Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Biogeochemistry simulations for the Salt Marsh Accretion Response to Temperature eXperiment (SMARTX)

Coastal ecosystems have been largely ignored in Earth system models but are important zones for carbon and nutrient processing. Interactions between water, microbes, soil, sediments, and vegetation are important for mechanistic representation of coastal processes and ecosystem function. To investigate the role of these feedbacks, we used a reactive transport model (PFLOTRAN) that has the capability to be connected to the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM). PFLOTRAN was used to incorporate redox reactions and track chemical species important for coastal ecosystems as well as define simple representations of vegetation dynamics. Our goal was to incorporate oxygen flux, salinity, pH, sulfur cycling, and methane production along with plant-mediated transport of gases and tidal flux. Using porewater profile and incubation data for model calibration and evaluation, we were able to create depth-resolved biogeochemical soil profiles for saltmarsh habitat and use this updated representation to simulate direct and indirect effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on subsurface biogeochemical cycling. We found that simply changing the partial pressure of CO2 or increasing temperature in the model did not fully reproduce observed changes in the porewater profile, but the inclusion of plant or microbial responses to CO2 and temperature manipulations was more accurate in representing porewater concentrations. This indicates the importance of characterizing tightly coupled vegetation-subsurface processes for developing predictive understanding and the need for measurement of plant-soil interactions on the same time scale to understand how hotspots or moments are generated.Included in this data package are PFLOTRAN input (PFLOTRAN input files and chemical database) files for simulating single column biogeochemistry, root, and tide interactions at the Global Change Research Wetland (Kirkpatrick Marsh; Edgewater, MD). The biogeochemical network includes soil organic matter decomposition, nitrogen, iron, and sulfur cycling, and methanogenesis. Reduced species can be oxidized and plant processes include oxygen and nutrient priming, methane release, and nutrient uptake.Inputs:TAI_database.dat - geochemical database for reactions, more information on database structure and variables can be found here https://www.pflotran.org/documentation/user_guide/cards/pages/geochemical_database.htmlswamp.in - input file for biogeochemical network in PFLOTRANswamp_eCO2.in - input file for biogeochemical network in PFLOTRAN with input gas partial pressures/concentrations adjusted for elevated CO2 treatmentsOutputs:swamp_obs_0.tec - hourly porewater concentrations from from multiple depths in the soil columnswamp_eCO2_obs_0.tec - hourly porewater concentrations from multiple depths in the soil column for elevated CO2 treatmentsPFLOTRAN code access: https://github.com/fmyuan/pflotran-elm-interface.git

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soil chemistry data across a catena in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico

Landscape topography can influence biogeochemical processes across the wet tropical forest soils. This dataset contains soil chemistry data such as pH and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) from April 1, 2017 to May 1, 2018 across a catena in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. The attached CSV file contains information on sampling date, location (El Verde field station) in LEF, topographic positions (ridge, slope, and valley, respectively), field replicate number, laboratory replicate number, water extractable pH, CaCl2 extractable pH, and DOC (unit: mg/g). Overall, soil pH values were highest in the valley, followed by slope, and lowest in the ridge topographic positions. However, DOC values followed the opposite trend: ridge>slope>valley. This dataset can facilitate our understanding of the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and nutrient associated with complex topography in wet tropical forest soils.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Blodgett Forest CA Warming Experiment Soil Gas Well Data March 2014 to June 2017

These are soil gas data from the whole soil profile warming experiment at the University of California Blodgett Forest Research Station, in the Sierra Nevada foothills near Georgetown, CA at 1370 m above sea level. Mean annual precipitation is 1774 mm with most of it occurring from November through April and mean annual temperature is about 12.5°C . The experiment is in a thinned 80-year-old stand of mixed conifers including ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), incense cedar (Calodefrus decurrens), white fir (Abies concolor), and douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The soils are Holland series: fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Ultic Haploxeralfs of granitic origin with thick, >5 cm O horizons, minimal carbonates , and a pH that ranges from 5.6 to 6.5. The warming experiment warms the top meter of the soil profile to +4°C above ambient. These data include depth-resolved measurements of CO2 concentrations, 13CO2, apparent respiration quotients, soil temperature, and soil moisture (VWC). These data can be used to model CO2 production rates across the soil profile or to track how the sources and processes contributing to soil respiration change seasonally and with warming.

