Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “surface science”

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 OSTI2026

Data from: Lowland Tropical Forests Remain a Methane Sink Under Warming and Long-Term Hurricane Disturbance Recovery

The repository folder contains spreadsheets and script for soil greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes, soil moisture, soil temperature, air temperature, and precipitation measurements collected from the Tropical Responses to Altered Climate Experiment (TRACE) at the Sabana Research Field Station, El Yunque National Forest (USDA Forest Service; 18°19′28.74″ N, 65°43′50.09″ W) — an open-air field warming experiment located in a lowland tropical forest in Puerto Rico within the Luquillo Experimental Forest (LEF) — six to seven years after Hurricanes Irma and Maria (2017). All spreadsheets for soil and air microclimate data, as well as soil greenhouse gas data, are included as csv files. Air temperature data are also included as Excel spreadsheets (.xlsx). The script is built in R Studio, which is the only software required to run data analysis. This dataset is associated with the manuscript “Larocca Conte G ; Zuvela L ; Cruz-Pérez R ; Barreto-Vélez T ; Becerra-Santillan N ; Campbell S ; Chu H ; Dam T ; Grullón-Penkova I ; Kleit M ; Ortiz-Iglesias D ; Rubio-Lebrón L ; Cavaleri M ; Reed S ; Sihi D ; Wood T ; O'Connell C., 2026. Lowland Tropical Forests Remain a Methane Sink Under Warming and Long-Term Hurricane Disturbance Recovery. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. In review". The dataset was used to test the effect of warming on soil CH4 dynamics following long-term legacy effects of hurricane disturbance. The dataset includes: - An overall README file in word and pdf format describing methodology and spreadsheets’ structure. - Continuous measurements of soil temperature and moisture from January 2023 to July 2024 measured with Campbell CS655 probes (“TRACE_soil_temperature_and_moisture_2023_cleaned(in).csv” and “TRACE_soil_temperature_and_moisture_2024_cleaned. csv”). - Air temperature data measured with a HOBO MX23O1A data logger (“Hobo air temperature 2023 Sep 2024” and “Hobo air temperature 2023 Sep 2024” – “CSV FILES folders”). - Precipitation data from a nearby weather tower downloaded from González et al. (2025; “sabana_2020-2025.csv”). - Soil CH4 and CO2 effluxes measured intermittently in two summer campaigns (June – August 2023 and June – July 2024) with a LI-COR 8200-01S Portable Smart Chamber coupled with a LI-COR LI-7810 CH4/ CO2/H2O Trace Gas Analyzer (“23_24COMBO2.0.csv”). - R markdown script for data analysis (“Trace new_PLOTS.Rmd”).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

CO2 and CH4 leaf-level fluxes and soil porewater concentrations from common vegetation patches in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands

This dataset contains leaf-level flux and soil porewater concentration measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4 ) in plots in the footprint of Ameriflux sites US-LA2 and US-LA3. Leaf fluxes in US-LA2 were measured on patches dominated by Sagittaria lancifolia and co-dominated by Sagittaria lancifolia and Typha latifolia. In US-LA3, fluxes were measured from distinct Juncus roemerianus and Spartina alterniflora patches. The porewater concentrations were collected across a vertical profile (~50 cm depth) at centric locations within 25 m2 plots where we measured the leaf fluxes. US-LA3 included an additional set of measurements in open water spots. We aimed to evaluate differences in leaf fluxes and porewater pools of CO2 and CH4 of representative ecohydrological patches across a salinity gradient. We also used this dataset to help develop ELM-Wet, a more realistic representation of wetland carbon biogeochemical processes within the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model version 1 (ELM v.1). The files can be opened with regular text editors or spreadsheet programs. Version 2.0 (8/26/2025): This is the latest version of this dataset. The update includes additional samples of soil porewater CH4/CO2 concentrations from June-2021 to November-2022, as well as minor adjustments made to V1 samples via changing Henry's solubility to account for porewater salinity. Additionally leaf-level measurments of spectral indices, PSRI, NDVI, and PRI have been added to complement Leaf-level flux measurements. All V1 data sets have been integrated into V2 sheets, ensuring data from the previous version is contained with the additional samples and consistent with V2 metadata.

