Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ecohydrology”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Data and Scripts Associated with "Modeling Ecohydrological Responses of Vegetation to Urban Microclimates Using the E3SM Land Model"

This dataset supports the study of vegetation ecohydrological responses to urban microclimates using the land component of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (ELM) at four urban sites in Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. It includes the model inputs, simulation outputs, and associated scripts for running ELM simulations and analyzing the resulting data. The Model_Inputs folder includes static surface data, satellite-derived phenology (i.e., leaf area index), and atmospheric forcing data used to drive ELM simulations. Detailed descriptions of these datasets are provided in Section 2.3.2 of the associated manuscript. The Model_Outputs folder contains simulation results for the baseline, treatment, and ensemble experiments. Outputs from the baseline and treatment simulations are provided as raw ELM NetCDF files. Because the raw outputs from the 4,000-member ensemble are prohibitively large, the ensemble results are provided as summarized CSV files, which also serve as the source data for Figure 5 of the associated manuscript. The Scripts folder contains three components: E3SM, the core codebase of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM); elm-olmt, the Offline Land Model Testbed (OLMT) used to perform the simulations; and knoxville_elm, which contains the analysis scripts used to process model outputs and generate the figures and results presented in the associated manuscript. Additional information is provided in Scripts_readme.txt within the Scripts directory.

Lu, Xiaoman [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000306698780)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Ecohydrology of urban environments

Urban watersheds include a gradient of highly managed to unmanaged ecosystems that vary in vegetation cover, built and natural drainage systems, and impervious cover. A distinct difference to undeveloped ecosystems is the dominance of material and energy import and export, the disruption of natural catenae, the covariation of soils, terrain and canopy conditions. In this chapter, we discuss the distinct characteristics of urban ecohydrology compared to non-urban systems. We also investigate emergent principles of unmanaged watersheds that underscore the promotion of ecohydrological resilience, and the need to abstract and adapt these principles to support the goal-oriented restoration of impaired urban ecosystems.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Benchmarking soil moisture and its relationship to ecohydrologic variables in Earth System Models

Soil moisture (SM) is a key regulator of ecosystem biogeophysics, influencing plant water relations and land-atmosphere energy exchanges. We evaluate the representation of SM in 16 Earth System Models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) using the International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) framework, focusing on surface (0–5, 0–10 cm) and rootzone (0–100 cm) depths, as well as key ecohydrological variables like gross primary productivity (GPP), leaf area index (LAI), and evapotranspiration (ET), and their coupling. Models are benchmarked against multiple observational and assimilated datasets to assess both state variables and cross-variable relationships. Surface SM is generally well represented (r > 0.87), while rootzone SM variability is systematically overestimated (normalized standard deviation > 1). ET shows strong agreement with observations (r > 0.9), whereas GPP and LAI exhibit larger inter-model spread. Skill in individual variables does not guarantee realistic SM–ecohydrology coupling, which varies strongly across models and depends on the reference dataset. Köppen-based regional analyses reveal strong regime dependence, with several models performing well in Tropical and Temperate regions but degrading in Continental (high-latitude) zones. Across both global and regional benchmarks, models cluster by land surface framework, indicating that structural choices in soil hydrology and soil–plant coupling exert a first-order control on performance. These results provide process-relevant benchmarks and suggest that improving the representation of vertical soil structure, rooting depth distributions, and soil–plant hydraulic coupling will be central to advancing soil moisture realism in next-generation Earth system models.

CMIP6↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

BSEC ecohydrological and water quality fluxes from RHESSys Simulations in USGS gauged watersheds

Baltimore Environmental Social Collaborative (BSEC) Water and Water Quality Simulations from RHESSys Model The repository contains RHESSys (Tague & Band, 2004; source code) simulated ecohydrological and nutrient (nitrogen only) fluxes at daily, basin-average (RHESSys_basin_output) and monthly, grid (RHESSys_patch_output) levels. We currently simulated the following 8 watersheds in Baltimore: Dead Run Baisman Run Scotts Level Branch Moores Run Powder Mill Run Maidens Choice Run Stony Run The watershed boundaries of all studied watersheds are stored in Watershed_Boundary folder. Variables and their units are listed in the metadata. Spatial projection, NAD83 / UTM zone 18N (EPSG:26918) is used for patch-level, netCDF-format files. For more information, please contact Ruoyu Zhang (rz3jr@virginia.edu).

