Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Soil saturation”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Microtomographic Measurements of Total Air‐Water Interfacial Areas for Soils

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

Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
DOE OSTI2025

Water reactive polyurethane grouting for deep vadose zone contaminant immobilization

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

Contaminant Diffusion↗
NASA NTRS2001

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

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

Shaman, Jeffrey↗
NASA NTRS2016

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

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

Berger, Eve L.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Biochar alters hydraulic conductivity and impacts nutrient leaching in two agricultural soils

Biochar is purported to provide agricultural benefits when added to the soil, through changes in saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) and increased nutrient retention through chemical or physical means. Despite increased interest and investigation, there remains uncertainty regarding the ability of biochar to deliver these agronomic benefits due to differences in biochar feedstock, production method, production temperature, and soil texture. In this project, a suite of experiments was carried out using biochars of diverse feedstocks and production temperatures, in order to determine the biochar parameters which may optimize agricultural benefits. Sorption experiments were performed with seven distinct biochars to determine sorption efficiencies for ammonium and nitrate. Only one biochar effectively retained nitrate, while all biochars bound ammonium. The three biochars with the highest binding capacities (produced from almond shell at 500 and 800 °C (AS500 and AS800) and softwood at 500 °C (SW500)) were chosen for column experiments. Biochars were amended to a sandy loam and a silt loam at 0 % and 2 % (w/w), and K sat was measured. Biochars reduced K sat in both soils by 64 %–80 %, with the exception of AS800, which increased K sat by 98 % in the silt loam. Breakthrough curves for nitrate and ammonium, as well as leachate nutrient concentration, were also measured in the sandy loam columns. All biochars significantly decreased the quantity of ammonium in the leachate, by 22 % to 78 %, and slowed its movement through the soil profile. Ammonium retention was linked to high cation exchange capacity and a high oxygen-to-carbon ratio, indicating that the primary control of ammonium retention in biochar-amended soils is the chemical affinity between biochar surfaces and ammonium. Biochars had little to no effect on the timing of nitrate release, and only SW500 decreased total quantity, by 27 % to 36 %. The ability of biochar to retain nitrate may be linked to high micropore specific surface area, suggesting a physical entrapment rather than a chemical binding. Together, this work sheds new light on the combined chemical and physical means by which biochar may alter soils to impact nutrient leaching and hydraulic conductivity for agricultural production.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

A radioisotope - enabled reactive transport model for deep vadose zone carbon

In mountainous regions, which constitute the principle source of recharge to major rivers and regional aquifers, infiltration occurs through fractured, partially saturated, weathered bedrock that acts as a boundary layer between saturated aquifers and surface soil. Commonly this deep vadose zone (DVZ) is many meters thick, and yet its role in regulating the generation, retention and mobility of reactive solutes, including nutrients, contaminants and weathering products, is largely unknown. In particular, many of the key reactions that drive the formation of the weathered DVZ and the quality of water moving through it are redox processes, regulated by the availability of organic carbon and oxygen below the soil layer. The role of the DVZ is thus also poorly constrained in the context of carbon stocks and mobility, particularly in lithologies that are naturally high in organic carbon, such as shales. The overarching hypothesis of this study is that upland regions developed in geologic settings with abundant petrogenic carbon store and actively cycle carbon in the weathered DVZ below the soil and above the water table at rates that are significant and currently unconstrained. In order to quantify this cycling, the current study combines novel instrumentation techniques allowing new direct sampling of DVZ systems with advanced numerical reactive transport simulations of carbon transport and transformation. Critically, these simulations will explicitly treat the three isotopes of carbon (the abundant 12C, the stable rare 13C and the radioactive 14C) in a unified framework, thus clearly parsing between the contributions of modern surface derived carbon and lithologic carbon sources in integrated measurements of fluid and gas phase fluxes. This novel model capability will be applied to test the role of DVZ carbon cycling as a regulator of water quality and geological weathering in two complementary field sites both located in organic carbon rich shale lithologies. The first is the Eel River Critical Zone Observatory (ERCZO) in Mendocino County, California, and the second is the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) in the East River watershed, near Crested Butte, Colorado. At the ERCZO, a novel vadose zone monitoring system has been installed in a 20 m thick, partially saturated, weathered shale hillslope, and preliminary data already indicate substantial CO2 flux generated many meters below the soil surface. At the SFA field site, an instrumented hillslope transect indicates a more complex multi-dimensional fluid and solute transport regime, which will serve as a key test of the calibrated models. Collectively, this project will advance understanding of the cycling of carbon belowground and in relation to transport pathways across the poorly constrained DVZ characteristic of primary water recharge areas. The key product of this work will be enhanced isotope simulation capabilities that are robust and publicly available for application across a broad diversity of systems.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evolving radon diffusion through earthen barriers at uranium waste disposal sites

