Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Saturated soils”

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
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Observation-Driven Framework for Modeling Post-Fire Hydrologic Response: Evaluation for Two Central California Case Studies

In a warming climate, wildfires are becoming increasingly common, especially in semi-arid environments. Wildfires can disrupt forest ecosystems and induce changes to the land surface. Collectively, these impacts can alter the hydrologic response of a catchment following a fire, resulting in increased potential for surface runoff, reduced evapotranspiration, and, ultimately, a higher risk for flash flooding and mass wasting. The timescale for post-fire recovery of hydrological processes to return to pre-fire conditions is not well established due to the lack of ground measurements. Accurate characterization of fire impacts on hydrologic response is also challenging to simulate, given the complex interplay of various processes. Here, we present a generalized framework to quantify wildfire impacts on runoff generation. We consider the vegetation and soil disturbances as the primary contributors to post-fire floods. Using an ensemble modeling structure to account for parameter uncertainty and consider model sensitivity, remotely sensed leaf area index (LAI) is assimilated into a land surface model (LSM) to simulate vegetation disturbance, and the maximum land surface saturation LSM parameter is decreased to parameterize the soil disturbance following observed fires. We evaluated the impacts of fire-induced changes to LAI and soil saturation on hydrologic states like runoff and evapotranspiration. Analysis of two events in central California shows that 1) the LAI assimilation has a greater impact on water balance; and 2) the soil scheme captures a range of outcomes, with substantial impacts on surface runoff for some ensemble members, which could affect flood potential.

Timothy M Lahmers↗
NASA NTRS2025

An Observation-Driven Framework for Modeling Post-Fire Hydrologic Response: Evaluation for Two Central California Case Studies

In a warming climate, wildfires are becoming increasingly common, especially in semi-arid environments. Wildfires can disrupt forest ecosystems and induce changes to the land surface. Collectively, these impacts can alter the hydrologic response of a catchment following a fire, resulting in increased potential for surface runoff, reduced evapotranspiration, and, ultimately, a higher risk for flash flooding and mass wasting. The timescale of post-fire recovery of hydrological processes to return to pre-fire conditions is not well established due to the lack of ground measurements. Accurate characterization of the impacts of fire on hydrologic response is also challenging to simulate, given the complex interplay of various processes. Here, we present a generalized framework to quantify the impacts of wildfire on runoff generation. We consider the disturbances in the vegetation and soil as the two main factors contributing to post-fire floods. Using an ensemble modeling structure to account for parameter uncertainty, remotely sensed leaf area index (LAI) is assimilated into a land surface model (LSM) to simulate vegetation disturbance, and the maximum land surface saturation LSM parameter is decreased to parameterize the soil disturbance following observed fires. We consider the impacts of fire-induced changes to LAI and soil saturation on hydrologic states like runoff and evapotranspiration for two case studies. These case studies demonstrate the general applicability of hydrophobicity formulation to serve as a guideline for exploring the range of hydrologic responses post-fire.

Fire Hydrology↗
DOE OSTI2025

Atmospheric River Frequency-Category Characteristics Shape U.S. West Coast Runoff

Abstractrunoff response to atmospheric rivers (ARs) over the U.S. West Coast. We focused on runoff time series variations impacted by AR characteristics (e.g., category and frequency) and land preconditions during Northern Hemisphere cool seasons in the period of 1940–2023. Results show that high-category ARs significantly increase local runoff with higher hourly precipitation rates leading to a greater incremental rate and peak runoff. Extreme runoff increases greatly with the AR category with an increase rate up to 12.5 times stronger than non-extreme runoff. Besides the AR category, land preconditions such as soil moisture and snowpack also play crucial roles in modulating runoff response. We found that runoff induced by weak-category ARs is more sensitive to land preconditions than high-category ARs, with high peak runoff occurring when soil is nearly saturated. Additionally, more than 50% of high-peak-runoff events in snow-covered grid cells are associated with rain-on-snow events particularly for the events associated with weaker ARs. Regression analysis reveals that AR precipitation and land preconditions jointly influence runoff, emphasizing the importance of including soil moisture and snowpack levels in AR impact assessments. The study also highlights the intensified runoff response to back-to-back ARs with short intervals, which may become more frequent with climate warming, posing increased flood risks via facilitating wet soil conditions. Our findings have significant implications for AR risk predictions and the development of prediction models for AR-induced runoff.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with Mongird et al. (in prep) organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSI+RP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_ep_score_raster.tif solar_msi_ep_score_raster.tif wind_msi_ep_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with the Mongird et al. paper entitled "Can US power grid expansion avoid prime agricultural lands?" and is organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSIxRP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_rp_score_raster.tif solar_msi_rp_score_raster.tif wind_msi_rp_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Evidence for carbon dioxide removal via enhanced rock weathering with steel slag, though not basalt, in a midwestern U.S. field trial

