Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ESS-DIVE Location Metadata Reporting Format”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

alpine floodplain↗
DOE OSTI2026

Surface water nitrogen and sediment potential nitrate reduction rates, nutrient stocks, and stable isotopes from nine wetlands at the Tanglewood Biological Station, Alabama

This dataset supports a broader study investigating wetland hydrologic and biogeochemical responses to inundation disturbances. Bimonthly surface water and sediment sampling events were conducted at nine wetland sites situated within the Tanglewood Biological Station in Alabama from April 2023 to February 2024. The contents included in the data package include surface water nitrogen (nitrogen oxides and ammonium) and sediment potential nitrate reduction rates (measured as potential denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium processing), nutrient stocks (total carbon, total nitrogen, and organic matter), and stable isotopes (carbon and nitrogen). Water level data related to each wetland location can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/2530253 (Kirker et al., 2024) and related water geochemistry data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3001967 (Forbes et al., 2025). In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata and international generic sample numbers (IGSNs); (4) readme; (5) the field protocol; and (6) a subfolder with sample data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) sediment potential denitrification rate, (2) sediment potential dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA) rate, (3) sediment total carbon and nitrogen content, (4) sediment stable isotopes (delta nitrogen-15 and delta carbon-13), (5) sediment percent organic matter, (6) surface water nitrous oxides, (7) surface water ammonium, and (8) methods codes. All files are .csv or .pdf.

Ammonium↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

Agaric fungi↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil nitrogen mineralization rates, nutrient stocks, stable isotopes, and water volumetric measurements across terrestrial-aquatic interfaces from three wetlands at the Tanglewood Biological Station, Alabama

This dataset supports a broader study investigating wetland hydrologic and biogeochemical responses to inundation events. Soil samples were collected across four sampling events along terrestrial-aquatic gradients at three wetland sites located within the Tanglewood Biological Station in Alabama from April 2024 to June 2025. The contents in this data package include soil in-situ nitrogen mineralization rates (measurements of net nitrification, net ammonification, and net mineralization), nutrient stocks (total carbon, total nitrogen, and organic matter), stable isotopes (carbon and nitrogen), and water volumetric measurements (water-filled pore space). Water level data related to each wetland location can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/2530253 (Kirker et al., 2024), related water geochemistry data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3001967 (Forbes et al., 2025), and related surface water sediment chemistry data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3377325 (Molina Serpas et al., 2026). In addition to this readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata and international generic sample numbers (IGSNs); (4) readme; (5) the field protocol; and (6) a subfolder with sample data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) net nitrification rate, (2) net ammonification rate, (3) areal net mineralization rate, (4) percent organic matter, (5) water-filled pore space, (6) total carbon content, (7) total nitrogen content, (8) stable carbon isotope (delta carbon-13), and (9) stable nitrogen isotope (delta nitrogen-15), and (10) methods codes. All files are .csv or .pdf.

13-C↗
DOE OSTI2026

Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Dissolved Organic Carbon Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2015-2025)

This data package contains mean values for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. DOC and DIC concentrations in water samples were determined using a TOC-VCPH analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). DOC was analyzed as non-purgeable organic carbon (NPOC) by purging HCl-acidified samples with carbon-free air to remove DIC prior to measurement. After the acidified sample has been sparged, it is injected into a combustion tube filled with oxidation catalyst heated to 680 oC. The DOC in samples is combusted to CO2 and measured by a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) detector. The peak area of the analog signal produced by the NDIR detector is proportional to the DOC concentration of the sample. DIC was determined by acidifying the samples with HCl first, and then purging with carbon-free air to release CO2 for analysis by NDIR detector. Total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) was analyzed using a Shimadzu Total Nitrogen Module (TNM-L) combined with the TOC-L analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). TNM-L is a non-specific measurement of total nitrogen (TN). All nitrogen species in samples are combusted to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, then reacted with ozone to form an excited state of nitrogen dioxide. Upon returning to ground state, light energy is emitted. Then, TDN is measured using a chemiluminescence detector. All data reported are the mean values upon minimum of three replicate measurements, with a relative standard deviation < 3%. All samples were analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (dic_npoc_data_2014-2025.zip) containing a total of 337 files: 336 data files of DIC and NPOC data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20250901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20250901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; and (4) PDF and docx files for the determiniation of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC and NPOC data, which has been updated in 2026-08. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing DIC/NPOC data. Update on 2020-10-07: Updated the data files to remove times from the timestamps, so that only dates remain. The data values have not changed. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC, NPOC and TDN Analyses document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word.Update on 6/10/2022: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated dissolved inorganic carbon and dissolved organic carbon data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-11-21. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Revised versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for DIC and NPOC were added to replace previous versions. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available DIC and NPOC data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available DIC and NPOC data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-10, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for DIC and NPOC data were added to this dataset.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Water isotope data for the TEMPEST study site, 2023-2026

