Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “soil conductivity”

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 OSTI2024

Community Geothermal: Soil Conductivity, Borehole Design, Energy Models, and Load Data for a Residential System Development - Hinesburg, VT

This dataset contains materials from the Coalition for Community-Supported Affordable Geothermal Energy Systems (C2SAGES) project, which evaluated the techno-economic feasibility of a community geothermal system for a residential development in Hinesburg, VT. The dataset includes detailed soil conductivity test reports, energy models, borehole design reports, hourly energy loads for heating, cooling, and hot water, and design layouts. EnergyPlus was used to model building energy loads, and Modelica software was applied for geothermal loop sizing based on these loads and soil conductivity results. Python scripts for network design further refined the models. Key files include PDF reports on borehole design (with projections for 1-year, 15-year, and 30-year systems), soil conductivity test results, EnergyPlus modeling outputs, and 2D/3D design drawings in PDF, DWG, and DXF formats. Python notebooks for network design and OnePipe model files are also provided, with Modelica required for viewing certain files. Outputs and modeling data are in various formats including CSV, JPG, HTML, and IDF, with units and data clearly labeled to support understanding of system design and performance for the proposed geothermal solution.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data for Regier et al. (2025), "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest"

Rising sea levels and intensifying storms increase flooding pressure on coastal forests, but the mechanisms that drive coastal forest mortality remain unclear. This study used an ecosystem-scale manipulation (TEMPEST, Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments) to simulate hurricane-level flooding of a coastal forest and explore the individual and interactive impacts of inundation and salinity. This dataset comprises the results reported by Regier et al. (2025) in their paper "Short-term experimental flooding impacts soil biogeochemistry but not aboveground vegetation in a coastal forest." It consists of measurements of:- Belowground conductance- Soil dissolved oxygen and redox- Soil and tree greenhouse gas fluxes- Leaf photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and intercellular carbon dioxide- Sap flux- Soil volumetric water content and electrical conductivityAll files are plain-text CSV (comma separated value) and no special software is required to read them.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

A hybrid Penman-Monteith and machine learning model for simulating evapotranspiration and its components

Integrating physical processes with machine learning has advanced evapotranspiration (ET) simulation, yet most hybrid models fail to partition total ET into its components: soil evaporation (E) and vegetation transpiration (T). This study introduces Residual Neural Network–Penman–Monteith (RNN-PM), a novel hybrid dual-source ET model designed to overcome this limitation. The model synergizes the physically-based Penman–Monteith framework with three specialized residual neural networks trained to estimate key conductance parameters (canopy conductance, soil surface conductance, and aerodynamic conductance). Furthermore this explicit parameterization allows for the direct partitioning of total ET. Validation at National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) flux sites using high-frequency partitioned E and T shows that RNN-PM reliably reproduces ET and the transpiration fraction (T/ET). For ET, the model achieves an average Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) of 0.89 and a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.55 mm/day; for T/ET, the KGE is 0.87 with an RMSE of 0.06. Furthermore, RNN-PM demonstrates robust generalization, accurately simulating ET and its components well beyond the initial training dataset, even under extreme climatic conditions. This study extended the analysis by comparing the RNN-PM model with seven established dual-source ET models. The results indicate that RNN-PM outperforms both conventional machine learning models and purely physical process-based models in simulating ET components in most cases. Among the purely physical process-based dual-source models, those based on surface temperature decomposition showed improved performance as the leaf area index (LAI) decreased when evaluated against high-frequency ET component datasets. In contrast, the performance of conductance-based dual-source models declined with decreasing LAI. Although purely machine learning-based models can produce relatively accurate simulations of ET components, they often exhibit limited generalization capability, an issue that the RNN-PM model effectively overcomes. Ultimately, the RNN-PM model represents a significant advance in simulating ET components, offering a novel and scalable approach for improving the representation of land–atmosphere interactions in Earth system models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Within‐field soil moisture variability and time‐invariant spatial structures of agricultural fields in the US Midwest