Enhanced weathering is an emergent pathway for permanent atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (CDR). However, despite a dramatic increase in academic and commercial research, there remain relatively few published examples of field evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of enhanced weathering. Here, we present results from a three-year field trial that evaluated steel slag and crushed basalt applied as amendments in a conventional agricultural system in the Midwestern United States. Steel slag applied to initially acidic soil increased porewater pH and alkalinity and increased soil pH and Ca-saturation. Together, changes in porewater chemistry and soil properties provide strong evidence for steel slag weathering and CDR. However, steel slag applied to soils with a neutral initial pH did not generate significant changes in soil or porewater chemistry. In addition, coarse-grained crushed basalt did not generate significant change in any of the soils. Strong acid effects were apparent in all 3 years of monitoring soil porewater chemistry. Overall, our results demonstrate clear evidence of CDR from applying steel slag amendments to acidic cropland soils while also highlighting the difficulty of greenhouse gas reduction accounting from enhanced weathering and the variable outcomes that can occur depending on feedstock and soil type.

Geosciences↗
DOE OSTI2025

An alternative electrode design for accurate spectral induced polarization measurements in variably saturated porous media

SUMMARY Applications of spectral induced polarization (SIP) require electrodes that maintain hydrologic contact with surrounding soils to capture small electrical responses, often observed as phase shifts in milliradians. For unsaturated soils, electrodes must overcome increased electrical contact impedance due to reduced pore fluid. Traditional designs use a ceramic membrane electrode (CME) with a water reservoir and metal conductor, requiring periodic maintenance to retain electrolytic solution. For field applications where maintenance is impractical, alternative designs are needed. This study evaluated a new electrode design (silica flour electrode, SFE) alongside a CME. SFEs use packed silica flour to store water via capillary forces against a metal conductor. This study examined both designs in three variably saturated soils at soil suctions up to 700 mbar and soil water contents below 1 percent, with SIP measurements across 0.01 to 10 000 Hz frequencies. SFEs match CMEs at high frequencies and perform better at lower frequencies, without requiring ongoing maintenance, making them ideal for field use. In water-only experiments, CMEs produced errors and high noise below 1.5 Hz, whereas SFEs were more accurate. However, CMEs performed better above 300 Hz. In fine sand, SFEs performed better due to the relatively lower contact impedance as compared to CMEs. Both electrode types performed comparably in silty sand and silt loam soils, although CMEs required ongoing maintenance, suggesting potential for long-term reliability issues.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Deep Roots Supply Reactivity and Enhance Silicate Weathering in the Bedrock Vadose Zone

In upland environments, roots commonly extend deep below soil into partially saturated bedrock. This Bedrock Vadose Zone (BVZ) has been shown to store and circulate water, host organic carbon respiration and serve as a critical source of rock-derived nutrients. However, the extent to which deep roots influence chemical weathering rates remains poorly understood. Here, we report 4 years of depth-resolved major ion chemistry over a 16-m thick BVZ hosting a deep rhizosphere in a catchment subject to a Mediterranean climate. These data allow development and validation of a reactive transport model (RTM), revealing that the timescales of water storage and drainage in the BVZ are sufficient to facilitate substantial chemical weathering of the shale bedrock. However, observed solute concentrations are only reproduced by the RTM when we explicitly include measured rates of CO 2(g) production meters below soil driven by the deeply rooted forest. By combining direct observations and a process-based RTM we conclude that the carbon respiration promoted by deep roots significantly enhances chemical weathering rates in the BVZ, constituting 43% ± 3% of total solute flux from the base of the BVZ to the water table.

Osorio‐Leon, Ivan D. [University of Illinois Urban↗
NASA NTRS1975

The saturated activities of Na-22, Mn-54, and Co-56 and the depth of sampling of soils

A multivariate linear regression study shows that the saturated activities of Na-22, Co-56, and Mn-54 are functions of the chemical composition and the reciprocal of the cube root of the sample weight. A procedure for taking the temporal variation in these short-lived radionuclides into account is described. The regression results are used to estimate the average depths of sampling of soil material. The data indicate that all 28 samples were in the same conditions of exposure when recovered as they had been for the last approximately 10 years. The saturation activity of Mn-54 is a very weak function of time.

