Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Metadata”

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

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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

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

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATU↗

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATU↗

Data from Stewart et al. 2026 "Organic Colloid Composition in Variable-Redox Porewaters within a Mountainous Floodplain"

Redox gradients, often driven by changes in sediment moisture levels in porous, heterogeneous groundwater systems, create dynamic conditions that may promote the production and transport of colloids within natural waters. While much research has focused on the inorganic composition of colloids, the organic composition remains less well understood. Organic matter (OM) in colloids may associate with minerals, complex metal ions, and serve as an electron donor for microbial respiration; therefore, its composition is of high interest. We examined the composition of porewater OM along a redox gradient in a riparian soil located along the Slate River in Crested Butte, Colorado, USA as a function of depth (90, 130, 200, and 350 cm below ground surface). All depths were oxic to suboxic, except 200 cm, where the products of iron and sulfate reduction were observed concomitant with an increase in dissolved and/or colloidal OM, pH, alkalinity, and conductivity. We investigated the composition of porewater using correlated scanning transmission X-ray microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. We observed a change in the OM chemistry from carboxylate-rich at the 200 cm depth (where it was also enmeshed with non-crystalline iron) to phenol- and substituted-aromatic-rich at other depths. Radiocarbon dating revealed carbon in porewater at 200 cm was younger than depths above and below. Soil porewater can flow down into the underlaying gravel bed during baseflow conditions, thus we speculate whether riparian porewater could transport iron- and carboxylate-rich organic colloids into surrounding surface waters through the gravel bed conduit. This data package includes geochemical data (.csv) as a function of depth from porewaters in OBJ1. Measurements included are pH, conductivity, TOC, Fe concentration, sulfate concentration, dissolved oxygen. Additionally radiocarbon dating age of carbon in samples is provided. Additionally, this dataset contains metadata files (.csv) describing the methods, file contents, and column headers.

alpine floodplain↗

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

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

DATE↗

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

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

CULM_D_1↗

Evapotranspiration partitioning estimates from 8 methods from 47 NEON sites, 2019-2021

This dataset provides daily estimates of evapotranspiration (ET) and the transpiration-to-evapotranspiration ratio (T/ET) across 47 terrestrial National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) sites spanning diverse environmental and biome conditions in the United States across three years of data (2019-2021). Daily ET is reported in both energy units (MJ m⁻² day⁻¹) and equivalent water depth (mm day⁻¹), assuming a constant latent heat of vaporization of 2.45 MJ/kg. The primary method uses a hybrid recurrent neural network–Penman–Monteith framework (RNN-PM), which integrates physically based surface energy balance constraints with data-driven learning to partition ET into transpiration and evaporation components. Model inputs include in situ meteorological observations (air temperature, vapor pressure deficit, wind speed, and radiation) combined with satellite-derived land surface temperature, leaf area index, and soil moisture. For benchmarking and uncertainty assessment, T/ET estimates from seven additional models are included: Priestley-Taylor Jet Propulsion Laboratory (PT-JPL), Penman-Monteith (P-M), Two-Source Energy Balance (TSEB), Support Vector Regression (SVR), and Categorical Boosting (CatBoost), among others—spanning empirical, machine-learning, and process-based approaches (see methods section or linked publication for detailed descriptions). Data Package Contents: The dataset a csv files containing daily ET and T/ET estimates for each site and model, along with associated metadata files these variables. Data can be accessed using common spreadsheet software (e.g., Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice) or programming environments such as R or Python. Together, these data support cross-site comparisons of ecosystem water use, evaluation of ET partitioning methods, and development of improved land–atmosphere exchange models.

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE↗

Fungal mat growth and leaf colonization at the TRACE warming experiment, Mar - Aug 2024, Luquillo, Puerto Rico

This data package contains processed measurements on the growth of litter mat-forming fungi and the time to leaf colonization at the Tropical Responses to Altered Climate Experiment (TRACE). Located near the Sabana Field Research Station in Luquillo, Puerto Rico, the TRACE site is located in a mature, closed-canopy tropical rainforest within the Luquillo Experimental Forest (LEF). These data quantify fungal mat growth and the time to leaf colonization of fungi species Gymnopus johnstonii and Marasmius crinis-equi. The experiment was conducted in ambient (control) and experimentally warmed plots (4°C above ambient) during spring and summer periods to assess how litter mat-forming fungi respond to a range of environmental conditions of tropical wet forests. The data files include tables of relative fungal mat growth rates, time to leaf colonization, averages of soil temperature (°C), and number of dry days before leaf attachment. The data are stored in comma-separated values (CSV) format and viewable with any text editor, spreadsheet, or statistical software (e.g., R, Python, Excel). Associated metadata describe plot identifiers, measurement descriptions, and processing steps.