Abstract Understanding soil moisture variability and estimating high‐resolution soil moisture at subfield to field scales is critical for agricultural research and applications. However, systematic investigation of subfield scale soil moisture variability over cropland is still lacking from both measurement and satellite remote sensing. In this study, we aim to investigate (1) the characteristics of within‐field soil moisture distribution over typical cropland in the US Midwest and (2) the capabilities of satellite remote sensing in capturing the spatiotemporal variabilities of soil moisture at subfield scale. Specifically, we conducted soil moisture field experiments in three typical commercial agricultural fields (∼85 acres per field) in central Illinois, representing typical commercial farmlands in the US Midwest, and compared the soil moisture measurements with satellite remote sensing data from optical and active microwave sensors. In each field, dense soil moisture samples (spaced at 50–60 m) were obtained for two dry down events in May and July 2021, and multiple long‐term soil moisture stations were installed. We found prominent time‐invariant spatial structures of soil moisture at within‐field scales both during the dry down period and over longer time scales, and the stability is minimally affected by plant water use during the growing season. Comparing the field campaign measurements with satellite remote sensing data, we found that surface reflectance of shortwave infrared bands, such as SWIR1 (1610 nm) from Sentinel‐2, can capture relative surface soil moisture patterns at within‐field scales, but their relationships with soil moisture are field specific. These findings and the improved understanding of within‐field soil moisture dynamics could potentially help future research on high‐resolution soil moisture estimation with multi‐source remote sensing data.

Yang, Yi↗
DOE OSTI2023

How does Mercury Methylation Respond to Intensive Forest Management and the Creation of Anoxia in Floodplain Soils

This research endeavor, entitled “How does Mercury Methylation Respond to Intensive Forest Management and the Creation of Anoxia in Floodplain Soils?” represents a collaborative effort undertaken by the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, led by Principal Investigator Dr. James S. Coleman, the United States Forest Service Santee Experimental Forest (SEF) Station Director Dr. Carl C. Trettin as Co-Principal Investigator, and The Chinese University of Hong Kong Dr. Martin Tsz-Ki Tsui and Dr. Alex T. Chow serving as Co-Principal Investigators. The overarching objective of this proposed project was to capture and elucidate the immediate and short-term effects of forest disturbances, namely clear-cutting and thinning, on the biogeochemical cycling of mercury (Hg) within the SEF in Huger, South Carolina. To accomplish this objective, a two-year exploratory study was proposed to conduct soil sampling and measurements of Hg and toxic methylmercury (MeHg), and soil physiochemical data within the experimental watershed (WS77) at SEF, following the clear-cutting process initiated for the preparation of the native longleaf pine restoration project by the USFS. Based on our mercury and hydrological data assessment, we concluded that the implementation of forest management practices, particularly mechanical thinning and clear-cutting, appears to enhance the potential for Hg methylation. Furthermore, these forest management practices may disrupt and alter the storage, mobility, and transformations of atmospherically deposited Hg in these lowland forests. We advocate for further research to comprehensively evaluate the impact of forest management on Hg cycling within forest ecosystems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Underwater unexploded ordnance discrimination based on intrinsic target polarizabilities – A case study

Seabed unexploded ordnance that resulted partly from the high failure rate among munitions from more than 80 years ago and from decades of military training and testing of weapons systems poses an increasing concern all around the world. Although existing magnetic systems can detect clusters of debris, they are not able to tell whether a munition is still intact requiring special removal (e.g. in situ detonation) or is harmless scrap metal. The marine environment poses unique challenges, and transferring knowledge and approaches from land to a marine environment has not been easy and straightforward. On land, the background soil conductivity is much lower than the conductivity of the unexploded ordnance and the electromagnetic response of a target is essentially the same as that in free space. For those frequencies required for target characterization in the marine environment, the seawater response must be accounted for and removed from the measurements. The system developed for this study uses fields from three orthogonal transmitters to illuminate the target and four three-component receivers to measure the signal arranged in a configuration that inherently cancels the system's response due to the enclosing seawater, the sea–bottom interface and the air–sea interface for shallow deployments. The system was tested as a cued system on land and underwater in San Francisco Bay – it was mounted on a simple platform on top of a support structure that extended 1 m below and allowed the diver to place metal objects to a specific location even in low-visibility conditions. The measurements were stable and repeatable. Furthermore, target responses estimated from marine measurements matched those from land acquisition, confirming that the seawater and air–sea interface responses were removed successfully. Thirty-six channels of normalized induction responses were used for the classification, which was done by estimating the target principal dipole polarizabilities. Our results demonstrated that the system can resolve the intrinsic polarizabilities of the target, with clear distinctions between those of symmetric intact unexploded ordnance and irregular scrap metal. The prototype system was able to classify an object based on its size, shape and metal content and correctly estimate its location and orientation.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2024