Keith, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Simulation of lunar carbon chemistry. I - Solar wind contribution

Simulation experiments were conducted to identify the role of solar and lunar winds in the evolution of lunar carbon chemistry. Major conclusions are that (1) implantation of solar wind C, D, and N ions in silicates synthesizes small molecules that can be released into vacuum either by ion sputtering or by heating; (2) this synthesis is highly specific when compared to other processes accounting for the formation of molecules in the solar nebula or in interstellar space; (3) the carbon injected by the solar wind in the crystalline component of mature soils should reach a saturation concentration of about 200 ppm; and (4) the carbon chemistry of the crystalline component of mature soils is dominated by solar wind implantation effects.

Bibring, J. P.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Microtomographic Measurements of Total Air‐Water Interfacial Areas for Soils

Abstract Synchrotron X‐ray microtomography (XMT) was used to measure total air‐water interfacial areas (A aw ) as a function of water saturation (S w ) for several soils that comprise a range of physical and geochemical properties. Measurements were also conducted for glass beads and quartz sands for comparison. Apparent near‐linearA aw ‐S w relationships are observed for the three sands and the three sandy soils. In contrast, the measured interfacial areas for two soils that contain greater proportions of silt and clay are strongly nonlinear functions of water saturation. The greater degree of nonlinearity observed for these two soils is due to their much greater particle‐size distributions (i.e., uniformity coefficients) and their concomitant greater range in pore sizes. Interfacial areas determined with the thermodynamic method were used to benchmark the XMT measurements. XMT‐measured interfacial areas compare well to the thermodynamic‐determined values for the sands and sandy soils. In contrast, the XMT‐measured interfacial areas for the two soils with larger particle‐size distributions are not fully congruent with the thermodynamic‐determined values. Both of these soils have large fractions of pore space comprising nominal pore diameters smaller than the resolution of the XMT imaging. These results suggest that air‐water interfacial area may not always be fully characterized by standard XMT for soils with large particle‐size distributions.

Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
DOE OSTI2025

Water reactive polyurethane grouting for deep vadose zone contaminant immobilization

Contaminants in the deep vadose zone (DVZ) pose a long-term threat to groundwater, human health, and the environment. Polyurethane grouting is a type of chemical grouting that is potentially advantageous in immobilizing contaminants in DVZs. Polyurethane resin has low viscosity that makes it feasible to penetrate and fill the pore space between fine particles. Here, in this study a series of laboratory pressure grouting and leaching tests were conducted to simulate and assess the effectiveness of polyurethane grouting for immobilizing contaminants in DVZs. Soil with fine particles was prepared with 127 I (as iodide) that served as a non-radioactive surrogate for radioactive 129 I. After grouting and curing, leaching tests were used to measure and compare contaminant diffusivity and leachability index values. Additionally, changes in porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity of grouted soil were measured. X-Ray Computer Tomography (XCT) results showed that the cured polyurethane was distributed nearly homogeneously and approximately half of the voids were filled with cured polyurethane. Grouting reduced the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil by 37 %. The effective diffusivity decreased by more than 80 % as compared with the ungrouted soil. The leachability index of the grouted soil was 6.5; meeting the criteria established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standard. The results obtained in this study provide a valuable assessment of polyurethane grouting for iodide immobilization in the DVZ and indicate this approach may be a viable method for contaminant remediation in DVZ soils.

Contaminant Diffusion↗
NASA NTRS2001

Representation of Stormflow and a More Responsive Water Table in a TOPMODEL-Based Hydrology Model

This study presents two new modeling strategies. First, a methodology for representing the physical process of stormflow within a TOPMODEL framework is developed. In using this approach, discharge at quickflow time scales is simulated and a fuller depiction of hydrologic activity is brought about. Discharge of water from the vadose zone is permitted in a physically realistic manner without a priori assumption of the level within the soil column at which stormflow saturation can take place. Determination of the stormflow contribution to discharge is made using the equation for groundwater flow. No new parameters are needed. Instead, regions of near saturation that develop during storm events, producing vertical recharge, are allowed to contribute to soil column discharge. These stormflow contributions to river runoff, as for groundwater flow contributions, are a function of catchment topography and local hydraulic conductivity at the depth of these regions of near saturation. The second approach improves groundwater flow response through a reduction of porosity and field capacity with depth in the soil column. Large storm events are better captured and a more dynamic water table develops with application of this modified soil column profile (MSCP). The MSCP predominantly reflects soil depth differences in upland and lowland regions of a watershed. Combined, these two approaches - stormflow and the MSCP - provide a more accurate representation of the time scales at which soil column discharge responds and a more complete depiction of hydrologic activity. Storm events large and small are better simulated, and some of the biases previously evident in TOPMODEL simulations are reduced.