This dataset contains water isotope (deuterium (dD) and oxygen (d18O)) data from porewater, experimental source water, and aquifer sources from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) experimental field site in Edgewater, MD. Samples were taken from 2023-2026 and included in file "TEMPEST_Water_Isotope_LANL_2023-2026.csv". Porewater samples were taken from 15cm depth at multiple locations in each experimental plot (i.e., control, freshwater, and saltwater). Water samples were stored in 2 ml amber glass vials with septum caps under refrigeration until analysis. A L2140-i Picarro cavity ringdown spectrometer connected to an A0211 Picarro vaporization module was used to run water samples. Standards (United States Geological Survey (USGS) 47 and 48) were used to check instrument accuracy during each run of samples. Post-processing codes were run to calculate isotopic values from raw data. Reported isotope data is post-processed. Raw data CSV files from the Picarro were processed using a Python script and output as excel files containing data calibrated to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW). Standardization is based on USGS47 and USGS48 standards that are measured before and after every 5-10 unknowns. Every measurement is comprised of 10 injections. Processing involved discarding the first 4 injections due to a known memory effect. Raw means of the last 6 injections are taken for each measurement and then corrected from the linear calibration relationship of the USGS standards expected vs measured values to obtain corrected compositions relative to VSMOW. Reported isotope data are corrected mean results.

Aquifer↗
DOE OSTI2026

Cation Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

This data package contains mean values for cation concentration for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has been used to measure the concentrations of elements of interest simultaneously for the East River Watershed, Colorado groundwater and surface water samples to inform insights on the biogeochemistry processes within the watershed. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. For samples collected prior to 06-16-2021, the instrumentation, Elan DRC II, PerkinElmer SCIEX, automatically switches among the three models necessary to analyze all 37 elements. These 37 elements include: (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be), Boron (B), Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al), Silicon (Si), Phosphorus (P), Titanium (Ti), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Caesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th), Uranium (U) using standard model, argon Ar as reaction gas, (2) Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Vanadium (V), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe) using dynamic reaction cell (DRC) model, ammonia NH3 as reaction gas, and (3) Phosphorus (P) and Selenium (Se) using DRC model, oxygen O2 as reaction gas. Note for the samples with higher concentrations of chloride (Cl-), asenic (As) concentrations were analysed with DRC model (oxygen O2 as reaction gas) to avoid the interference of chloride. For samples collected on and after 06-16-2021, an advanced Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry system (Agilent 8900 QQQ ICP-MS, Agilent Technologies) has been used to measure the concentrations of interested 36 elements simultaneously for environmental samples, including (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be) and Boron (B) using standard no gas mode, (2) Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al) Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Cesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th) and Uranium (U) using standard helium (He) collision mode, (3) Titanium (Ti) and Vanadium (V) using high Energy (HEHe) helium (He) collision mode, and (4) Silicon (Si), Calcium (Ca) and Selenium (Se) using standard H2 reaction mode. All samples were prepared/diluted with 2% (v/v) ultrapure nitric acid in Milli-Q water (18.2 mega ohm-cm), and analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (cation_data_2014_2025.zip) containing a total of 5,849 files: 5.848 data files of cation data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS PerkinElmer DRC II instrumentation (Detemination_of_Method_Detection_Limits__MDLs__for_ICP_MS__PerkinElmer_Elan_DRC_II__LBL_Bldg74_Lab214D) for samples before November 2021; (5) PDF and docx files for the determination of MDLs for ICP-MS Agilent 8900 QQQ instrumentation (ICP_MS_Analysis_detection_limits_and_QA_QC_WenmingDong_updated_2026-08-06) for samples November 2021 and onward. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing cation data. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated cation data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) removed suffix and prefix on two variables (“aqberylliumion_asberyllium” and “aqlithiumion_aslithium”), (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-16. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Updated versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-06, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quarterly Soil Core and Root Analyses from the Missouri Ozarks AmeriFlux (MOFLUX) Site, Ashland, Missouri, 2017-2023

This dataset contains quarterly soil core measurements from the Missouri Ozarks AmeriFlux (MOFLUX) site located at the University of Missouri’s Thomas H. Baskett Wildlife Research and Education Area near Ashland, Missouri. These data will be used to parameterize an ensemble of MOFLUX-optimized soil carbon-nitrogen models, used to simulate carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycling responses to future hydroclimatic scenarios and the trajectory of soil C stocks with concomitant forest decline. Beginning in 2017, eight soil cores were collected approximately quarterly near plot 1 of the southeast transect, near the automated soil respiration flux chambers, from 0–15 cm depth. Data are currently available through 2023 (2017-06-14 to 2023-11-13); additional observations will be appended to this dataset as they become available. Cores were analyzed for gravimetric moisture content, pH, total carbon and nitrogen, texture, microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, and extractable dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (*.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (*.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Total Dissolved Nitrogen and Ammonia Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2015-2025)