Spread Spectrum Time Domain Reflectivity for String Monitoring in PV Power Plants (Final Technical Report)

This final report describes the methods and results of applying Spread Spectrum Time Domain Reflectivity (SSTDR) for String Monitoring in PV Power Plants for DE-EE0008169. The project created a new system for both detecting and locating electrical faults in photovoltaic systems. In this work, we address photovoltaic electric faults that are both common and costly. Based on interviews with photovoltaic power plant owners, operators, and maintainers, three types of faults are common and of significant interest: disconnects, ground faults, and arc faults. Disconnects can originate from many sources. They are often due to everyday events, such as lawnmowing (accidentally running over a cable), animals eating through the cables, or degradation that occurs over time due to corrosion or general degradation. Ground faults occur when the cables (for example, due to frayed insolation) connect to the ground, relaying current into the ground. These faults are particularly problematic since the ground faults are often intermittent. That is, ground faults commonly appear during rain storms due to a change in soil conductivity and then disappear when the rain ends. This makes the ground fault difficult to find because while current systems can detect the overall change in voltage and current associated with a ground fault, technicians are necessary to locate the fault. As a result, ground faults may disappear before the technician arrives at the power plant. Hence, locating and fixing ground faults often require multiple trips. We also study arc faults, which can result when nearby conductors create an arc of electrical current through the air. While less common, arc faults can be extremely dangerous. The energetic electrical arc can cause fires and destroy equipment, costing significant damage. Overall all three types of faults cost owners and operators money, either from the destruction of equipment or from technician time. Furthermore, while devices exist for detecting ground faults (ground fault circuit interrupters) and arc faults (arc fault circuit interrupter), these systems only search patterns of electrical current that correspond to each fault. This information cannot be used to locate the fault. In addition, these protection systems experience nuisance trips due to nearby electromagnetic interference, such as from a lawn mower or other motors that produce significant amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Hence, the overall goal of this project is to create an SSTDR tool that provides photovoltaic power plants with more reliable fault detection in addition to the localization of faults. SSTDR works by transmitting electrical signals into the photovoltaic string. Those signals reflect from impedance discontinuities (i.e., disconnects, ground faults, and arc faults). These faults are then detected by measuring the presence of a reflection at the SSTDR and can be located by identifying the location of that reflection in time. In addition, unlike current protection systems, these systems do not experience nuisance trips since their low amplitude, high frequency, and coded signal can by analyzed without interference from the regular operational voltage on the photovoltaic string.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Impacts of Legacy and Contemporary Nitrogen Inputs on N2O and CO2 Emissions in Miscanthus and Maize Cultivated Soils

Nutrient inputs influence the sustainability of bioenergy crop production through contemporary (shortly after addition) and legacy effects (persisting over years) on microbial nitrogen (N) and carbon cycling, which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. However, the relative importance of contemporary and legacy effects and how that could vary by crop functional types is poorly understood. Considering its rhizomatous roots and perennial growth, we hypothesized that Miscanthus × giganteu s ( M × g ) would be more sensitive to legacy N fertilization and the historical context of its environment than an annual crop like maize. To test this hypothesis, we examined the effects of legacy and contemporary N inputs on nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as well as key N cycling genes in soils where M × g and maize were grown. A 150-day soil incubation experiment was conducted using soils from a long-term M × g and maize fertility experiment with three historic N fertilization rates (0, 112, and 336 kg N ha−1 year−1) and a contemporary amendment (60 mg N kg−1) with negative control (0 mg N kg−1). We observed significant increases in cumulative N2O emissions in M × g soils relative to maize soils, particularly at higher legacy fertilization rates, while contemporary N had no significant effect. Bacterial amoA gene abundance, which plays a significant role in nitrification in nutrient-rich soils, also increased with higher legacy fertilization rates in M × g soils but was unaffected by the contemporary N. In maize soils, legacy and contemporary N did not significantly affect N2O emissions, but cumulative CO2 emissions and amoA gene abundance significantly increased. The abundances of norB genes were not significantly influenced by either legacy fertilization or contemporary N amendments in either soil. Our findings demonstrate the greater importance of fertilization history over contemporary N in mediating soil N2O emissions, particularly for perennial bioenergy crops.