Baltimore MD↗
DOE OSTI2025

Ecohydrological controls on root and microbial respiration in the East River watershed of Colorado

The main objective of this project was to conduct exploratory work to quantify how snow and rain water inputs influence the CO2 coming from the soil surface (soil CO2 flux), and its plant and microbial sources, in the East River watershed, near Crested Butte, Colorado. Knowledge gained from this effort laid the groundwork for a more comprehensive (ongoing) follow-on grant that is using a combination of experiments, field observations, machine learning and simulation modeling to fully disentangle these relationships. New field measurements were made at four locations along an elevational transect on Snodgrass Mountain at Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. These sites were chosen to differ in total snowpack and water table depth, and included both deciduous (aspen) and evergreen (spruce/fir) forest types. We used automated measurements of soil CO2 concentrations to quantify the total soil CO2 flux, and the vertical CO2 production within the soil profile at each site. Isotope (radiocarbon, 14C) measurements determined how much of the CO2 emitted from the soil surface came from plant respiration (root metabolism) versus microbial respiration (decomposition of soil organic matter) sources. Supporting data on plant phenology and microbial dynamics provided context for the observed variation in respiration sources. This work was motivated by our overarching hypothesis that quantifying belowground plant and microbial processes separately, and how they are influenced by snow and rain inputs, is necessary for understanding and predicting how the East River watershed ecosystems will respond to future environmental change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Stormwater Storage and Retention Within an Urban Prairie Wetland Complex

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of flooding in the Great Lakes region. In many cities, flood-control infrastructure is insufficient to protect against future climate conditions. Consequently, there is increasing focus on stormwater storage provided by urban greenspace, such as wetlands and prairies, but the ecohydrological behavior of these ecosystems is not well understood when they are embedded within cities. To improve understanding of hydrological connectivity between urban areas and natural greenspaces, we deployed a sensor network in Gensburg Markham Prairie (GMP), a large intact prairie-wetland complex in south suburban Chicago. We used the resulting high-frequency time-series data to assess surface-subsurface hydrologic dynamics between upland and low-lying wetland areas, interactions between the prairie and surrounding environment, and stormwater storage provided by the prairie. Rapid infiltration within the prairie during and after storm events provides subsurface flow that stores considerable water, flattens storm hydrographs, and increases the wetland hydroperiod. Much of the stormwater input to GMP derives from the surrounding cityscape. Consequently, storage within the prairie-wetland system reduces and slows stormwater discharge to downstream urban communities. For a typical 5-year 24-hr storm with 10.9 cm of rain, GMP stores 77,100 m 3 , 64% greater than the estimated direct rainfall volume onto the prairie, yielding 30,000 m 3 of offsite stormwater storage. This improved understanding of ecohydrological dynamics in urban prairies and wetlands informs the design and implementation of green infrastructure to meet growing needs for stormwater management.

Rivera, Vivien Anne [Northwestern University, Evan↗
DOE OSTI2025

Patch-level chamber-based CH4 and CO2 flux measurements in freshwater and salt marshes of coastal Louisiana

This dataset contains chamber-based carbon dioxide and methane flux measurements from ecohydrological patches in two coastal wetlands in Louisiana (within the footprint of AmeriFlux sites US-LA2 and US-LA3). Measurements span four patches, two per wetland. At the freshwater marsh (US-LA2), patches were dominated by Sagittaria lancifolia or co-dominated by Sagittaria lancifolia and Typha latifolia. At the salt marsh site (US-LA3), patches were dominated by Spartina alterniflora or Juncus roemerianus. Flux measurements included (i) wetland surface-level measurements encompassing the entire soil-water-vegetation column and (ii) soil-water surface chamber measurements that excluded emergent vegetation. At US-LA3, open-water pools were common and were also measured as a patch type. With this data we aimed to assess differences in gas flux pathways within ecohydrological patches across different wetland types. Files can be read in any program or code typical of processing .csv file types. "PatchChambers_LA2LA3.csv" covers flux data from patch level chambers which includes bulk CO2/CH4 flux encompassing water, soil, and vegetation within each chamber. "Water_Soil_SurfaceChamber_LA2LA3.csv" has CO2/CH4 flux data from chambers measuring only the water-soil surface without the effects of vegetation. Metadata can be found in the similarly named files for each data sheet ("xxxx_md.csv").

