Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Soil functions”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 OSTI2023

(Fe, Cr)(OH) 3 Coprecipitation in Solution and on Soil: Roles of Surface Functional Groups and Solution pH

The simultaneous precipitation of (Fe, Cr)(OH) 3 nanoparticles in solution (homogeneous) and on soil surfaces (heterogeneous), which controls Cr transport in soil and aquatic systems, was quantified for the first time in the presence of model surfaces, i.e., bare and natural organic matter (NOM)-coated SiO 2 and Al 2 O 3 . Various characterization techniques were combined to explore the surface-ion-precipitate interactions and the controlling mechanisms. (Fe, Cr)(OH) 3 accumulation on negatively charged SiO 2 was mainly governed by electrostatic interactions between hydrolyzed ion species or homogeneous (Fe, Cr)(OH) 3 and surfaces. The elevated pH through protonation of Al 2 O 3 surface hydroxyls resulted in higher Cr/Fe ratios in both homogeneous and heterogeneous coprecipitates. Here, due to ignorable NOM adsorption onto SiO 2 , the amounts of (Fe, Cr)(OH) 3 precipitates on bare/NOM-SiO 2 were similar; contrarily, attributed to favored NOM adsorption onto Al 2 O 3 and consequently carboxyl association with metal ions or (Fe, Cr)(OH) 3 nanoparticles, remarkably more heterogeneous precipitates harvested on NOM-Al 2 O 3 than bare-Al 2 O 3 . With the same solution supersaturation, the total amounts of homogeneous and heterogeneous precipitates were similar irrespective of the substrate type. With lower pH, decreased electrostatic forces between substrates and precipitates shifted (Fe, Cr)(OH) 3 distribution from heterogeneous to homogeneous phases. The quantitative knowledge of (Fe, Cr)(OH) 3 distribution and the controlling mechanisms can assist in better Cr sequestration in natural and engineered settings.

(Fe, Cr)(OH)3 distribution↗
DOE OSTI2024

Storage and persistence of organic carbon in the upper three meters of soil under arable and native prairie land use

Aims: Land use change from native grasslands to arable lands globally impacts soil ecosystem functions, including the storage of soil organic carbon (SOC). Understanding the factors affecting SOC changes in topsoil and subsoil due to land use is crucial for effective mitigation strategies. We determined SOC storage and persistence as affected by land use change from native prairies to arable lands. Methods: Here we examined SOC stocks, soil δ 13 C and Δ 14 C signatures, microbial communities (bacteria and fungi), and soil mineral characteristics under native prairies and long-term arable lands (i.e., > 40 years) down to 3 m in the U.S. Midwest. Results: Native prairie soils had higher SOC stocks in the A horizon and 0–50 cm depth increment than arable soils. For both land use types, the δ 13 C and Δ 14 C values significantly decreased with depth, with the latter pointing towards highly stabilized SOC, especially in the B- and C-horizons. Analysis of the microbial communities indicated that the diversity of bacteria and fungi decreased with increasing soil depth. The content of oxalate soluble Al appeared to be the single most important predictor of SOC across horizons and land use types. Conclusion: Our data suggest that most SOC gains and losses and transformation and translocation processes seem to be restricted to the uppermost 50 cm. Increasing SOC retention in the A and B horizons within the 0–50 cm depth would enhance organic material serving as substrate and nutrients for microbes and plants (A horizon) and facilitate long-term SOC storage in the subsoil (B horizon).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Routes and rates of bacterial dispersal impact surface soil microbiome composition and functioning

Abstract Recent evidence suggests that, similar to larger organisms, dispersal is a key driver of microbiome assembly; however, our understanding of the rates and taxonomic composition of microbial dispersal in natural environments is limited. Here, we characterized the rate and composition of bacteria dispersing into surface soil via three dispersal routes (from the air above the vegetation, from nearby vegetation and leaf litter near the soil surface, and from the bulk soil and litter below the top layer). We then quantified the impact of those routes on microbial community composition and functioning in the topmost litter layer. The bacterial dispersal rate onto the surface layer was low (7900 cells/cm2/day) relative to the abundance of the resident community. While bacteria dispersed through all three routes at the same rate, only dispersal from above and near the soil surface impacted microbiome composition, suggesting that the composition, not rate, of dispersal influenced community assembly. Dispersal also impacted microbiome functioning. When exposed to dispersal, leaf litter decomposed faster than when dispersal was excluded, although neither decomposition rate nor litter chemistry differed by route. Overall, we conclude that the dispersal routes transport distinct bacterial communities that differentially influence the composition of the surface soil microbiome.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Microbial O 2 consumption as a function of pore structure in soils of sorghum, switchgrass, and prairie vegetation systems