This data package contains mean values for total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) and ammonia concentrations for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. TDN was analyzed using a Shimadzu Total Nitrogen Module (TNM-1) combined with the TOC-VCSH analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). TNM-1 is a non-specific measurement of total nitrogen (TN). All nitrogen species in samples are combusted to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, then reacted with ozone to form an excited state of nitrogen dioxide. Upon returning to ground state, light energy is emitted. Then, TDN is measured using a chemiluminescence detector. Ammonia was determined using a Lachat's QuikChem 8500 Series 2 Flow Injection Analysis System (LACHAT Instruments, QuckChem 8500 series 2, Automated Ion Analyzer, Loveland, Colorado). When ammonia in water samples is heated (60 degrees C) with salicylate and hypochlorite in an alkaline phosphate buffer, an emerald green color is produced which is proportional to the ammonia concentration. The color is intensified by the addition of nitroprusside. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is added to the buffer to prevent the interference of metal ions (Ca, Mg, and Fe etc.). Ammonia-N is then determined by LACHAT flow injection and a colorimetric assay at an absorbance wavelength 660 nm. (Reference: LACHAT Instruments: QuickChem Method 90-107-06-3-A, Determination of Ammonia by Flow Injection Analysis (High Throughput, Salicylate Method/DCIC) (Multi Matrix method). Written by Lynn Egan (Application group), February 08, 2011.) All files are labeled by location and variable, and data reported are the mean values upon replicate measurements. All samples were analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process as detailed in the methods. This data package contains (1) a zip file (tdn_ammonia_data_2015-2025.zip) containing a total of 299 files: 298 data files of ammonia and TDN data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v7_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v7_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for TDN data, which has been updated in 2026-08; and (5) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for Ammonia and the Interferences by LACHAT Flow Injection Analysis. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 105 locations containing TDN and Ammonia-N data. Update 2020-10-07: Updated the data files to remove times from the timestamps, so that only dates remain. The data values have not changed. Update 2021-04-11: Added Determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC, NPOC and TDN Analyses and Determination of Method Detection Limit for Ammonia and the Interferences by LACHAT Flow Injection Analysis documents, which can be accessed as PDFs or with Microsoft Word.Update on 6/10/2022: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated total dissolved nitrogen and ammonia data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2022-12-20: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. Units were listed incorrectly, but have been fixed to reflect correct units (ug/L). File level metadata (flmd) and data dictionary (dd) files were updated to reflect the updated versions of these files. Available data was added up until 2022-06-01. Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-27. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Revised versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for TDN were added to replace previous versions. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available TDN and Ammonia-N data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available TDN and Ammonia-N data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-10, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for TDN data were added to this dataset.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

10Be↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi-resolution Arctic Shrub Cover Dataset Derived from UAS and Airborne SfM and LiDAR (2013-2025)

We synthesized 177 unoccupied aerial system flights and 77 airborne flights across the Arctic and created a multi-resolution benchmark data of low-to-tall shrub fractional cover leveraging Structure-from-Motion and Light Detection and Ranging. The resulting dataset covered a total of 1899 km2 across Alaska, Western Canada, Sweden, and Siberian Arctic, including key sites from the Oro Arctic to the High Arctic. The dataset is organized into 6 primary data collection directories (“Abisko,” “AWI,” “ERE,” “Fairbanks,” “NGEE,” “Toolik”), each containing site and flight subdirectories. Flight directories include shrub cover rasters (*.tifs) at 1 m, 5 m, and 30 m resolution, the canopy height model at 1 m resolution (*.tifs), and a bounding box *.kml file. For the AWI, Abisko, NGEE, and Fairbanks collections, we also include the GCC raster at 1 m resolution (*.tif). Files are organized by Collection > Site > Flight Name > Data Files. Flight rasters are in the local UTM zone and the .kml files are in the geographic coordinate system EPSG 4326. We also include a .csv file that details the source datasets for every flight. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments in the Arctic (NGEE Arctic) project is a research effort to reduce uncertainty in the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) by developing a predictive understanding of Arctic tundra ecosystems underlain by permafrost and to quantify feedbacks from the Arctic tundra to the Earth system. NGEE Arctic is supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Over Phases 1–3, observations made by the NGEE Arctic team across a gradient of permafrost landscapes in Arctic Alaska improved the representation of tundra processes in the land surface component of E3SM (the E3SM Land Model, ELM). Model improvements emphasized unique aspects of permafrost environments and explored reductions in model complexity while retaining predictive power. The Arctic-informed ELM developed by NGEE Arctic has been used to make novel predictions on processes ranging from permafrost thaw to soil biogeochemical cycling to Earth system feedbacks associated with the unique characteristics of tundra plants. In Phase 4, the NGEE Arctic team is evaluating our new predictive understanding under novel conditions across the Arctic domain. In collaboration with partners at long-term pan-Arctic research sites we are examining whether an Arctic-informed ELM can faithfully simulate interactions among surface and subsurface processes at site, regional, and pan-Arctic scales. In turn, we are using variety of tools to dynamically extend and evaluate ELM inference, with an emphasis on data synthesis and pan-Arctic model evaluation, reintegration of code with an evolving E3SM, scaling across heterogeneous Arctic landscapes, and the appropriate representation of the impacts of increasingly frequent Arctic disturbances.

