Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ESS”

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
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

Denudation, solute export, landscape evolution modeling, and geographic information system data for the East River watershed, Colorado, USA (2020-2024)

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of lithologic controls on denudation, solute export, carbon-scaling relationships, and transient landscape evolution in the East River watershed near Crested Butte, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the Figure 2 map, including drainage, hillshade, lithology, sample locations, and basin polygons, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. One group of tables reports sample-level and catchment-level information for river-sediment samples analyzed for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample names, outlet elevations, geographic coordinates, upstream drainage area, rock-type classes, production-rate scaling scheme, analyzed nuclide, catchment-averaged denudation rates, and associated lower and upper analytical uncertainties. Sample and catchment attributes provide the basis for comparing denudation rates across intrusive, shale, sedimentary, and mixed-lithology settings. A second group of tables reports supporting information for landscape-evolution modeling and the mapped geologic framework of the study area. Included files list parameter values and definitions for the two-phase landscape-evolution simulations, summarize full-domain model erosion fluxes and topographic metrics for different simulation configurations, provide a fixed-area carbon-model scaling table, and summarize mapped geologic units within the East River study domain, including geologic code, formation name, lithologic description, mapped area, and lithologic class grouping. Model outputs and geologic summaries support interpretation of transient landscape behavior and its relation to the mapped distribution of shale, intrusive, sedimentary, and surficial units. A third group of tables reports hydrologic and hydrochemical information used to quantify dissolved export from the watershed. Included files provide site-level values for drainage area, mean annual solute export, standard error of annual export, area-normalized solute yield, and equivalent weathering rate for five East River monitoring sites, along with metadata describing the number, sampling cadence, and date range of discharge records and partial and full total dissolved solids observations used in the solute-yield analyses. The package also contains a supplementary daily ion-load time series with daily mean discharge, discharge observation counts, dissolved concentrations, and daily loads for calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, fluoride, dissolved silica, charge-balance bicarbonate, and total dissolved solids. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, a package-tree text file, and a readme text file.

10Be↗
DOE OSTI2026

Historic climate, cosmogenic 10Be, denudation-rate, and geospatial datasets from the Pikes Peak region, Colorado, USA

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of elevation-dependent denudation rates on Pikes Peak in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the study-area map, including sample locations, sample watershed boundaries, the Pikes Peak batholith, Pleistocene glacier extent, weather station locations, and elevation and hillshade rasters, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. These mapped layers provide the geographic framework for interpreting denudation patterns across the Pikes Peak region and for relating sample locations to watershed geometry, bedrock setting, glacial history, and nearby climate stations. The first group of tables reports climate and geospatial context for the study area. These files include station-based temperature and precipitation data used to characterize elevational gradients in mean annual climate and monthly climate seasonality, sample locations, denudation-rate and topographic metrics, fixed frost-cracking model parameters, frost-cracking intensity and precipitation-frequency metrics, and stream-power inversion results. Together, these data provide the basis for evaluating how denudation varies with elevation, climate, and landscape form across sampled catchments on Pikes Peak. The second group of tables reports cosmogenic nuclide and erosion-model results used in the denudation analysis. Included files contain accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurements for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample identifiers, measured 10Be:9Be ratios, analytical uncertainties, carrier mass, quartz mass, blank corrections, blank-group statistics, and calculated 10Be concentrations and uncertainties. Additional tables summarize stream-power-law inversion results for sampled catchments, including optimized model parameters, predicted erosion rates, residual metrics, channel-pixel counts, and convergence status, as well as regression equations and summary statistics used to evaluate relationships among elevation, climate, frost cracking, precipitation forcing, and denudation rate. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, and a readme text file.