Abstract Microscale O 2 availability in soil, a main factor influencing microbial processing of soil carbon and nitrogen, is a function of O 2 diffusion and microbial O 2 consumption. While O 2 diffusivity is widely studied, it is difficult to quantify the rate of microbial O 2 consumption ( MO ). In this study, we quantified the MO using O 2 microsensor profiling to compare MO in different soils and vegetation systems while manipulating the soil pore structure. Soil samples were collected from three bioenergy vegetation systems, sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L. Moench), switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L.), and prairie, at an experimental site in Southeast Michigan, and from switchgrass and prairie systems at two sites in South and North Wisconsin. We prepared soil cores with two contrasting pore structures, that is, large (>30 µm Ø) pore‐dominated soil (LP) and small (<10 µm Ø) pore‐dominated soil (SP), from the same 1‐ to 2‐mm soil size fraction. We quantified MO (nmol O 2 cm −3 s −1 ) using a microprofiler with an oxygen (OX‐100 µm) microsensor (Unisense) pre‐ and post‐38‐day incubation. Across all studied systems, there was a trend for a decrease in SP MO post‐incubation, suggesting a change in microbial metabolism to lower O 2 utilization. However, sizeable microbial O 2 consumption continued in the LP soils, further corroborated by a positive correlation between the C‐CO 2 emission rate and the post‐incubation MO , highlighting that LP provided a better physical microenvironment for the soil microbes.

Chakraborty, Poulamee [Department of Plant Soil an↗
DOE OSTI2023

Using root and soil traits to forecast woody encroachment dynamics in mesic grassland

Grasslands are a widespread and globally important biome providing key ecosystem services including C storage and regulation of the water cycle. Grasslands face multiple threats, including changes in drought intensity and woody encroachment - a process that results in increased woody plant abundance corresponding with decreased herbaceous plant abundance. The combination of reduced soil moisture and shifts in plant dominance from herbaceous to woody are likely to alter C pools in the soil profile. We currently do not have the capacity to predict either the magnitude or rates of change in these C pools. In order to predict changes in grassland vegetation structure and the associated impacts on C cycling requires greater understanding of changes in soil C pools at multiple soil depths, and the responses of these pools to changes in precipitation. To support and perform this parameterization of Land Surface Models, we performed detailed investigations of root (anatomical and physiological) and soil traits (microbial function) at varying soil depths, to capture the belowground impacts of changing dominant plant growth forms (grasses to shrubs) and the impacts of frequent drought.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Ectomycorrhizal fungi alter soil food webs and the functional potential of bacterial communities

Most of Earth’s trees rely on critical soil nutrients that ectomycorrhizal fungi (EcMF) liberate and provide, and all of Earth’s land plants associate with bacteria that help them survive in nature. Yet, our understanding of how the presence of EcMF modifies soil bacterial communities, soil food webs, and root chemistry requires direct experimental evidence to comprehend the effects that EcMF may generate in the belowground plant microbiome. To this end, we grew Pinus muricata plants in soils that were either inoculated with EcMF and native forest bacterial communities or only native bacterial communities. We then profiled the soil bacterial communities, applied metabolomics and lipidomics, and linked omics data sets to understand how the presence of EcMF modifies belowground biogeochemistry, bacterial community structure, and their functional potential. We found that the presence of EcMF (i) enriches soil bacteria linked to enhanced plant growth in nature, (ii) alters the quantity and composition of lipid and non-lipid soil metabolites, and (iii) modifies plant root chemistry toward pathogen suppression, enzymatic conservation, and reactive oxygen species scavenging. Using this multi-omic approach, we therefore show that this widespread fungal symbiosis may be a common factor for structuring soil food webs.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Mycorrhiza better predict soil fungal community composition and function than aboveground traits in temperate forest ecosystems