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 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 OSTI2024

Organic layer thickness and carbon concentration in burned and unburned sites, Seward Peninsula, AK, 2022

Measurements associated with organic layer samples collected from naturally burned (1971, 2002, 2015, 2019) and unburned sites at the Kougarok Fire Complex, Seward Peninsula, AK, 2022. Here, a discontinuous permafrost underlies an arctic tundra ecosystem. Measurements include elemental carbon and nitrogen concentrations and stocks, organic layer thickness, and thaw depth. There are five files in *.csv format with one data file and four data description files including data dictionary, methods, terminology, and file-level metadata. 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 OSTI2025

Data for Myers-Pigg et al. (2026), "Short-term coastal forest responses to a hurricane-scale freshwater and saltwater flooding experiment"

Coastal upland forests are exposed to intensifying precipitation regimes and sea level rise, increasing tree mortality and transforming these coastal forests into wetland ecosystems. Despite these well-known risks, the differing degrees to which hydrological, biogeochemical, and biological components of upland forests respond to novel salinity exposure is relatively unknown. The Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) experiment decouples two distinct disturbances associated with hydrological extremes: (1) flooding from heavy precipitation and (2) exposure to saline conditions from storm surge. This dataset includes data reported in Myers-Pigg et al. (2025), which analyzed data from the first TEMPEST flooding treatment in 2022. This includes: - Colored dissolved organic matter in porewaters - Soil temperature and oxygen - Groundwater temperature and chemistry - Dissolved organic carbon concentrations in porewaters - Soil-to-atmosphere CH4 and CO2 fluxes - Soil temperature, water content, and electrical conductivity - Root-influenced CH4 and CO2 flux - Tree sap flow velocity - The R analytical code and documentation about the computational environmental in which it was run (the "sessionInfo.txt" file) All data files are plain-text comma separated value (CSV) and no special software is required to read them.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Analysis of nickel sulfoselenide materials by XPS

Metal chalcogenides are of interest as electrocatalysts, battery materials, and more. XPS is a valuable tool for studying changes to these materials before and after catalysis, making reference spectra for the pristine materials valuable. Here, we present XPS spectra for a family of nickel sulfoselenide (NiSSe) materials based on the Ni 3 X 2 crystal structure, Ni 3 S 2-x Se x . XPS surveys and high-resolution spectra of Ni 2p, S 2p, S 2s, Se 3d, Se 3p, and Se 3s were recorded using Al K α radiation.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Microbial community data from throughfall exclusion experiment: Metadata, SI, community composition, LefSe, and FunGuilR data tables from PARCHED Panama tropical forest soils, 2024-2025

Soil contains more carbon (C) than terrestrial vegetation and the atmosphere combined, with some of the largest terrestrial C stocks in tropical rainforests. Soil microbes decompose organic matter, playing a vital role in the storage or loss of soil C. With climate change, drought conditions are predicted to increase in many tropical regions, including both chronic drying and extended drought, potentially influencing these processes. This project explored the effects of chronic and seasonal drying on soil microbial communities across four distinct tropical forests in a long-term drying experiment. We investigated the effects of a chronic drying manipulation on soil microbial community abundance and variation across different forests and seasons. We also compared findings with previously published data from these forests after short-term drying. This project used soils from a long-term drying experiment established in 2018 across four seasonal lowland forests in Panama. Soils were collected from 0 – 10 cm depths during three seasonal periods in control and drying plots in 2024 and 2025 from a total of 32 plots (n = 4 per forest per treatment). The forests varied in baseline rainfall and soil fertility. We calculated alpha and beta diversity indices and compared taxonomic community composition. We found significant biogeographic variation in microbial diversity and taxonomy, with significant differences across the forests and significant effects of the drying treatment. Metadata and sample IDs are within Metadata_16S.csv and Metadata_ITS.csv. Relative abundance tables of every sample at every season are shown in the Excel workbooks 16S Relative Abundance.xlsx and ITS Relative Abundance.xlsx. They are then also shown in CSV files by each taxonomic level. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LefSe) tables are shown for the full 16S and ITS datasets (n = 96), subsets for every site at every season (n = 8), and then for the forests with each plot merged by season (n = 8). FunGuildR data table of ITS data is uploaded.

