, latent, and ground heat fluxes. Also included is calculated evapotranspiration from the latent heat flux and the latent heat of vaporization. All data are on a daily timestep and displayed in Mountain Time. The data has been processed, and Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) was done, but any daily gaps in the data have not been filled in. This research was funded by the Department of Energy and performed as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area. This research aimed to constrain evapotranspiration in a high-elevation catchment.The dataset includes one comma-separated values (CSV) data file (EddyCovariance_MeteorlogicalVariables_CrestedButtePumphouse.csv). Additionally, three metadata CSV files are included: (1) location metadata file (locations.csv), which contains location metadata and coordinates; (2) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (3) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

WHONDRS 2016 Sediment Organic Matter Characterization Data from Streams across HJ Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon

This dataset supports a broader synoptic effort to map morphological, hydrological, chemical, and biological conditions across a fifth-order mountain stream network. Samples were generated through a collaborative synoptic sampling effort in 2016. The dataset provides sediment Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FTICR-MS) from 60 sites across the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon (https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu). Related data were collected as part of the event and were published separately in collaboration with other team members. The data are available at http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/ea6c0832885a46c3939e7bb22e48e754 and are described within https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1567-2019 (Ward et al., 2019). The hydroshare data package contains processed FTICR-MS data from the samples included in this data package. The data were processed via Formultitude (previously called Formularity; https://github.com/PNNL-Comp-Mass-Spec/Formultitude). However, we have re-processed the data using Core-MS and included it in this data package. Additional related data collected in 2025 from a similar effort can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3023310 and http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/b274c4a234bf4b12b7cb8a54a696c629. 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. This dataset is comprised of (1) a folder of sample data; (2) data dictionary; (3) file-level metadata; (4); (5) coordinates; and (6) readme. The sample data subfolder contains 12 Tesla (12T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains the processed data and three subfolders, one containing the .xml files, one containing the CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS). All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .Rmd, .py, .cal, or .json.

Biogeochemistry↗

Timeseries Photos of a Variably Inundated Stream: Umtanum Creek, Washington, United States

This dataset is associated with a broader study using game camera timeseries photos collected to evaluate stream variable inundation via changes in width (i.e. wet fraction). Four game cameras were deployed along Umtanum Creek (Washington, United States) to track changes in stream inundation over time. Drone imagery was collected at the same location on October 18, 2024 which was used to construct a digital elevation model (DEM) of the streambed topography. The associated paper and data can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2025.106715 (Bao et al., 2025a)) and https://doi.org/10.15485/2589885 (Bao et al., 2025b), respectively. 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 this readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) files that describes each file and a data dictionaries (DD) that describe all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; (4) field metadata; (5) field protocol; and (5) folders containing game camera photos. Game camera photos are organized into folders for each camera (CDL, CUL, CDR, CUR; see readme for information on camera naming) by the month photos were collected. All files are .csv, .jpg, or .pdf.

AI image segmentation↗

Biological Mechanisms May Contribute to Soil Carbon Saturation Patterns: Modeling Archive

This Modeling Archive is in support of a TES-SFA publication “Biological Mechanisms May Contribute to Soil Carbon Saturation Patterns” (Craig et al., 2021). We ran and evaluated a multi-assumption soil organic carbon (SOC) model to investigate whether alternative assumptions regarding constraints on soil microbial biomass could lead to soil carbon saturation patterns. We developed this model in the Multi-Assumption Architecture and Testbed (MAAT, https://github.com/walkeranthonyp/MAAT, tag: v1.2.1_Craig2021; Walker et al. 2018). Using MAAT, we embedded three alternative hypotheses in a microbially explicit three-pool SOC model: 1) the efficiency of mineral-associated SOC formation decreases as mineral-associated SOC approaches a maximum value (“Mineral saturation”), 2) the microbial biomass turnover rate increases with increasing microbial biomass (“Density-dependent turnover”), and 3) community carbon use efficiency decreases as microbial biomass increases toward an upper limit (“Density-dependent growth”). We ran a factorial combination of these hypotheses resulting in eight models for three different classes of model (linear decay, Michaelis-Menten decay, or reverse Michaelis-Menten decay), resulting in 24 models, 12 of which are presented or discussed in the related publication. Models were parameterized using values from previous studies with similar models (Wang et al. 2013, Wieder et al. 2014, Li et al. 2014, Georgiou et al. 2017, Hassink and Whitmore 1997) and ran to an approximate steady state (200 years) at six (6) different C input rates corresponding to 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 times the default input value. Further model details are available in the related publication. This archive contains output from three MAAT simulations, and scripts to run these simulations and process and plot the data. Simulations are labeled “lin”, “MM_highKm”, and “RMM_highKm” reflecting factorial runs for linear, Michealis-Menten, and reverse Michaelis-Menten models, respectively. This archive contains: • 3 R scripts prepended with “init_MAAT_” to initialize runs (1 for each simulation), • 1 csv file containing years over which to run simulations (“met_year.csv”), • 1 bash script (.bs) to run MAAT, • 6 XML files that are output from MAAT describing a run (2 for each simulation), • 3 model output csv files prepended by “out_” (1 for each simulation), and • 1 analysis R script for reproducing figures 3 and 4 in Craig et al. 2021. See included user guide (Craig_2021_modeling_archive_20210315.pdf) for file organization details.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Metagenome-assembled genomes from Slate River floodplain sediments near Crested Butte, CO, USA (September 2019)