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Estimating evapotranspiration from deciduous broadleaf forests by considering the effect of foliar litter

Forest litter cover significantly alters the ground surface resistance, which influences the water and energy transfer processes between the land surface and atmosphere. Penman-Monteith (PM) model is widely used to estimate land surface evapotranspiration (ET). However, it was shown to overestimate ET during the period when foliar litter covers the ground surface. Therefore, incorporating the effect of foliar litter on ground surface resistance can potentially improve ET estimates. Here, in this study, we proposed a foliar litter surface resistance model to describe the effect of litter cover on water vapor transport, then incorporated the litter surface resistance into the PM model (noted as PM-EL model). The performance of the PM-EL model was evaluated using observations from 18 deciduous broadleaf forest (DBF) flux sites across global FLUXNET2015 datasets. Results showed that: (1) both the PM model and the PM-EL model are most sensitive to ground surface resistance among resistance parameters; (2) the proposed litter resistance model is capable of describing the seasonal dynamic of litter in DBF ; (3) the PM-EL model, has been shown to improve ET estimates with the coefficient of determination increased by 8.5 %, the mean absolute error and relative root mean square error decreased by 22.1 % and 20.9 %, respectively. The study contributes to our understanding of the effect of litter cover on ET estimation and provides insights into forest ecohydrology and land surface mass and energy transfer processes.

Deciduous Broadleaf Forest↗
DOE OSTI2025

Remotely Sensed High‐Resolution Soil Moisture and Evapotranspiration: Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society

This paper reviews the current state of high‐resolution remotely sensed soil moisture (SM) and evapotranspiration (ET) products and modeling, and the coupling relationship between SM and ET. SM downscaling approaches for satellite passive microwave products leverage advances in artificial intelligence and high‐resolution remote sensing using visible, near‐infrared, thermal‐infrared, and synthetic aperture radar sensors. Remotely sensed ET continues to advance in spatiotemporal resolutions from MODIS to ECOSTRESS to Hydrosat and beyond. These advances enable a new understanding of bio‐geo‐physical controls and coupled feedback mechanisms between SM and ET reflecting the land cover and land use at field scale (3–30 m, daily). Still, the state‐of‐the‐science products have their challenges and limitations, which we detail across data, retrieval algorithms, and applications. We describe the roles of these data in advancing 10 application areas: drought assessment, food security, precision agriculture, soil salinization, wildfire modeling, dust monitoring, flood forecasting, urban water, energy, and ecosystem management, ecohydrology, and biodiversity conservation. We discuss that future scientific advancement should focus on developing open‐access, high‐resolution (3–30 m), sub‐daily SM and ET products, enabling the evaluation of hydrological processes at finer scales and revolutionizing the societal applications in data‐limited regions of the world, especially the Global South for socio‐economic development.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Impacts of Pasture Conversion to Sugarcane on Water Fluxes and Water Use Efficiency in the Southeastern US