Field measurements of Rn-222 fluxes from the tops and bottoms of compacted clay radon barriers were used to calculate effective Rn diffusion coefficients (D Rn ) at four uranium waste disposal sites in the western United States to assess cover performance after more than 20 years of service. Values of D Rn ranged from 7.4 × 10 -7 to 6.0 × 10 -9 m 2 /s, averaging 1.42 × 10 -7 . Water saturation (S W ) from soil cores indicated that there was relatively little control of D Rn by S W , especially at higher moisture levels, in contrast to estimates from most steady-state diffusion models. Further, this is attributed to preferential pathways intrinsic to construction of the barriers or to natural process that have developed over time including desiccation cracks, root channels, and insect burrows in the engineered earthen barriers. A modification to some models in which fast and slow pathway D Rn values are partitioned appears to give a good representation of the data; 4% of the fast pathway was needed to fit the data regression. For locations with high S w and highest D Rn (and fluxes) at each site, the proportion of fast pathway ranged from 1.7% to 34%, but for many locations with lower fluxes, little if any fast pathway was needed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

A Multicomponent Reactive Transport Model for Integrated Surface‐Subsurface Hydrology Problems

Abstract Despite the widespread use of integrated hydrology models in a variety of applications, consideration of multicomponent reactive transport is still not common. The implementation of these processes requires coupling transport at the surface‐subsurface interface and efficient solution of the non‐linear geochemical model that is consistent with the integrated hydrology solution. The Advanced Terrestrial Simulator provides a flexible multiphysics framework that facilitated this process. In this work, the integrated reactive transport process kernel (PK) was weakly coupled to the integrated hydrology PK. In turn, integrated transport and reactions were coupled using an operator splitting approach. This splitting enabled an explicit solution of the integrated transport problem, including a novel algorithm to calculate exchange fluxes across the surface‐subsurface interface and a point‐by‐point solution of the geochemical problem. Geochemical capabilities were added using well‐established external codes, but rather than using a custom interface to each, a generic interface was used that clearly specifies the variables and operations used by the chemistry PK. The implementation is demonstrated with two example simulations: transport of a tracer in a soil column as it saturates over time and water ponds on the surface and reactive transport in a hillslope driven by successive wet‐dry cycles that result in infiltration, runoff and exfiltration processes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Spatial heterogeneity effects on land surface modeling of water and energy partitioning

Abstract. Understanding the influence of land surface heterogeneity on surface water and energy fluxes is crucial for modeling earth system variability and change. This study investigates the effects of four dominant heterogeneity sources on land surface modeling, including atmospheric forcing (ATM), soil properties (SOIL), land use and land cover (LULC), and topography (TOPO). Our analysis focused on their impacts on the partitioning of precipitation (P) into evapotranspiration (ET) and runoff (R), partitioning of net radiation into sensible heat and latent heat, and corresponding water and energy fluxes. An initial set of 16 experiments were performed over the continental US (CONUS) using the E3SM land model (ELMv1) with different combinations of heterogeneous and homogeneous datasets. The Sobol' total and first-order sensitivity indices were utilized to quantify the relative importance of the four heterogeneity sources. Sobol' total sensitivity index measures the total heterogeneity effects induced by a given heterogeneity source, consisting of the contribution from its own heterogeneity (i.e., the first-order index) and its interactions with other heterogeneity sources. ATM and LULC are the most dominant heterogeneity sources in determining spatial variability of water and energy partitioning, mainly contributed by their own heterogeneity and slightly contributed by their interactions with other heterogeneity sources. Their heterogeneity effects are complementary, both spatially and temporally. The overall impacts of SOIL and TOPO are negligible, except TOPO dominates the spatial variability of R/P across the transitional climate zone between the arid western and humid eastern CONUS. Accounting for more heterogeneity sources improves the simulated spatial variability of water and energy fluxes when compared with ERA5-Land reanalysis dataset. An additional set of 13 experiments identified the most critical components within each heterogeneity source, which are precipitation, temperature, and longwave radiation for ATM, soil texture, and soil color for SOIL and maximum fractional saturated area parameter for TOPO.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1988

Estimating water flow through a hillslope using the massively parallel processor

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

Devaney, Judy E.↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Heterotrophic respiration by soil microbes in a changing climate

Soil microbes strongly influence the soil organic carbon (SOC) pool, which globally stores ~2,000 PgC. Specifically, the balance between microbial heterotrophic respiration (R H ), which degrades SOC, and plant–microbe interactions that stabilize SOC determines whether terrestrial ecosystems are a net source or sink of CO 2 to the atmosphere. Here, in this Review, we evaluate how climate change alters these competing processes. R H is approximately half of total soil respiration, at ~50 PgC yr −1 , with 70% occurring in topsoils. Warming accelerates microbial metabolism, with a 10 °C temperature increase estimated to raise R H by ~50%, an effect that is particularly strong in Arctic soils. Warming also reduces soil moisture, further modulating R H , which responds nonlinearly to soil moisture, being limited by saturation and desiccation and meeting a maximum at intermediate levels. Consequently, R H is highly sensitive to future precipitation changes and drought. However, soil management strategies could enhance SOC stocks and persistence under climate change. Bacterial and fungal inoculants can promote SOC production and stabilization, while deep-rooting plants increase SOC inputs to deeper layers that experience lower R H . Agricultural practices and biochar amendments can also enhance SOC and reduce R H . Expanding field trials across regions, climates and soil types would improve empirical understanding of these responses and support better representation of R H in predictive models, enabling more accurate assessments of climate impacts on SOC storage.