Microorganisms play a key role in cycling nutrients and contaminants in the terrestrial environment depending on their genetic potential. Here we present metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community in floodplain sediment samples taken September 2019 at one locations (OBJ1) near the confluence of the Oh-Be-Joyful Creek and Slate River. The site is one of the field sites in focus for the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Groundwater Quality Science Focus Area (SFA) program. Sediment samples from a deep soil pit were collected from 50 to 150 cm depth below surface at discrete depths every 20 cm for microbial analyses. A total of 6 metagenomes were sequenced through the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and can be found under Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project: Gs0142591. Metagenomes were assembled, binned, and refined using metawrap to generate MAGs (>50% complete and < 10% contamination based on checkM scores). This dataset includes a zip file of 2562 MAG fasta files and a csv file with quality, taxonomic classification (Genome Taxonomy Database Release RS220), and metagenome accessions for MAGs. This dataset also includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

miniDOT Logger Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Data of Wetland Surface Water, Old Woman Creek NERR, Huron, OH, 2022-06-15 to 2023-12-15

This dataset contains timeseries data of dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature measurements of the surface water in a wetland at Old Woman Creek Estuarine Research Reserve in Huron, OH. Dissolved oxygen and temperature measurements were made in the overlying water column of wetland to assess how oxygen changed over time with hydrological events. Measurements were collected by a miniDOT Logger. Data was collected over 1.5 years (June 2022 to December 2023). The miniDOT_DO_Temp_DataFile.csv contains the DO and temperature measurements that were collected every 10 minutes. The water levels of the site varied over-time as the wetland flooded and dried. So, sometimes the miniDOT logger would be out of the water column, resulting in high oxygen levels. Depth of the water column was recorded at every in-person site visit. The miniDOT_Depth_DataFile.csv contains the hand-measured surface water depth measurements for comparison to the logger-collected data. Information on the deployment and measurement methods can be found in the miniDOT_InstallationMethods.csv file.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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 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↗

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↗

BuildingSync® v.2.7.0 (released 9.11.2025) [SWR-18-28]

BuildingSync® is a building data exchange schema to better enable integration between software tools and building data workflows. The schema's original use case was focused on commercial building energy audits; however, several additional use cases have been realized including building energy modeling and more high-level generic building data exchange. Version 2.7.0 adds new elements for file attachment feature and FederalBuilding, and generalizes usage of Optional Elements (e.g. EquipmentCondition, EquipmentID) to all assets/systems. BuildingSync helps streamline the data exchange process, improving the value of the data, minimizing duplication of effort for subsequent building data collection efforts (including audits), and facilitating the achievement of greater energy efficiency. This in done in part by standardizing on (a) reporting audits in an electronic format, (b) tracking proposed, implemented, and discarded energy conservation measures, and (c) storing building characteristics (at multiple levels) for audits, benchmarking, and building energy analysis. BuildingSync has several documents and tools available to help users understand how to best leverage BuildingSync. The list below are only a subset of the resources available. If new resources are discovered, then feel free to create a new pull request with the additions. Generic BuildingSync information is available on the DOE website and the project website. BuildingSync Examples - These examples are kept up to date and show a wide range of implementations. Any new update to BuildingSync is required to pass validation on these example files. BuildingSync Use Case Validator allows for users to determine if their instance complies with a specific use case for BuildingSync by checking if the required elements are implemented in an uploaded instance. An API is also provided for automated integration into other tools. Also, the website contains an easy way to view the entirety of the schema and how elements relate to the Building Exchange Data Exchange Specification. The Validator is open sourced here Use Case TestSuite provides a Python package for easier generation of BuildingSync use cases. BuildingSync use cases depend on the generation of schematron documents, which is time-consuming and difficult to implement well. The TestSuite allows users to define a use case using a more palatable CSV template, which it then turns into a Schematron document. The source code is available here. BuildingSync to OpenStudio/EnergyPlus. The translator is open sourced here. This project will translate a Level 1 (and partial Level 2) ASHRAE Energy Audit to a fully defined OpenStudio and EnergyPlus model. This project is in early Beta testing and any feedback is welcome!