Bacteria↗
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 OSTI2026

Dataset for Cruz-O'Byrne et al (2026): "Divergent biogeochemical responses in upland coastal forest soils to repeated flooding and shifts in water chemistry"

Hydrologic disturbances from accelerated sea-level rise and the increasing frequency and intensity of storms and tidal flooding are altering biogeochemical processes in upland coastal forests, transforming these ecosystems into wetlands. However, the initial effects of flooding on belowground biogeochemistry and the mechanisms driving greenhouse gas dynamics and soil organic matter stability during the early stages of this transition remain poorly understood. This dataset presents the results of a mesocosm experiment conducted in a controlled, highly instrumented laboratory environment, in which freshwater and brackish water pulses were applied to intact soil monoliths from a temperate upland coastal forest to examine how floodwater chemistry influences soil biogeochemistry and organo-mineral interactions. All data files are plain-text CSV (comma-separated value), and no special software is required to read them. Details about the content of each file are available in the document “Dataset_readme”. The dataset consists of the following data: • rcruzobyrne_moisture: Soil volumetric water content (VWC) • rcruzobyrne_GHG: Headspace greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration and fluxes • rcruzobyrne_methane_isotopes: Headspace methane isotope signature • rcruzobyrne_porewater: Porewater chemistry • rcruzobyrne_CDOM: Porewater colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) • rcruzobyrne_FTIR: Soil Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy Details of the experimental setup, data collection, and data analysis are provided in the manuscript by Cruz-O’Byrne et al (2026) Divergent biogeochemical responses in upland coastal forest soils to repeated flooding and shifts in water chemistry. Biogeochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-026-01340-0

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > GREENHOUSE GAS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Daily water stable isotopes, transpiration, and matrix potential data for an aspen and engelmann stand in the East River Watershed (version 2)

We provide daily stable isotope (2H & 18O) ratios in soil water and xylem (plant stem) water, as well as the sap flow (transpiration) and the soil's matric potential at a forested site near Gothic, Colorado, in the East River catchment. We measured the stable isotopic composition of the transpiration and the daily transpiration flux sum of three aspen and three engelmann spruce. In both forest stands, we installed a soil profile and measured the soil matric potential at 15, 30, and 60 cm depth as well as the stable isotopes of soil pore water at 5, 10, 30, 60, and 90 cm depths. All isotope measurements were done in situ via vapor probes connected to a cavity ring down spectrometer (Picarro L1240i).We further report the daily meteorological data observed at billy barr near our study site. We also provide for each tree the relative share of root water uptake derived from the isotope measurements via a Bayesian mixing model (MixSIAR).The daily data is provided as a time series in "Iso_MP_Sap_DataDaily_ESSDiveUpload.csv" and the units are provided in "dd.csv"; the location of the instrumented trees and soil profiles are given as latitude and longitude coordinates saved as CSV and KMZ files; and a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata.The data was gathered to investigate the short-term changes of the water sources (i.e., variation of root water uptake from different soil depths) of the studied subalpine trees.Update 07/16/2025: The relative and absolute plant water uptake depths were grouped to ensure that the MixSIAR model was applied with endmembers that differed in their d2H value by at least 3 permill and at least 1 permill for d18O. Whenever the difference between observed d2H values for two or more probes at neighboring depths was less than 3 permill, we used the average value for the source water endmember. For days at which probes that were not next to each other measurements did not differ at least 3 permill, the average of all probes between these two depths was used as the water source endmember representing the depth range between these two probes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Raw soil carbon dioxide, moisture, temperature and micrometeorological data in the East River Watershed, Colorado June 2021-June 2024. (DE-SC0021139)