Jansson, Janet K. [Pacific Northwest National Labo↗
NASA NTRS1993

Evaluation of a distributed catchment scale water balance model

The validity of some of the simplifying assumptions in a conceptual water balance model is investigated by comparing simulation results from the conceptual model with simulation results from a three-dimensional physically based numerical model and with field observations. We examine, in particular, assumptions and simplifications related to water table dynamics, vertical soil moisture and pressure head distributions, and subsurface flow contributions to stream discharge. The conceptual model relies on a topographic index to predict saturation excess runoff and on Philip's infiltration equation to predict infiltration excess runoff. The numerical model solves the three-dimensional Richards equation describing flow in variably saturated porous media, and handles seepage face boundaries, infiltration excess and saturation excess runoff production, and soil driven and atmosphere driven surface fluxes. The study catchments (a 7.2 sq km catchment and a 0.64 sq km subcatchment) are located in the North Appalachian ridge and valley region of eastern Pennsylvania. Hydrologic data collected during the MACHYDRO 90 field experiment are used to calibrate the models and to evaluate simulation results. It is found that water table dynamics as predicted by the conceptual model are close to the observations in a shallow water well and therefore, that a linear relationship between a topographic index and the local water table depth is found to be a reasonable assumption for catchment scale modeling. However, the hydraulic equilibrium assumption is not valid for the upper 100 cm layer of the unsaturated zone and a conceptual model that incorporates a root zone is suggested. Furthermore, theoretical subsurface flow characteristics from the conceptual model are found to be different from field observations, numerical simulation results, and theoretical baseflow recession characteristics based on Boussinesq's groundwater equation.

Troch, Peter A.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Estimation of soil hydraulic properties with microwave techniques

Useful quantitative information about soil properties may be obtained by calibrating energy and moisture balance models with remotely sensed data. A soil physics model solves heat and moisture flux equations in the soil profile and is driven by the surface energy balance. Model generated surface temperature and soil moisture and temperature profiles are then used in a microwave emission model to predict the soil brightness temperature. The model hydraulic parameters are varied until the predicted temperatures agree with the remotely sensed values. This method is used to estimate values for saturated hydraulic conductivity, saturated matrix potential, and a soil texture parameter. The conductivity agreed well with a value measured with an infiltration ring and the other parameters agreed with values in the literature.

Oneill, P. E.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Soil water content, matric potential, carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations, Oct 2018-Dec 2021, Slate River Floodplain, Crested Butte, Colorado

This data package includes a time series of soil sensor data (temperature, water content, bulk electrical conductivity, porewater dissolved oxygen and porewater dissolved carbon dioxide) in a vertical profile from the Slate River floodplain outside Crested Butte, Colorado, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? The package includes: (1) soil temperature, volumetric water content and electrical conductivity at 40, 60 and 82.5 cm depth; (2) soil matric potential at 40, 60, 79 and 100 cm depth; (3) soil CO2 concentrations at 40, 60 and 82.5 cm depth; and (4) soil oxygen concentrations at 60, 82.5, 100, 135, 170 and 182 cm depth. Both the carbon dioxide and oxygen sensors are optical sensors that can measure the partial pressure of oxygen in both saturated and unsaturated conditions. Unfortunately, soil CO2 in the profile is unexpectedly high and above the sensor calibration range (0-25,000 ppm). In addition, soil CO2 sensors failed within a year of deployment, so we only report CO2 data from 2019-2020.Within the data package, "FLMD.csv" describes file-level metadata and "dd.csv" defines column headers and universal terms across the dataset. The data package includes 4 "*data.csv" files, one for each calendar year in the dataset. Each "*data.csv" file has a corresponding "*_InstallationMethods.csv" file that describes the location, sensor model, sensor serial number and other metadata corresponding for each measured parameter. Because sensors have been added over time, not every sensor has data dating back to Oct 2018. Note that there is a data gap over winter 2019-2020 due to a power outage. While this repository currently only contains data through December 2021, the dataset will be updated as additional years are collected and processed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1990

The L-band PBMR measurements of surface soil moisture in FIFE

The NASA Langley Research Center's L-band pushbroom microwave radiometer (PBMR) aboard the NASA C-130 aircraft was used to map surface soil moisture at and around the Konza Prairie Natural Research Area in Kansas during the four intensive field campaigns of FIFE in May-October 1987. There was a total of 11 measurements was made when soils were known to be saturated. This measurement was used for the calibration of the vegetation effect on the microwave absorption. Based on this calibration, the data from other measurements on other days were inverted to generate the soil moisture maps. Good agreement was found when the estimated soil moisture values were compared to those independently measured on the ground at a number of widely separated locations. There was a slight bias between the estimated and measured values, the estimated soil moisture on the average being lower by about 1.8 percent. This small bias, however, was accounted for by the difference in time of the radiometric measurements and the soil moisture ground sampling.

Wang, James R.↗