Carbon↗
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 OSTI2024

Learning Constitutive Relations From Soil Moisture Data via Physically Constrained Neural Networks

Abstract The constitutive relations of the Richardson‐Richards equation encode the macroscopic properties of soil water retention and conductivity. These soil hydraulic functions are commonly represented by models with a handful of parameters. The limited degrees of freedom of such soil hydraulic models constrain our ability to extract soil hydraulic properties from soil moisture data via inverse modeling. We present a new free‐form approach to learning the constitutive relations using physically constrained neural networks. We implemented the inverse modeling framework in a differentiable modeling framework, JAX, to ensure scalability and extensibility. For efficient gradient computations, we implemented implicit differentiation through a nonlinear solver for the Richardson‐Richards equation. We tested the framework against synthetic noisy data and demonstrated its robustness against varying magnitudes of noise and degrees of freedom of the neural networks. We applied the framework to soil moisture data from an upward infiltration experiment and demonstrated that the neural network‐based approach was better fitted to the experimental data than a parametric model and that the framework can learn the constitutive relations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Impacts of Legacy and Contemporary Nitrogen Inputs on N 2 O and CO 2 Emissions in Miscanthus and Maize Cultivated Soils

ABSTRACT Nutrient inputs influence the sustainability of bioenergy crop production through contemporary (shortly after addition) and legacy effects (persisting over years) on microbial nitrogen (N) and carbon cycling, which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. However, the relative importance of contemporary and legacy effects and how that could vary by crop functional types is poorly understood. Considering its rhizomatous roots and perennial growth, we hypothesized that Miscanthus × giganteus (M×g) would be more sensitive to legacy N fertilization and the historical context of its environment than an annual crop like maize. To test this hypothesis, we examined the effects of legacy and contemporary N inputs on nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, as well as key N cycling genes in soils where M×g and maize were grown. A 150‐day soil incubation experiment was conducted using soils from a long‐term M×g and maize fertility experiment with three historic N fertilization rates (0, 112, and 336 kg N ha −1 year −1 ) and a contemporary amendment (60 mg N kg −1 ) with negative control (0 mg N kg −1 ). We observed significant increases in cumulative N 2 O emissions in Mxg soils relative to maize soils, particularly at higher legacy fertilization rates, while contemporary N had no significant effect. Bacterial amo A gene abundance, which plays a significant role in nitrification in nutrient‐rich soils, also increased with higher legacy fertilization rates in M×g soils but was unaffected by the contemporary N. In maize soils, legacy and contemporary N did not significantly affect N 2 O emissions, but cumulative CO 2 emissions and amo A gene abundance significantly increased. The abundances of nor B genes were not significantly influenced by either legacy fertilization or contemporary N amendments in either soil. Our findings demonstrate the greater importance of fertilization history over contemporary N in mediating soil N 2 O emissions, particularly for perennial bioenergy crops.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

germs-lab/PAPER_miscanthus_soil_response

Nutrient inputs influence the sustainability of bioenergy crop production through contemporary (shortly after addition) and legacy effects (persisting over years) on microbial nitrogen (N) and carbon cycling, which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. However, the relative importance of contemporary and legacy effects and how that could vary by crop functional types is poorly understood. Considering its rhizomatous roots and perennial growth, we hypothesized that Miscanthus × giganteus (M×g) would be more sensitive to legacy N fertilization and the historical context of its environment than an annual crop like maize. To test this hypothesis, we examined the effects of legacy and contemporary N inputs on nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as well as key N cycling genes in soils where M×g and maize were grown. A 150-day soil incubation experiment was conducted using soils from a long-term M×g and maize fertility experiment with three historic N fertilization rates (0, 112, and 336 kg N ha−1 year−1) and a contemporary amendment (60 mg N kg−1) with negative control (0 mg N kg−1). We observed significant increases in cumulative N2O emissions in Mxg soils relative to maize soils, particularly at higher legacy fertilization rates, while contemporary N had no significant effect. Bacterial amoA gene abundance, which plays a significant role in nitrification in nutrient-rich soils, also increased with higher legacy fertilization rates in M×g soils but was unaffected by the contemporary N. In maize soils, legacy and contemporary N did not significantly affect N2O emissions, but cumulative CO2 emissions and amoA gene abundance significantly increased. The abundances of norB genes were not significantly influenced by either legacy fertilization or contemporary N amendments in either soil. Our findings demonstrate the greater importance of fertilization history over contemporary N in mediating soil N2O emissions, particularly for perennial bioenergy crops.