10Be cosmogenic nuclides↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE Wood Anatomy of Picea mariana and Larix laricina in SPRUCE Experimental Plots, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, July 2023

Branch samples were collected in July 2023 to measure wood anatomical traits on two dominant conifer species, Picea mariana and Larix laricina, in a bog forest at the SPRUCE (Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments) experiment in northern Minnesota. Anatomical measurements were made on the annual rings of those branches with dates ranging from 2011-2023. Wood anatomical measurements include annual tracheid diameter, tracheid density, cell wall thickness, thickness-to-span-ratio, and conduit lumen fraction in both earlywood and latewood. Wood anatomical samples were prepared using a portable sliding microtome (G.S.L.-1 lightweight microtome, WSL) and a light microscope (Leica DM2500). This dataset spans 2011–2023, with full branch-level coverage for 2020–2023, whereas some thinner branches formed only in recent years and therefore do not contain rings from earlier years. By providing annual, treatment-specific anatomical measurements, this dataset can help quantify structural acclimation to global change, clarify links among phenology, wood formation, and hydraulic traits, and improve predictions of forest growth response under future climates. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

annual tracheid diameter↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil carbon stocks from soil organic carbon at the Teller 47, Teller 27, and Kougarok 86 field sites, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021 – 2023

Carbon stored in permafrost soils represents the largest terrestrial storage and hence has key significance for the global carbon cycle, yet the site-specific estimates of permafrost soil carbon are limited. To better understand permafrost carbon storage, soil organic content (SOC) was measured from soils collected at the Teller 27, Teller 47, and Kougarok 86 field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska in the summers of 2019 and 2021-2023. Soil samples were collected from locations with and without near-surface permafrost to varied depths within the permafrost, where present. In addition to sample collection for soil organic carbon analysis, bulk density samples were also collected within each soil profile to allow for calculation of carbon stocks. Carbon to nitrogen ratios are also reported. Location data were collected at each observation point using a handheld GPS unit with waypoint averaging to reduce location measurement error to within 3 m. SOC was measured using elemental analysis in the laboratory. This dataset contains a *.csv file of soil carbon stocks, a *.kml file of measurement locations, a *.pdf user guide, a *.csv data dictionary, and a *.csv file level metadata.

EARTH SCIENCE > CRYOSPHERE > FROZEN GROUND↗
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

Synoptic NO3 in Slate River Watershed, Colorado (2022)

The synoptic nitrate (NO3) dataset in the Slate River Watershed, Colorado consists of NO3 data collected at 19 locations three times during the summer of 2022. Stream samples were collected in early summer (early July), mid summer (late August), and late summer (late September). The samples include mainstem, tributary, and point source input water samples. These data were collected to evaluate spatiotemporal variability in stream NO3 during the summer, and evaluate anthropogenic controls on stream NO3 dynamics. This data package contains: (1) a csv of all NO3 samples and (2) a csv of locations for each sampling site. The dataset additionally 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. 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 > BIOSPHERE > ECOSYSTEMS > FRESHWATE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Effects of 9.5 Years of Whole-Soil Warming on the Fatty Acid and n-Alkanes Composition in Bulk Soil and Density Fractions at Blodgett Experimental Forest, California, USA