We sampled soil in the organic and mineral horizons beneath two AM-associated (Fraxinus americana, Thuja occidentalis) and two ECM-associated tree species (Betula alleghaniensis, and Tsuga canadensis), with an evergreen and deciduous species in each mycorrhizal group. To characterize fungal communities and organic matter decomposition beneath each tree species, we sequenced the ITS1 region of fungal DNA and measured the potential activity of carbon and nitrogen-targeting extracellular enzymes. Each tree species harbored distinct fungal communities, supporting the need to consider both mycorrhizal type and leaf habit. However, between tree characteristics, mycorrhizal type better predicted fungal communities. Across fungal guilds, saprotrophic fungi were the most important group in shaping fungal community differences in soils beneath all tree species. The effect of leaf habit on carbon and nitrogen-targeting hydrolytic enzymes depended on tree mycorrhizal association in the organic horizon, while oxidative enzyme activities were higher beneath EcM-associated trees across both soil horizons and leaf habits. These data include extracellular hydrolytic and oxidative enzyme activities, ITS sequencing fungal community data, soil carbon to nitrogen, and soil pH. Site level data include climate (mean annual temperature, precipitation), elevation, and soil series and order information.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Bringing function to structure: Root–soil interactions shaping phosphatase activity throughout a soil profile in Puerto Rico

Abstract Large areas of highly productive tropical forests occur on weathered soils with low concentrations of available phosphorus (P). In such forests, root and microbial production of acid phosphatase enzymes capable of mineralizing organic phosphorus is considered vital to increasing available P for plant uptake. We measured both root and soil phosphatase throughout depth and alongside a variety of root and soil factors to better understand the potential of roots and soil biota to increase P availability and to constrain estimates of the biochemical mineralization within ecosystem models. We measured soil phosphatase down to 1 m, root phosphatase to 30 cm, and collected data on fine‐root mass density, specific root length, soil P, bulk density, and soil texture using soil cores in four tropical forests within the Luquillo Experimental Forest in Puerto Rico. We found that soil phosphatase decreased with soil depth, but not root phosphatase. Furthermore, when both soil and root phosphatase were expressed per soil volume, soil phosphatase was 100‐fold higher that root phosphatase. Both root and soil factors influenced soil and root phosphatase. Soil phosphatase increased with fine‐root mass density and organic P, which together explained over 50% of the variation in soil phosphatase. Over 80% of the variation in root phosphatase per unit root mass was attributed to specific root length (positive correlation) and available (resin) P (negative correlation). Synthesis : Fine‐root traits and soil P data are necessary to understand and represent soil and root phosphatase activity throughout the soil column and across sites with different soil conditions and tree species. These findings can be used to parameterize or benchmark estimates of biochemical mineralization in ecosystem models that contain fine‐root biomass and soil P distributions throughout depth.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

High manganese redox variability and manganate predominance in temperate soil profiles as determined by X-ray absorption spectroscopy

Manganese speciation is a key to understanding the fate of contaminants, nutrients, and organic matter in soils. To date, quantification of Mn species in bulk soils has been performed mainly by sequential extraction methods and rarely supported by spectroscopic analysis. In order to obtain quantitative information on the Mn species inventory of soils, we investigated 46 soil horizons (<2-mm fraction, 45.1–2,280 mg/kg Mn) of nine typical Central European soils (Cambisols, Chernozems, Luvisols, Podzol, Stagnosol) by chemical Mn analyses and Mn K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy, and related speciation results to major soil properties. Amounts of Mn 2+ , Mn 3+ , and Mn 4+ and the average oxidation state of Mn were evaluated by linear combination fitting (LCF) of X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES) spectra. Additionally, we used extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectroscopy to identify and quantify major Mn species. For this, EXAFS spectra of 20 organic and mineral soil samples from five soils (Cambisols, Chernozem, Luvisol) were analyzed by LCF and shell fitting. XANES analyses revealed a high Mn redox variability in organic surface layers, with Mn 2+ being most abundant (≤100%, $\overline{x}$ = 54%), followed by Mn 3+ (≤80%, $\overline{x}$ = 32%) and Mn 4+ (≤55%, $\overline{x}$ = 14%). Mineral soil horizons contained significantly less Mn 2+ (≤56%, $\overline{x}$ = 23%), about equal quantities of Mn 3+ (≤68%, $\overline{x}$ = 31%), and were enriched in Mn 4+ (≤89%, $\overline{x}$ = 46%). EXAFS analyses implied the presence of six major Mn species groups: manganates, organically complexed Mn, Mn(III) oxyhydroxides, silicate-bound Mn, Mn oxides without tunnel- or layer structure, and physisorbed Mn. In litter horizons, Mn was mainly present in organic complexes (58–91%, $\overline{x}$ = 78%) and as physisorbed Mn (≤15%), but individual horizons also comprised manganates, Mn(III) oxyhydroxides, and silicate-bound Mn. Manganates, likely mixtures of phyllomanganates with hexagonal layer symmetry and tectomanganates, dominated in all mineral soil horizons (37–94%, $\overline{x}$ = 67%). Correlation analysis showed that manganates dissolve completely during dithionite-citrate and acid ammonium oxalate extractions, and suggested that Mn 4+ -rich manganates preferentially form under less acidic soil conditions, partly by oxidation of organically complexed Mn(II), and that they are enriched in the soil clay fraction. Mineral soil horizons also contained minor quantities of organically complexed Mn (≤39%, $\overline{x}$ = 11%), silicate-bound Mn (≤30%, $\overline{x}$ = 8%), Mn(III) oxyhydroxides (≤37%, $\overline{x}$ = 7%), Mn oxides without tunnel- or layer structure (≤18%, $\overline{x}$ = 5%), and physisorbed Mn (≤14%, $\overline{x}$ <1%). The detection of Mn(III) oxyhydroxides such as feitknechtite (β-MnOOH) or groutite (α-MnOOH) as well as the spinel hausmannite (Mn 3 O 4 ) in acidic soils is remarkable, since their formation is normally linked to neutral or alkaline pH conditions. Minor contributions of silicate-bound Mn indicate the release of Mn from primary minerals already at early stages of soil formation, and low concentrations of physisorbed Mn suggest that exchangeable Mn is rapidly converted into manganates in oxic soils. In conclusion, the predominance of manganates in mineral soils has far-reaching implications for the functioning of soils and biogeochemical element cycles, as these minerals play an important role in metal binding, plant nutrition, and redox-related processes.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2022