This dataset contains raw data from four tripod stations along an elevation gradient on Snodgrass Mountain in the East River Watershed, CO, USA. Each station contains a datalogger connected to 3 soil Carbon Dioxide CO2 gas probes, 3 soil temperature/moisture sensors and a micrometeorological station. Sensors are scanned every minute, and the 30 minute average is reported. The file snodgrass_soil_ESS.csv contains raw data, a row of column descriptors, and units of measurements. some data processing and QA/QC was done to filter out data from sensors that went bad and extreme outliers. CO2 sensors that went bad were replaced with new sensors as soon as possible. This research was performed to investigate the ecohydrological linkages of belowground carbon processes in the East River watershed forested communities to better understand how these ecosystems will respond to a changing cold-season moisture input. This is the second version of this data set and was modified on 10/01/2024. The primary change in the data was the addition of data from the fall of 2022 to June of 2024. In addition, minor QA/QC was done to filter out data from sensors that went bad and extreme outliers. THe filtered data are now NA's in this data frame and primarily the CO2 sensors. Limited to no QA/QC has been done on the other environmental data. This is now the third version of the data set, and was modified 03/25/2026. The primary change in the data was the addition of data from the June of 2024 to December 2025. Further r QA/QC was done with the new data to filter out bad data from faulty sensors and extreme outliers. The filtered data are now NA's in this data frame and primarily the CO2 sensors. Limited to no QA/QC has been done on the other environmental data. ##This additional data was funded under DE-SC0024218( Responses of Plant and Microbial Respiration Sources to Changing Cold Season Climate Drivers in the East River Watershed)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil moisture and temperature from 2019 to 2024 along northeast- and southwest-facing hillslopes at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado

Soil moisture, temperature, and electrical conductivity have been monitored at multiple depths (between 10 and 50 cm) at 4 locations along a northeast-facing slope and 3 locations on the opposite southwest-facing slope at the Lower Montane site in the East River Watershed, Colorado, from Oct 2019 to Oct 2024. The purpose of this data is to inform hydro-biogeochemical analyses for the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA). Two locations on the northeast-facing slope were reinstalled in 2020 due to damage from wildlife, and thus data for these sites are provided in two distinct files. Overall, the data are reported in 9 CSV files containing the measurements, and the locations are provided in the Sensor_Location.csv file. There is a total of 10 *.csv data files and 3 *.csv metadata files. Older datasets associated with the northeast-facing slope are provided in another archive (see reference). These data products are part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area collection effort to further scientific understanding of biogeochemical dynamics from genome to watershed scales. Feel free to contact the author with any questions or collaboration interests.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil Temperature and Moisture within the Kougarok Fire Complex, Kougarok Road Mile Marker 86, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019-2023