13C↗
DOE OSTI2022

Soil pH Buffering Capacity, Geochemical Characterization, and Soil Water Retention for Arctic Soils of Seward Peninsula and Utqiagvik, Alaska, 2013-2019

This dataset provides pH titration data and soil pH buffering capacities of 21 Arctic soils that were collected between 2013-2019. Geochemical data including soil organic carbon, carbon:nitrogen ratio, initial pH, and gravimetric water content are also reported. Additional measurements of cation exchange capacity and soil water retention (dry range) are presented for selected soils. A script, developed in R, is also included for a simple biogeochemical simulation that incorporates soil pH buffering capacity. This dataset contains 7 csv files and one R script.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soil Environmental Conditions in the East River Watershed, CO

This dataset contains depth-resolved soil environmental variables collected between June 2016 and October 2018 from the Bradley Meadow site in the East River watershed. Datalogger output from 7 Campbell CS655 12 cm Soil Moisture and Temperature Sensors including depth, temperature, volumetric water content, and electrical conductivity are included in ‘BM_Merged_T_VWC_0616_10_18.csv’. Sensors were installed in June 2016. Data have been processed to merge raw sensor data and to remove additional variables. No additional QA/QC was performed. Measured pCO2 and depth are contained in ‘BM_EGM_WELL_CO2.csv’. These data represent gas well samples measured via injection using a PP Systems EGM-5 infra-red gas analyzer as described in the methods section. Measured CO2 surface flux values are contained in 'BM_EGM_Surface_Flux.csv'. These were measured using the PP Systems EGM-5 with the Soil Respiration Chamber attachment. Multiple reps are reported for each measurement including CO2 flux rate calculations using built-in linear and quadratic function methods, and average and standard deviations are taken across all reps and calculation methods.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data for Regier et al. (2025), "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest"

Rising sea levels and intensifying storms increase flooding pressure on coastal forests, but the mechanisms that drive coastal forest mortality remain unclear. This study used an ecosystem-scale manipulation (TEMPEST, Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments) to simulate hurricane-level flooding of a coastal forest and explore the individual and interactive impacts of inundation and salinity. This dataset comprises the results reported by Regier et al. (2025) in their paper "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest." It consists of measurements of:- Belowground conductance- Soil dissolved oxygen and redox- Soil and tree greenhouse gas fluxes- Leaf photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and intercellular carbon dioxide- Sap flux- Soil volumetric water content and electrical conductivityAll files are plain-text CSV (comma separated value) and no special software is required to read them.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

ESS-DIVE Unoccupied Aerial Systems (UAS) Reporting Format v1

Here we present documentation of the ESS-DIVE reporting format for Unoccupied Aerial System (UAS) data and metadata. This reporting format provides guidance to data contributors on how to store data to maximize their discoverability, facilitate their efficient reuse, and add value to individual datasets. For data users, the reporting format will better allow data repositories to optimize data search and extraction, and more readily integrate similar data into harmonized synthesis products. The reporting format provides templates and guidance for the reporting of metadata for UAS experimental campaigns, individual flights, platform and sensor description. To improve data access and discoverability, the reporting format proposes a data description scheme of Levels based on the degree of processing, where Level 0 includes raw data, through to Level 3 being derived data end products. A range of examples of data types for each Level are given, with suggested file naming schemes. The reporting format presented here is intended to form a foundation for future development that will accommodate new UAS technologies and approaches to data access and use in the future. The reporting format documentation is maintained and updated on the ESS-DIVE Community Space GitHub at https://github.com/ess-dive-community/essdive-uas. This data package is the first published version of this reporting format, and comprises a zip file of the complete content of https://github.com/ess-dive-community/essdive-uas v1.0. The zip contains the reporting format description, instructions and variable definitions in GitHub markdown language (*.md) and metadata templates in csv format. The reporting format is designed to be compatible with other ESS-DIVE formats, and it is specifically recommended that this reporting format be used in conjunction with the File-level metadata (FLMD) and comma separated values (csv) reporting formats for submission to the ESS-DIVE repository.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Site and endmember spectra of terrestrial vegetation and soils for the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study, June-July 2025