Can Common Pool Resource Theory Catalyze Stakeholder-Driven Solutions to the Freshwater Salinization Syndrome?

Freshwater salinity is rising across many regions of the United States as well as globally, a phenomenon called the freshwater salinization syndrome (FSS). The FSS mobilizes organic carbon, nutrients, heavy metals, and other contaminants sequestered in soils and freshwater sediments, alters the structures and functions of soils, streams, and riparian ecosystems, threatens drinking water supplies, and undermines progress toward many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. There is an urgent need to leverage the current understanding of salinization’s causes and consequences–in partnership with engineers, social scientists, policymakers, and other stakeholders–into locally tailored approaches for balancing our nation’s salt budget. In this feature, we propose that the FSS can be understood as a common pool resource problem and explore Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework as an approach for identifying the conditions under which local actors may work collectively to manage the FSS in the absence of top-down regulatory controls. We adopt as a case study rising sodium concentrations in the Occoquan Reservoir, a critical water supply for up to one million residents in Northern Virginia (USA), to illustrate emerging impacts, underlying causes, possible solutions, and critical research needs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Plant-specific microbial diversity facilitates functional redundancy at the soil-root interface

Abstract Aims Plant-specific microbial diversity reflecting host-microbe coevolution was frequently shown at the structural level but less on the functional scale. We studied the microbiome of three compartments at the soil root interface (root endosphere, rhizosphere, bulk soil) of medicinal plants cultivated under organic management in Egypt. The study aimed to examine the impact of the rhizosphere on microbial community composition and diversity in desert agricultural soil, as well as to identify specific functions associated with the rhizosphere. Methods The microbiome community structure, diversity, and microbial functioning were evaluated through the utilization of 16S rRNA gene amplicon and shotgun metagenome sequencing. Results We found the typical rhizosphere effect and plant-species-specific enrichment of bacterial diversity. The annual plants Calendula officinalis and Matricaria chamomilla ( Asteraceae ) were more similar than the perennial Solanum distichum ( Solanaceae ). Altogether, plant species explained 50.5% of the variation in bacterial community structures in the rhizosphere. Our results indicate a stronger effect of the plant species in terms of modulating bacterial community structures in the rhizosphere than in root endosphere samples. The plant-driven rhizosphere effect could be linked to redundant plant beneficial functions in the microbiome, while enrichment of specific genes related to amino acid ion transport and metabolism, carbohydrate transport and metabolism, defense mechanisms, and secondary metabolites biosynthesis were more specific. Conclusions The study explores the microbiome continuum at the soil-root interface of medicinal plant species, revealing significant bacterial community structure shifts and plant specificity. The study provides insights into the essential microbiome components contributing to rhizosphere functionality.