Agaric fungi↗

Meteoric 10Be Flux Calibration Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

This data package contains tabular and geospatial data used to quantify and model meteoric beryllium-10 fluxes in the East River watershed, Colorado, USA. The tabular component includes calibration-site data from five glacial moraine sites and includes environmental variables used to evaluate spatial controls on meteoric 10Be delivery, including elevation, mean annual precipitation (MAP), mean snow depth, and mean snow water equivalent (SWE). These site-level data were used to compare observed fluxes with environmental gradients across the watershed and to evaluate the effects of erosion correction on flux estimates. The package also includes supporting slope and curvature values used to assess topographic inputs to the erosion analysis. A second component of the data package contains updated manuscript tables and regression outputs used to summarize the relationships between meteoric 10Be flux and environmental predictors. These tables include meteoric 10Be sample information and AMS results, site-level environmental values, site-level meteoric 10Be inventory and flux values, watershed-averaged predicted fluxes, soil bulk density measurements, fine-fraction values, soil pH measurements, and regression statistics including slope, intercept, coefficient of determination, and p-value. The regression products include both standard linear regressions and regressions in which the intercept is constrained to pass through zero, and they support the analyses presented in the companion manuscript. Together, these tabular files provide the numerical basis for the manuscript tables and the regression-based interpretation of meteoric 10Be flux variability in a snow-dominated mountain watershed. The geospatial component of the package consists of GeoTIFF raster files used to generate the map products presented in Figures 2 and 6 of the companion manuscript. These rasters represent watershed-scale spatial layers for environmental variables and regression-based predictions of meteoric 10Be flux. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), GeoTIFF raster files (.tif), and upporting metadata files, including CSV data dictionaries and readme text files (.csv, .txt). The tabular files can be opened with standard spreadsheet software, and the raster files can be viewed and analyzed in GIS software such as ArcGIS Pro or QGIS. Together, these files document the numerical and spatial datasets used to calibrate and predict meteoric 10Be delivery in the East River watershed.

East River↗

Data and script associated with “Shifts in Rain-Snow Partitioning Drive Faster Water Transit Times in the US Pacific Northwest”

This data package contains the data and code to use and run the Water Tracer enabled version of the Weather Research and Forecasting Hydrologic model (WT-WRF-Hydro) with the Sequential Precipitation Input Tagging (SPIT) framework. It is associated with the publication “Shifts in Rain-Snow Partitioning Drive Faster Water Transit Times in the US Pacific Northwest” published in Scientific Reports (Butler et al., 2026; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46539-1). We use the Continental U.S. (CONUSII; Rasmussen et al., 2021) dataset to force the model with an historical climate (2006–2013) and a future climate (2086–2093) with a representative carbon pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario. We use the model to calculate water transit times in five headwater catchments within the U.S. Pacific Northwest. We also show key hydrologic and environmental variables that affect water transit times and changes in the future. Finally, we use observed data to validate the model such as stream water isotopes, snowpack characteristics, and stream discharge. 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. The data package consists of 11 folders: (1) "Figures" contains the exported figures used in the manuscript; (2) "Model_Isotope_Date" contains the WT-WRF-Hydro isotope date used in model validation; (3) “Model_Outputs_Future” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro future climate outputs; (4) “Model_Outputs_Historical” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro historical climate outputs; (5) “Model_Outputs_Weights_Areas” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro weights per catchment used to calculate water transit times and isotopes in stream water; (6) “MODIS_data_scripts” contains data used to validate snow conditions in the study area; (7) “Observed_Flow_Data” contains the observed streamflow data used in model validation; (8) “Observed_Isotope_Data” contains the observed stream water isotope data used in model validation; (9) “Scripts” contains the Python scripts used to general results and the figures; (10) “Statistic_Outputs” contains the water transit time statistical outputs reported in this manuscript; (11) “Validation_SNOTEL” contains the SNOTEL data used in model validation. The files in this data package have the following file extensions: .tif, .txt, .csv, .pdf, .py, .jpg, and .png.

American River↗

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

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↗

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↗

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

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

Biomass concentration↗

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↗