The expansion of sugarcane (cane), a high-yielding perennial crop, will likely reshape the bioenergy landscape in the Southeastern US. However, its ecohydrological implications, particularly following conversion from grazed pastures, a dominant land use in the region, remain highly uncertain. We investigated the impact of cane expansion on evapotranspiration (ET) and its partitioning, and the mechanisms influencing both ET components and water use efficiency (WUE) across multiple scales and growth cycles in subtropical Florida. We combined eddy covariance, biometric measurements, and process-based stomatal conductance (g s ) models. ET was 1.7% lower in cane than in improved pasture (IMP) but exceeded that in semi-native pasture (SN) by 21%. Transpiration (T) followed a similar pattern, consistent with lower g s in cane relative to IMP. Cane had more conservative water use and greater sensitivity of g s to vapor pressure deficit (VPD) compared to IMP pasture, suggesting cane may be more tolerant of increasing atmospheric water demand. In contrast, SN showed lower g s and weaker stomatal sensitivity to VPD compared to cane, resulting in lower T. In cane, stomatal regulation and T varied across growth cycles, with stomata becoming less water conservative as stands matured, highlighting the importance of incorporating stand age-dependent stomatal regulation into hydrological models. Evaporation (E) was higher in cane than pastures (19%–26%), partially offsetting WUE gains. Cane exhibited higher intrinsic WUE (GPP/g s ; Gross Primary Productivity), ecosystem WUE (GPP/ET), and harvest WUE (harvest/ET) than both pasture types. Large-scale pasture-to-cane conversion could produce widely contrasting hydrological outcomes. The net regional impact will depend on the proportion of each pasture type converted and on cane's high g s sensitivity to VPD, which triggers tight stomatal regulation and conservative water use, both of which will become increasingly consequential under intensifying atmospheric water demand.

bioenergy↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE 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 OSTI2025

Stemflow Hydrodynamics

Stemflow hydrodynamics is the study of water movement along the exterior surface area of plants. Its primary goal is to describe water velocity and water depth along the stem surface area. Its significance in enriching the rhizosphere with water and nutrients is not in dispute. Yet, the hydrodynamics of stemflow have been entirely overlooked. This review seeks to fill this knowledge gap by drawing from thin film theories to seek outcomes at the tree scale. The depth‐averaged conservation equations of water and solute mass are derived at a point. These equations are then supplemented with the conservation of momentum that is required to describe water velocities or relations between water velocities and water depth. Relevant forces pertinent to momentum conservation are covered and include body forces (gravitational effects), surface forces (wall friction), line forces (surface tension), and inertial effects. The inclusion of surface tension opens new vistas into the richness and complexity of stemflow hydrodynamics. Flow instabilities such as fingering, pinching of water columns into droplets, accumulation of water within fissures due to surface tension and their sudden release are prime examples that link observed spatial patterns of stemflow fronts and morphological characteristics of the bark. Aggregating these effects at the tree‐ and storm‐ scales are featured using published experiments. The review discusses outstanding challenges pertaining to stemflow hydrodynamics, the use of dynamic similarity and 3D printing to enable the interplay between field studies and controlled laboratory experiments.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Sap Velocity Data for Urban Trees in Chicago, Illinois (2024-2025)

This dataset contains uncorrected sap velocity measurements using the heat ratio method (HRM) collected using ICT International SFM1x sensors at five urban sites in Chicago, Illinois, as part of the DOE CROCUS project. The data includes continuous monitoring of sap velocity from various tree species, including Maples (Acer spp.): Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), and Red Maple (Acer rubrum); Oaks (Quercus spp.): Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor); American Elm (Ulmus americana); Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos); Cottonwood (Populus deltoides); and Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) across Chicago State University (CSU), Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU), Northwestern University (NU), University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), and West Woodlawn "Blacks in Green" (BIG). These include both street trees and those in urban park locations. Measurements were collected at 15-20 minute intervals, depending on the sensor, and transmitted via Long Range Wide Area Network (LoRaWAN) protocols. The wireless data was collected by Sage Network (https://sagecontinuum.org/) nodes. The dataset includes sensor ID, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, tree species (common and scientific names), tree identification number, diameter at breast height (DBH in cm), uncorrected sap velocity measurements (cm/hr) from both inner and outer probes, and Sage Node identifiers so the data can be mapped to related variables such as air quality and wind speed that were collected on the Sage nodes. All timestamps are in local Chicago time (CDT/CST). Quality control flags are provided using a 3-bit binary system indicating physical range violations (< -10 or > 60 cm/hr), step spikes (absolute difference > 36 cm/hr), and stuck sensor conditions (> 10 consecutive identical values). These are raw data, not corrected for wood anatomy or species-specific characteristics. Data is provided in comma separated (CSV) format. This dataset is part of a larger collection of CROCUS environmental monitoring data, including linked datasets from Air Quality Transmitter (AQT) sensors, Weather Transmitter (WXT) sensors, and Multi-Function Research LoRaWAN (MFR) Nodes. DOIs for the supporting data are provided as part of this data package.

Chicago↗