Shaman, Jeffrey↗
NASA NTRS2016

TEM Analyses of Itokawa Regolith Grains and Lunar Soil Grains to Directly Determine Space Weathering Rates on Airless Bodies

Samples returned from the moon and Asteroid Itokawa by NASA's Apollo Missions and JAXA's Hayabusa Mission, respectively, provide a unique record of their interaction with the space environment. Space weathering effects result from micrometeorite impact activity and interactions with the solar wind. While the effects of solar wind interactions, ion implantation and solar flare particle track accumulation, have been studied extensively, the rate at which these effects accumulate in samples on airless bodies has not been conclusively determined. Results of numerical modeling and experimental simulations do not converge with observations from natural samples. We measured track densities and rim thicknesses of three olivine grains from Itokawa and multiple olivine and anorthite grains from lunar soils of varying exposure ages. Samples were prepared for analysis using a Leica EM UC6 ultramicrotome and an FEI Quanta 3D dual beam focused ion beam scanning electron microscope (FIB-SEM). Transmission electron microscope (TEM) analyses were performed on the JEOL 2500SE 200kV field emission STEM. The solar wind damaged rims on lunar anorthite grains are amorphous, lack inclusions, and are compositionally similar to the host grain. The rim width increases as a smooth function of exposure age until it levels off at approximately 180 nm after approximately 20 My (Fig. 1). While solar wind ion damage can only accumulate while the grain is in a direct line of sight to the Sun, solar flare particles can penetrate to mm-depths. To assess whether the track density accurately predicts surface exposure, we measured the rim width and track density in olivine and anorthite from the surface of rock 64455, which was never buried and has a surface exposure age of 2 My based on isotopic measurements. The rim width from 64455 (60-70nm) plots within error of the well-defined trend for solar wind amorphized rims in Fig. 1. Measured solar flare track densities are accurately reflecting the surface exposure of the grains. Track densities correlate with the amorphous rim thicknesses. While the space-weathered rims of anorthite grains are amorphous, the space-weathered rims on both Itokawa and lunar olivine grains show solar wind damaged rims that are not amorphous. Instead, the rims are nanocrystalline with high dislocation densities and sparse inclusions of nanophase Fe metal. The rim thicknesses on the olivine grains also correlate with track density. The Itokawa olivine grains have track densities that indicate surface exposures of approximately 10(exp 5) years. Longer exposures (up to approximately 10(exp 7) years) do not amorphize the rims, as evidenced by lunar soil olivines with high track densities (approximately 10(exp 11) cm(exp -2)). From the combined data, shown in Fig. 1, it is clear that olivine is damaged (but not amorphized) more rapidly by the solar wind compared to anorthite. The olivine damaged rim forms quickly (in approximately 10(exp 6) y) and saturates at approximately 120nm with longer exposure time. The anorthite damaged rims form more slowly, amorphize, and grow thicker than the olivine rims. This is in agreement with numerical modeling data which predicts that solar wind damaged rims on anorthite will be thicker than olivine. However, the models predict that both olivine and anorthite rims will amorphize and reach equilibrium widths in less than 10(exp 3) y, in contrast to what is observed for natural samples. Laboratory irradiation experiments, which show rapid formation of fully amorphous and blistered surfaces from simulated solar wind exposures are also in contrast to observations of natural samples. These results suggest that there is a flux dependence on the type and extent of irradiation damage that develops in olivine. This flux dependence suggests that great caution be used in extrapolating between high-flux laboratory experiments and the natural case, as demonstrated by. We constrain the space weathering rate through analysis of returned samples. Provided that the track densities and the solar wind damaged rim widths exhibited by the Itokawa grains are typical of the fine-grained regions of Itokawa, then the space weathering rate is on the order of 10(exp 5) y. Space weathering effects in lunar soils saturate within a few My of exposure while those in Itokawa regolith grains formed in approximately 10(exp 5) y. Olivine and anorthite respond differently to solar wind irradiation. The space weathering effects in olivine are particularly difficult to reconcile with laboratory irradiation studies and numerical models. Additional measurements, experiments, and modeling are required to resolve the discrepancies among the observations and calculations involving solar wind amorphization of different minerals on airless bodies.

Berger, Eve L.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Estimating water flow through a hillslope using the massively parallel processor

A new two-dimensional model of water flow in a hillslope has been implemented on the Massively Parallel Processor at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Flow in the soil both in the saturated and unsaturated zones, evaporation and overland flow are all modelled, and the rainfall rates are allowed to vary spatially. Previous models of this type had always been very limited computationally. This model takes less than a minute to model all the components of the hillslope water flow for a day. The model can now be used in sensitivity studies to specify which measurements should be taken and how accurate they should be to describe such flows for environmental studies.

Devaney, Judy E.↗
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 Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