Daily averages of soil temperature and moisture measured once every hour at different heights located at Intensive Monitoring Stations within the Kougarok Fire Complex, Kougarok Road Mile Marker 86 site. Data were retrieved annually from 2019-2023. Package contains 21 *.CSV data files plus a file level metadata *.CSV, data dictionary *.CSV, data file inventory *.CSV, and sensor location site map *.JPG. Data files have header rows, NaN fields indicate invalid or missing data, and negative vertical offsets are above ground.The Kougarok tundra fire complex (KFC) is located north of Nome and the Kigluaik Mountains, near Quartz Creek and the Kougarok River. The site is accessed by foot from the end of the Nome-Taylor Highway (mile marker 86; also called the Kougarok or Beam Road). The KFC burned in six major fires in the decades since 1950 (Alaska Interagency Coordination Center, unpublished data). Lightning ignited five of these fires (1971, 1997, 2015, and 2019) and one was human caused (2002). The mosaic of overlapping fire scars allows for the study of repeat fires in the tundra which, until recently, was not a common phenomenon outside the boreal forest in Alaska. Our reference unburned tundra fire site is south of the KFC located at mile marker 80 of the Nome-Taylor Highway.The two most recent fires are the Mingvk Lake (2015; 21,698 acres burned from 7/27/2015 to 9/28/2015) and Garfield Creek (2019; 422 acres burned from 7/31/2019 to 8/20/19). The Mingvk Lake fire scar includes areas that burned 1-4x (1971, 1997, 2002), while the entirety of the Garfield Creek fire scar has burned 2x previously (1971, 2002).Previous research at the KFC focused on permafrost (Liljedahl et al. 2007; Narita et al. 2015; Iwahana et al. 2016; Tsuyuzaki, Iwahana, and Saito 2017) and vegetation (Narita et al. 2015; Hollingsworth et al. 2021) response to fire. The central Seward Peninsula is characterized by continuous permafrost with a thickness of 15 to 30 m and a mean active layer thickness of 56 cm (Hinzman et al. 2003). Sloping hills with mixed shrub–tussock tundra and tussock tundra vegetation in the uplands are characteristic of the region. Three micrometeorological towers near the Kougarok field site recorded a mean annual temperature of −2.4°C, mean January temperature of −23.1°C, mean July temperature of +11°C, and mean summer rainfall (June–August) of 94 mm from 2000 to 2006 (Liljedahl et al. 2007).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 OSTI2026

Carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane soil efflux (soil respiration) in a Pinus palustris root exclusion in Georgetown, SC

This dataset contains processed data from a combination of survey flux chambers and long-term automated flux chambers. Soil flux measurements were conducted from June 2023 through December 2025 in a mature longleaf pine forest in Georgetown, SC. Soil respiration measurements were conducted approximately biweekly for two and a half years, before and after a root exclusion that took place on May 5, 2024. Processed, QAQC’d data for the treatment (root exclusion) and control (roots intact) before and after the root exclusion can be found in the file: 1_DATA_ESS_DOE_HR_RS_HB2_QAQC_Survey_Data_20260223.csv. Two multiday deployments were also conducted prior to the root exclusion using long-term automated chambers to continuously monitor greenhouse gas soil efflux. Processed, QAQC’d data for both long-term deployments can be found in the file: 2_DATA_ESS_DOE_HR_RS_HB2_QAQC_Longterm_Data_20260209.csv. Raw and working data files (.json, .81x, & .82z format) from LI-COR equipment are included for reference and can be accessed using SoilFluxPro software. CSV metadata files describe the raw data and modifications made using SoilFluxPro v5 and Matlab R2024b, as well as formatting and units for processed CSVs. Matlab code is included for reading in the processed CSVs, with sample figures comparing treatment and control. This research was performed as part of the project: “Improving models of stand and watershed carbon and water fluxes with more accurate representations of soil-plant-water dynamics in southern pine ecosystems”, which examines in part the effects hydraulic redistribution on soil efflux of carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane, as well as soil moisture and temperature in a southern pine ecosystem with sandy soils and high water table.

CARBON DIOXIDE FLUX↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Characterizations of Five Urban Sites in Knoxville, Tennessee. 2024-2025

This dataset includes soil characterizations from five urban parks in Knoxville, Tennessee, USA: Cumberland Estates Park (CEP), Socially Equal Energy Efficient Development (SEED), West View Park (WVP), Victor Ashe Park (VAP), and West Hills Park (WHP). The dataset consists of seven CSV files reporting the data from the measurements of gravimetric moisture content, pH, total carbon and nitrogen, soil texture, dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen, and microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen derived from these soil cores. During five separate sampling events conducted in 2024 and 2025, five soil cores were collected at each site within 3 meters of the remote soil monitoring equipment. In 2025, an additional three soil cores were collected adjacent to the monitoring equipment at each site to assess soil bulk density. This dataset is part of a larger study investigating the effects of soil moisture and plant evapotranspiration on ambient temperature and relative humidity across multiple urban parks in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Mayes, Melanie A [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000163689210)↗