This dataset provides site and endmember spectra collected during the 2025 Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign. The site spectra were collected to help validate airborne hyperspectral data acquired by the National Ecological Observatory Network's aerial observation platform (NEON AOP). Endmember spectra were collected to augment existing spectral libraries with additional samples of bare surfaces and non-photosynthetic vegetation. All measurements were acquired with an Analytical Spectral Devices (ASD) FieldSpec4 Hi-Res NG (Next Generation) spectroradiometer, which records radiance at 1nm (nanometer) intervals from the ultraviolet to the short-wave infrared (350-2500 nm). The dataset includes spectra measured at meadow sites where the CHESS team also collected vegetation samples for trait analyses. The site spectra were collected with the ASD FieldSpec4 palm grip attachment using an 8° field-of-view foreoptic. Site spectra are integrated measurements of the entire surface within the foreoptic’s field of view. For site-level spectra, the sun is the illumination source. A Spectralon panel mounted on a tripod was used for instrument optimization and white reference measurements for all site spectra. Site spectra were acquired within two hours of solar noon and within 48 hours of a NEON AOP overflight. Site spectra are labeled by date, sampling area, and site number according to the naming conventions of the CHESS campaign’s data management plan. The dataset also contains endmember spectra in the following categories: photosynthetic vegetation (PV), non-photosynthetic vegetation (NPV), bare (soil/rock), and flowers. Endmember measurements were acquired using either the contact probe or the leaf clip attachments of the ASD FieldSpec4. In these configurations, the bulb inside the spectrometer provides the light source for the measurements. The spectrometer was optimized and white reference measurements were recorded using the circular white pucks attached to the contact probe and leaf clip. Because they do not rely on solar illumination, contact probe and leaf clip measurements were collected during a broader time frame than the palm grip site spectra. Some endmembers were measured at CHESS meadow sites, while others were collected within the larger sampling area or in nearby locations (e.g. Gothic Townsite) with similar characteristics. Radiance, reflectance, and metadata files are split into three subfolders according to measurement type: proximal/palm grip (prx), contact probe (cp), and leaf clip (lc). Radiance spectra are provided in ASD file format (.asd file extension). All ASD files can be opened using the provided scripts. Metadata is provided in two formats: CSV file format (no geolocation) and GEOJSON file format (includes geolocation for each spectra). The dataset includes a set of pre-processed reflectance spectra as CSV files (yyyymmdd_rfl.csv). The python scripts and jupyter notebook used to calculate reflectance spectra from the ASD radiance data is included here and was previously published at: https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/2446. There is also a folder of JPEG photographs corresponding to selected spectra. We include a protocol document with detailed steps for ASD FieldSpec4 assembly and operations. This data additionally contains a file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) file. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgment: This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004) and was funded by EMIT Extended Mission Phase E Science.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
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 OSTI2020

Soil bulk density and texture data collected during field survey associated with NEON AOP survey, East River, CO 2018

The purpose of soil core sampling was to determine soil bulk density, volumetric water content, and soil texture across the sites that were sampled in association with the National Ecological Observatory Network's Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP) in 2018. Soil cores were collected from surface (2.5-7.5 cm) and subsurface (50-55cm) depths at sampling sites across East River, Washington Gulch, Slate River, and Coal Creek watersheds in Gunnison, Colorado during the summer of 2018. Surface samples were weighed for determination of soil water content prior to dry down for bulk density calculations. For all samples, we measured dry weight and weight of < 2mm fraction and conducted soil textural analysis. We provide metadata for the samples, raw data files, python code that was used to calculate bulk density, water content, and texture fraction densities from primary datasets, and a final csv file with the calculated soil bulk density, volumetric water content, and soil texture data. Additional associated site metadata and vegetation fractional cover information can be found in the associated data release.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025

This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL RESPIRA↗
DOE OSTI2024

Patch-level CO2 and CH4 fluxes and porewater concentrations in experimental wetlands, 2 PPT saltwater intrusion simulations, Aug-Oct 2022: Louisiana