Long, Nicholas [National Renewable Energy Lab. (NR↗

Metagenome-assembled genomes from Slate River floodplain sediments near Crested Butte, CO, USA (June to October 2020)

Microorganisms play a key role in cycling nutrients and contaminants in the terrestrial environment depending on their genetic potential. Here we present metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community in floodplain sediment samples taken June to October 2020 at two locations (OBJ1 and OBJ2) near the confluence of the Oh-Be-Joyful Creek and Slate River. The site is one of the field sites in focus for the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Groundwater Quality Science Focus Area (SFA) program. Sediment samples from a deep soil pit were collected from 30 cm depth below surface to just above the cobble layer (~190-250 cm depth) at discrete depths every 40 cm for microbial analyses. A total of 35 metagenomes were sequenced through the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and can be found under Genomes Online Database (GOLD) sequencing project: Gs0142591. Metagenomes were assembled, binned, and refined using metawrap to generate MAGs (>50% complete and < 10% contamination based on checkM scores). This dataset includes a zip file of 2848 MAG fasta files and a csv file with quality, taxonomic classification (Genome Taxonomy Database Release RS220), and metagenome accessions for MAGs. This dataset also includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Substantial and overlooked greenhouse gas emissions from deep Arctic lake sediment - supporting data and code

This data package contains data, descriptions, and code-based analyses that were used to support conclusions drawn in “Substantial and overlooked greenhouse gas emissions from deep Arctic lake sediment”, by Freitas et al. (2025) (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01614-y). The study evaluated greenhouse gas production along a deep sediment core (20 m) taken in 2018 from below Goldstream Lake, a field site approximately 15 km north of Fairbanks, Alaska.The file “ESSDive_NFreitas_2024_flmd.csv” includes an overview of all other csv files in this data package, namely: sediment descriptions (depth and type of sediment), sediment characterizations (bulk density, gravimetric water content, total carbon, etc.), calculated respiration and temperature sensitivity values associated with year-long incubations of the sediment core, and the R code used to process the dataset. Additional details regarding the content of these files and how the calculations were performed are described in the Methods section of this archive. The “data_dictionary_ESSDive_NFreitas_2024_dd.csv” is a data dictionary for all files included in the data package. Each row in the data dictionary represents a column name in a given file. 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).Data package updates- August 2024: Title was updated, R code now includes a process for calculating potential production across the whole sediment column, the "sediment_column_production_potentials_ESSDive_NFreitas_2024.csv" is the associated data output file, and the file level metadata and data dictionaries were updated to reflect the contents of the additional csv file.- October 2024: Title was updated, and a statement was added to Step 2 of the Methods that describes that samples were collected (and exported) in a responsible manner and in accordance with relevant permits and local laws.- January 2025: Updated the associated manuscript details in the Abstract (manuscript title, publication date, DOI link) and in the Related References section (full citation).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Data for Zheng et al. (2025), "AquaMEND: Reconciling multiple impacts of salinization on soil carbon biogeochemistry"

Soil salinization, exacerbated by climate change, poses a global threat to coastal ecosystems and soil function. Salinity affects soil carbon cycling by directly impacting microbial activity and indirectly altering soil physicochemical properties, but current models inadequately represent these complexities. This dataset contains the observational and modeling data from Zheng et al. (2025), which described a process-based modeling framework that couples soil solution chemistry with microbial carbon cycling reactions to study the impacts of soil salinization. This conceptual model is implemented numerically into the open-source geochemical program PHREEQC 3.0 (Parkhurst and Appelo, 2013). This dataset consists of: - Figure2_AquaMEND_salinity_buffer: Contains model simulation outputs to assess the impact of three different cation exchange and surface complexation processes on salinity buffering (Fig. 2 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure3_Salinity_function: Contains salinity function fitting for literature data (Fig. 3 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure4_AquaMEND_microbial_mechanisms: Contains model simulation outputs for testing various microbial process-based hypotheses related to soil salinization, including microbial mortality, carbon use efficiency (CUE), extracellular enzyme activity, and other microbial mechanisms (Fig. 4 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure5_AquaMEND_Redox: Contains on model simulation outputs to evaluate shifts among key redox processes, such as aerobic respiration, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis (Fig.5 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure6_AquaMEND_sorption: Contains on model simulation outputs for investigating the effects of salinity on dissolved organic matter (DOM) sorption and desorption processes (Fig. 6 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure7_AquaMEND_process_couple: Contains on model simulation outputs for exploring coupled biotic-abiotic processes and their interactions (Fig. 7 from Zheng et al. 2025). - data: Includes datasets used to develop salinity response functions and evaluate salinity buffering capacity. Datasets for MEND model calibration. - database: Contains the `.dat` file required by PHREEQC for model execution. - README.md: A Markdown plain text file describing the computational tools and directories. Files are a mixture of plain text CSV (comma-separated value) and plain text *.dat files written by the model; no special software is required to read them.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL SALINIT↗