Wicaksono, Wisnu Adi (ORCID:0000000215561981)↗
DOE OSTI2025

AquaMEND: Reconciling multiple impacts of salinization on soil carbon biogeochemistry

Soil salinization, exacerbated by climate change, poses a global threat to coastal ecosystem function and soil quality. Salinity influences carbon cycling through direct effects on microbial activity and indirect alterations to soil physicochemical properties including cation exchange, pH, and soil organic carbon availability. Current models inadequately represent these complexities, relying on linear reduction functions that overlook specific physicochemical changes induced by salinity. To address this gap, we propose an integrated model framework, AquaMEND, that combines microbial-explicit carbon decomposition and geochemical models. This model allows cation exchange and surface complexation processes to capture solute chemistry and nutrient availability in soils upon saltwater intrusion. Using response functions that capture salinity impacts on both salt-sensitive and salt-resistant microbial processes, AquaMEND simulates how the abiotic and biotic mechanisms work individually and collectively to regulate organic and inorganic pools and fluxes. Here, the parallel structure of aqueous and non-aqueous phases, together with microbial functions, result in a versatile model for solving dynamic coupling of organics, minerals and microbes under various environmental settings.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Wildfire impact on soil microbiome life history traits and roles in ecosystem carbon cycling

Abstract Wildfires, which are increasing in frequency and severity with climate change, reduce soil microbial biomass and alter microbial community composition and function. The soil microbiome plays a vital role in carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycling, but its complexity makes it challenging to predict post-wildfire soil microbial dynamics and resulting impacts on ecosystem biogeochemistry. The application of biogeochemically relevant conceptual trait-based frameworks to the soil microbiome can distill this complexity, enabling enhanced predictability of soil microbiome recovery following wildfire and subsequent impacts to biogeochemical cycles. Conceptual frameworks that have direct links to soil C and N cycling have been developed for the soil microbiome; the Y-A-S framework overviews soil microbiome life history strategies that have tradeoffs with one another and others have proposed frameworks specific to wildfire. Here, we aimed to delineate post-wildfire changes of bacterial traits in western US coniferous forests to inform how severe wildfire influences soil microbiome recovery and resultant biogeochemical cycling. We utilized a comprehensive metagenome-assembled genome catalog from post-wildfire soils representing 1 to 11 years following low- and high-severity burning to identify traits that enable the persistence of microbial taxa in burned soils and influence ecosystem C and N cycling. We found that high-severity wildfire initially selects for fast growers and, up to a decade post-fire, taxa that invest in genes for acquiring diverse resources from the external environment, which in combination could increase soil C losses. This work begins to disentangle how climate change–induced shifts in wildfire behavior might alter microbially mediated soil biogeochemical cycling.

Nelson, Amelia R.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Dredged sediments contain potentially beneficial microorganisms for agriculture and little harmful cyanobacteria

Soils worldwide are degrading, raising concerns about our ability to feed the growing global population. Soil amendments that can alleviate degradation are gaining attention. The application of sediments dredged from waterways to agricultural fields has increasing promise as a means for improving degraded soils. However, herbaceous plant species may have difficulty establishing on dredged material because of low nutrient availability, inhibitory levels of toxins, unsuitable moisture conditions and lack of microorganisms capable of ameliorating these characteristics. To counteract these issues, we sought to understand if the use of a cover crop would increase the abundance, diversity and function of beneficial soil microorganisms compared to harmful microorganisms in dredged sediments. We collected soil samples from two 100% dredged sediment plots, one where winter cereal rye (Secale cereal) was grown as a winter cover crop and one left fallow over the winter, followed by traditional corn (Zea mays) planting. We sampled both plots three times during the growing season: before cover crop application, following cover crop application but before corn planting and following final corn harvest. We then used high-throughput sequencing to identify the bacterial and fungal communities present in the samples. Our data show that cover crop application did not alter the microbial community in these plots. However, sampling time decreased species diversity and altered the composition of both fungal and bacterial communities recovered from these plots. Across both plots, microorganisms associated with carbon cycling were more abundant than those associated with harmful effects, including microcystin-producing cyanobacteria, which were an extremely small portion of the overall community. Our work suggests that dredged sediments have the potential to improve soil function through the addition of microorganisms associated with nutrient cycling, but a cover crop is not necessary to incur these benefits.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