This dataset contains carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) flux measurements from patches of wetland vegetation dominated by Typha domingensis and Panicum hemitomon, which were conducted to assess flux responses to acute saltwater intrusion. The measurements occurred before, during, and after simulated acute saltwater intrusion events of low concentrations of ~ 2 PPT. The measurements comprise gas fluxes from the wetland surface (i.e., soil-water column and vegetation) and fluxes from the soil-water column exclusively. These two sets of fluxes are separated into two files and are complemented with four more files containing porewater concentrations of CO2 and CH4 collected at 0-5 cm, 10-15 cm, and 20-25 cm depth increments, spectral indices measurements, biomass, and sediment elevation table measurements. The files can be opened with regular text editors or spreadsheet programs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Classification of River Catchments in the Contiguous United States: Code, Dataset, Similarity Patterns, and Resulting Classes

This dataset serves as supplementary information for the paper by Ciulla F. and Varadharajan C. A Network Approach for Multiscale Catchment Classification using Traits (see reference 1). It contains environmental and physical catchment traits, such as temperatures, precipitation, land use and human interference, from 9067 sites across the contiguous United States (CONUS). The purpose of this dataset is to provide information for a better trait-based categorization of river catchments in the CONUS using networks as an analytical tool. The traits variables match the ones present in the GAGES-II dataset and the preprocessing steps are described in the Methods section (processed_dataset.csv). Additionally we include the topologies (nodes, edges and clusters, also referred as classes) of the catchment network and traits network generated by said dataset (csv and json files). A series of tables support the information carried by the network providing more detailed descriptions of cluster components (SI1.pdf). A summary of all the plots of clusters of catchments with at least 50 nodes is provided (SI2.pdf). The characteristic traits for each cluster of catchments is presented as z-score (traits_categories_zscores_per_catchment_class.csv). The link to the hydrological behavior of clusters of catchments is displayed by boxplots, each describing a particular river discharge index (SI3.pdf). Both csv and json files can be read by common text editors but the data contained into them can be better handled using programming languages like python and database oriented libraries like pandas. Pdf files can be read by any pdf reader software.[02-23-2024] Update: The code and datasets necessary to reproduce the results of the study are available as a zipped repository (code_datasets_catchments_similarity.zip).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Chamber flux measurements at US-ORv located in Columbus, OH from 2010 to 2014

Closed and flow through chamber methane and carbon dioxide flux measurements were taken at different water depths, vegetation cover types, and times of day at the Wilma H. Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park (ORWRP) from 2010 to 2014 to investigate the effects of these variables on gas exchange. The ORWRP consists of two urban experimental wetland basins constructed in 1994 within the footprint of the AmeriFlux tower US-ORv that was functional from 2011 to 2016. Chamber measurements are separated into flow through and closed chamber files (flow_through.csv, closed_chamber.csv) with location labels corresponding with coordinates listed in the metadata file (Location_ID.csv). All files are .csv and could be viewed or analyzed with Excel, MATLAB, Python, or R.

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY↗
DOE OSTI2022

UAS remote sensing (DJI Phantom 4 RTK platform): RGB orthomosaic, digital surface and canopy height models, plant functional type map, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

Airborne remote sensing data collected using a DJI Phantom 4 RTK unoccupied aerial system (UAS) ? operated by the University of Maine Wheatland Geospatial Lab (https://wheatlandlab.org/). This package includes data from 17 flights flown over the NGEE-Arctic Council, Kougarok, Kougarok Mile80, Teller, and Teller Mile32 sites in July 2019. The Phantom 4 RTK is a drone platform that collects very high spatial resolution optical red/green/blue (RGB) imagery. Derived image products include point cloud, ortho-mosaiced RGB, a digital surface model (DSM) using the structure from motion (SfM) technique, and a canopy height model (CHM). Unprocessed and processed data products (1,000+ files) are included in this package (processing levels 0-3). Data and metadata are provided as text (*.txt, *.json, *hdr,), ENVI image file (*.dat), point cloud (*.laz) and image (*.jpg, *.tif, *png) formats. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