Original data of molecular data (fatty acids and n-alkanes) including concentrations and calculated molecular proxies in a whole-soil warming experiment at the Blodgett Forest Research Station after 9.5 years of warming. The study site has a Mediterranean climate with annual average temperature of 12.5 ℃ and annual average precipitation of 1774 mm. The study site is characterized by a mesic Ultic Alfisol formed from granitic parent material, corresponding to a Dystric Cambisol under the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) classification system. Experimental warming is applied throughout the soil profile to a depth of 1 m using vertically embedded heating cables that raise soil temperature by 4 °C relative to ambient conditions. Soil samples were collected on 1 May 2023, after the experiment had been operating continuously for about 9.5 years since its initiation in January 2014.The data has been processed from raw data and cross-validated by other peers. The dataset includes: - Bulk_Fattyacid_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: fatty acid concentrations and proxies including Carbon Preference Index (CPI) and Average Chain Length (ACL) of bulk soil organic carbon; - Fractions_Fattyacid_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: fatty acid concentrations and proxies including CPI and ACL of free particulate organic matter (fPOM) and mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM); - Bulk_Alkanes_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: n-alkanes concentrations and proxies including CPI and ACL of bulk soil organic carbon; - Fractions_Alkanes_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: n-alkanes concentrations and proxies including CPI and ACL of fPOM and MAOM; - n-Alkanes_All_Monomer_Concentration_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: concentration of all the n-alkane monomers identified and integrated for bulk soil, fPOM and MAOM; - Fattyacid_All_Monomer_Concentration_9.5-year_Soil_Warming_Blodgett, California, USA: concentration of all the fatty acid monomers including diacids identified and integrated for bulk soil, fPOM, and MAOM. All data are provided in CSV format and can be viewed using Microsoft Excel. We specifically look at fatty acids (FA) and n-alkanes in bulk soil, fPOM and MAOM and calculated molecular proxies such as CPI and ACL to understand the source of oragnic carbon (with ACL) and degree of decomposition (CPI) of each soil fraction. Due to lack of long-chain fatty acids (carbon number ⩾ 20), microorganism-derived organic carbon is characterized by shorter ACL in comparison to plant-derived organic carbon. Fresh SOC is characterized by even-over-odd dominance for fatty acids and odd-over-even dominance for n-alkanes. Therefore, CPI indicates whether soil organic carbon (SOC) represents fresh input (CPI > 10) or is strongly decomposed (close to 1). The research questions should be then, after 9.5-year warming: 1. whether the relative contribution between microorganism-derived and plant-derived SOC in each soil fraction? 2. whether fPOM became more decomposed whereas MAOM remained relatively persistent in each soil fraction across the soil depth?

Carbon↗
DOE OSTI2026

Tussock tundra surface temperatures, ambient air and incoming photosynthetically active radiation measured at the NGEE Arctic Council site, 2021 - 2023

This dataset contains temperature measurements carried out along two fiber optics cables/lines (150 m each) laid out along the ground at the Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment (NGEE) Arctic site near Council, Alaska. The lines traverse an heterogeneous part of the tussock tundra site including thermokarst features and lichen dominated sections of the tundra. Measurements were done using a Sensornet Oryx DTS, a Distributed Temperature sensor that was installed in September 2021 and taken down in August 2023. The sensor was powered by solar power with data being collected every 30 minutes at 1 m resolution. In addition to these measurements air temperature and incoming photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) are provided. These measurements are co-located with the NGEE Arctic Council eddy flux and meteorological station (AmeriFlux ID US-NGC). Included are six *.csv files (four data files and two reporting format files) and two *.kml files. 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).

Air temperature↗
DOE OSTI2026

Radiocarbon age at Teller and Kougarok field sites, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

With extreme climate warming in the Arctic, there is increasing focus on permafrost stability and improving understanding of the impacts of thawing permafrost. Understanding the stability of carbon in Arctic permafrost supports our understanding of the global carbon cycle. Organic (plant / wood) samples were collected from varying depths and landscape features at the Teller 33, Teller 47, Teller 51, Kougarok 64, and Kougarok 86 field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska in the summers of 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Carbon 13 and 14 isotopes were measured to find radiocarbon age for collected samples. We also report fraction modern and delta 14C. This dataset contains a *.csv file of radiocarbon measurements and a *.kml file of measurement locations. 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).