Lee, Jaejin↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil Moisture Data for TRACER project (Houston, TX)

The purpose of this study was to collect and distribute ground-truth soil water content and meteorological data in the Houston, TX, area, supporting the Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility, and the 2022 field campaign for the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions ExpeRiment (TRACER). The files herein contain soil water content and meteorological data for three stations that the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT Austin installed in the Houston, TX, area during the period of performance. The data includes soil moisture, volumetric water content, electrical conductivity of soil, soil temperature, rain precipitation, air temperature and other parameters. Data files within this data set contain measurements at both sub-hourly and 1-hour resolution measurements. The sub-hourly meteorological data file names end with “TRACER_SubHourly_met.dat”, and the sub-hourly soil data files end with “TRACER_SubHourly_soil.dat”. For the 1-hour resolution data, the files ending with "_Soil_flagged.dat” contain mean hourly volumetric soil water content and temperature measured at 5, 10, 20 and 50 cm depths. The files ending with “_Meteoro_flagged.dat” contain mean hourly measured precipitation, air temperature and humidity, wind speed and direction, and solar radiation. All data have undergone QA/QC procedures that are described by Caldwell et al. (2019) and Dorigo et al. (2013) for the soil-specific data, and EPA (2008) for the meteorological data.

Air temperature↗
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 OSTI2024

Induced Polarization of Clayey Rocks and Soils: Non‐Linear Complex Conductivity Models

Abstract The past decades have witnessed the increased applications of induced polarization (IP) method in the critical zone studies with ubiquitous clay minerals. Although IP outperforms traditional electrical and electromagnetic methods through its unique ability to measure quadrature conductivity, the nonlinearity that quadrature conductivity behaves with salinities and frequencies greatly tortures IP practitioners, as (a) salinity‐dependency makes the quadrature conductivity a varyingly unstable parameter to quantitatively estimate hydraulic properties and clay content; (b) frequency‐dependent Cole‐Cole and Debye/Warburg decomposition models, although mathematically sound, physically mingle the properties of pore water and clay minerals and are empirical in nature. From basic principles, we demonstrate that quadrature conductivity remains a hybrid property involving both clay and water, and develop relevant models to distinguish them. Our models are validated by theories, experiments, simulations, and comparisons, all of which proclaim considerable advantages over previous models and offer the prospect of quantitative applications.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

COMPASS-FME Synoptic Sites Level 1 Sensor Data v1-2

This is the version 1-2 Level 1 (L1) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our synoptic field sites. COMPASS-FME is studying sites in two distinct regions, the Chesapeake Bay and the Western Lake Erie Basin. We established the network at seven "synoptic" (observational) sites along the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie coastlines, collectively generating over three million observations per month, to track and comprehend environmental changes where land and water intersect. Additionally, the two regions provide an interesting contrast of saltwater and freshwater coasts that allow us to differentiate the impacts of inundation and coastal water chemistries in two nationally important coastal systems.L1 data are close to raw, but are units-transformed and have out-of-instrument-bounds and out-of-service flags added. Duplicates and missing data are removed but otherwise these data are not filtered, and have not been subject to any additional algorithmic or human QA/QC. Any scientific analyses of L1 data should be performed with care. **This dataset will be updated quarterly with new data for the duration of the project**This dataset includes:- An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc.- Site- and year-specific folders, each holding up to 12 CSV (comma separated value) data files for each site and plot in that year.- Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, as well as a general description of the site.- Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are normally logged every 15 minutes. Please see v1-2 Synoptic L1 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