canopy height model↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2025

2D reactive transport model of shale chemical weathering and biogeochemical fluxes along a mountainous hillslope, East River Watershed, Colorado: Input files and simulation results

This data package contains input files and simulation results for a two-dimensional (2D) reactive transport model used to quantitatively analyze the coupled hydrological and biogeochemical processes governing shale weathering and associated biogeochemical fluxes under realistic environmental conditions in the high-elevation East River Watershed. These data support the conclusions presented in Stolze et al. (Water Resources Research, under review), "Model-based interpretation of solute exports and carbon partitioning during shale weathering in a mountainous hillslope". The model simulates atmospheric-subsurface gas exchange, subsurface water flow, and shale weathering processes under dynamic, year-scale conditions along a shale-underlain hillslope located in the East River watershed. The simulations were performed using the PFLOTRAN flow and reactive transport code and executed on the Perlmutter supercomputer to leverage its large-scale parallel computing capabilities. The data package contains two zipped folders, "model_input_files" and "simulation_results", and one readme.txt file. "model_input_files" contains the necessary input files to run the calibrated base-base model presented in Stolze et al. (Water Resources Research, under review). "simulation_results" contains a single hdf5 file ("Output_2D_hillslope_model.h5") which includes the results of simulation performed using the base-case model. This file can be opened with HDFView 3.1.4, Python, or MATLAB. "readme.txt" contains relevant information about the base-case model and provides guidelines on how to run the associated input files provided in the folder "model_input_files". Furthermore, readme.txt provides information regarding the model results provided in "Output_2D_hillslope_model.h5" such as matrix dimensionality and output units. Field datasets used to evaluate model performance were collected at three monitoring wells located along a hillslope transect (PLM1, PLM2, and PLM3). Dissolved ion concentration data were collected from November 2016 to October 2021 for Ca, Mg, DIC, Na, K, SO4 (Dong et al., 2025 - dic_npoc_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1660459; Williams et al., 2025 - anion_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1668054; Dong et al., 2025 - cation_data_2014_2024.zip - DOI:10.15485/1668055). Note that we used the files named er_PLM1_xx_yy, er_PLM2_xx_yy, and er_PLM3_xx_yy where xx stands for the name of the aqueous species and yy stands for the depth where the measurements were performed. Soil water content ([0 - 1] m) and water table depth were collected from November 2016 to October 2021 (Wan et al., 2024 - Dynamic_water_table__depthsFig2b.csv and Soil_water_content_Fig4e.csv - DOI:10.15485/2322567). Gaseous CO2 concentration were collected from October 2020 to December 2021(Wan et al., 2024 - Soil_CO2_concentrations_Fig4h.csv - DOI:10.15485/2322567) Gaseous CO2 flux from the subsurface to the atmosphere were collected in the vicinity of PLM2 from October 2019 to May 2022 (Wu et al., 2025). Soil microbial biomass concentration was measured from August 2016 to June 2017 (Sorensen et al., 2019 - 2017_East_River_Pumphouse_Microbial_Biomass__1_.csv - DOI:10.15485/1577267) All field data are published as CSV files compatible with Microsoft Excel, MATLAB, and Python, or as text files. The coordinates of the monitoring wells and the CO2(g) flux sensor in the coordinate system WGS84 are: -PLM1: [38.9197710 ; -106.9492750] -PLM2: [38.9201580 ; -106.9487170] -PLM3: [38.9207843 ; -106.9483668] -PLM4: 38.9210060 ; -106.9479528] -CO2(g) flux sensor: [38.9199180 ; -106.9489906] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a Department of Energy User Facility using NERSC award BER-ERCAP 23980, BER-ERCAP 28550, and BER-ERCAP 33789.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATU↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATU↗