EARTH SCIENCE > CLIMATE INDICATORS > PALEOCLIMATE ↗
DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE FT-ICR MS, Bulk Chemistry, and Mass Loss from Litter Decomposition Study in Experimental Plots, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, 2015-2017

This dataset contains molecular, bulk chemical, and mass loss measurements from a litter decomposition study at the Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments (SPRUCE) experimental site within the Marcell Experimental Forest in northern Minnesota, USA. This site is in a Sphagnum spp. ombrotrophic bog forest. Litterbags were deployed into the peat in September 2015 across three warming levels (+0, +4.5, and +9°C) under ambient and elevated carbon dioxide (CO₂ - +500 ppm) and retrieved after roughly 0.5, 1, and 2 years of field incubation (2015-09-23 to 2017-08-02). Litterbags containing six peatland litter types: black spruce needles (Picea mariana - SPL), spruce fine roots (SPR), Sphagnum angustifolium (ANG), Sphagnum magellanicum (MAG), Labrador tea leaves (Rhododendron groenlandicum - LTL), and Labrador tea roots (LTR). Molecular composition of water-soluble organic matter extracts was characterized using Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FT-ICR MS) at 9.4 Tesla, operated in negative ion mode with electrospray ionization, providing molecular formula assignments and compound-class distributions across the decomposition time series. Bulk chemical characterization included elemental analysis (percent carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) to quantify functional group composition. Litter mass loss was tracked gravimetrically at each retrieval interval, expressed as percent mass remaining relative to initial dry mass for each litter type and treatment combination. These data are valuable for understanding how vegetation shifts driven by increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature in peatlands alter litter inputs and organic matter stabilization trajectories, with implications for projecting and modeling peatland carbon cycling. This dataset contains two data files in comma-separated value (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: two data dictionaries and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

decomposition↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Induction (EMI) Data, 2024, Trail Creek, Colorado

This dataset contains Electromagnetic Induction (EMI) data collected at Trail Creek, Colorado, in 2024. EMI surveys were conducted to investigate the spatial distribution of electrical conductivity in the subsurface, providing insights into soil moisture and subsurface geological features. The surveys were performed along multiple transects to capture variations in conductivity influenced by changes in soil composition, moisture content, and underlying geological structures. This dataset complements other geophysical data collected in the region, including Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and Terrestrial LiDAR Scanning (TLS), providing a detailed understanding of the subsurface and its impact on surface vegetation and hydrological processes. The data are valuable for environmental geophysics, ecological research, and hydrological modeling in mountainous ecosystems. The files include: - data.zip: the raw EMI data (.csv) - inversion.zip: the inverted resistivity model (.csv and .kml) - kriging.zip: the kriging resistivity model (.csv, .tif, .kmz) - flmd.csv: file level metadata file describing all files within this dataset - dd.csv: data dictionary file describing the column headers within CSV 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.

CMD Mini-Explorer↗
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

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Leafweb: Leaf Gas Exchange and Pulse-Amplitude Modulated Fluorometry for C4 Species, June 2026 Release

This dataset contains leaf gas exchange and Pulse-Amplitude Modulated (PAM) fluorometry for 98 C4 species. The C4 photosynthetic pathway employs specialized CO2 concentration mechanisms and Kranz anatomy to enrich CO2 concentration around Rubisco, the enzyme that catalyzes carbon fixation in the Calvin-Benson cycle to suppress photorespiration and increase the use efficiencies of light, nitrogen, and water as compared to the C3 photosynthetic pathways. Large-scale C4 photosynthetic datasets are relatively scarce, which has affected C4 photosynthesis research. To improve C4 photosynthetic data availability, Leafweb organized an effort to systematically collect, compile, standardize, and organize measurements of leaf gas exchange and/or Pulse-Amplitude Modulated (PAM) fluorometry of C4 species. This derived a C4 photosynthetic dataset containing measurements made by independent researchers in multiple countries in various environments (field, garden, or greenhouse). It covers three biochemical subtypes – the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate-malic enzyme (NADP-ME), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide-malic enzyme (NAD-ME), and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEP-CK) subtypes. This dataset is useful for using Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning and mechanistic models to study C4 photosynthesis and compare across different biochemical subtypes. This dataset contains 3 compressed (*.zip) folders containing 1,892 data files in comma-separate values (*.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma-separate values (*.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

Zhou, Haoran [Tianjin University, China]↗