Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “water potential”

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 OSTI2022

Confronting the water potential information gap

Water potential directly controls the function of leaves, roots and microbes, and gradients in water potential drive water flows throughout the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. Notwithstanding its clear relevance for many ecosystem processes, soil water potential is rarely measured in situ, and plant water potential observations are generally discrete, sparse, and not yet aggregated into accessible databases. These gaps limit our conceptual understanding of biophysical responses to moisture stress and inject large uncertainty into hydrologic and land-surface models. Here, we outline the conceptual and predictive gains that could be made with more continuous and discoverable observations of water potential in soils and plants. We discuss improvements to sensor technologies that facilitate in situ characterization of water potential, as well as strategies for building new networks that aggregate water potential data across sites. Here, we end by highlighting novel opportunities for linking more representative site-level observations of water potential to remotely sensed proxies. Together, these considerations offer a road map for clearer links between ecohydrological processes and the water potential gradients that have the ‘potential’ to substantially reduce conceptual and modelling uncertainties.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Quantifying the drivers of ecosystem fluxes and water potential across the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum in an arid woodland

Dryland ecosystems occupy a vast swath of the terrestrial land surface and exert a sizeable impact on the cycling of carbon and water globally. These biomes are characterized by tightly coupled carbon and water cycles that respond rapidly to transient pulses in water availability. However, there exist many mechanistic uncertainties regarding the environmental drivers of, and linkages between, plant and ecosystem processes. Thus, drylands are often poorly represented in many vegetation and land surface models. An enhanced understanding of dryland ecosystem function is limited by the lack of long-term, co-located, and frequent measurements of plant and ecosystem processes. At a piñon-juniper woodland in southeastern Utah, USA, we collected a continuous dataset of meteorological conditions, soil water potential from surface to bedrock, tree water potential, and ecosystem carbon and water fluxes from eddy covariance. We found that predawn and midday tree water potential and daily ecosystem fluxes were highly sensitive to fluctuations in soil water availability, particularly in shallower layers, and that daytime variability in atmospheric drivers only loosely controlled these processes. The strong connections between shallow soil water potential, tree water potential, and ecosystem fluxes occurred because of the dominant role of precipitation pulses in driving vegetation activity, as even small pulses of moisture stimulated shallow soil water potential, tree water potential, and evapotranspiration for between 1 and 2 weeks. Carbon fluxes (net ecosystem exchange and gross primary productivity) were sensitive to precipitation pulses for longer, up to 3 weeks. Our results highlight that improved monitoring and sensing of shallow soil moisture can greatly enhance our understanding of dryland ecosystem function. Here, a better mechanistic understanding of the impacts of precipitation pulses is also needed to improve vegetation modeling of dryland ecosystems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

PSInet: a new global water potential network

Abstract Given the pressing challenges posed by climate change, it is crucial to develop a deeper understanding of the impacts of escalating drought and heat stress on terrestrial ecosystems and the vital services they offer. Soil and plant water potential play a pivotal role in governing the dynamics of water within ecosystems and exert direct control over plant function and mortality risk during periods of ecological stress. However, existing observations of water potential suffer from significant limitations, including their sporadic and discontinuous nature, inconsistent representation of relevant spatio-temporal scales and numerous methodological challenges. These limitations hinder the comprehensive and synthetic research needed to enhance our conceptual understanding and predictive models of plant function and survival under limited moisture availability. In this article, we present PSInet (PSI—for the Greek letter Ψ used to denote water potential), a novel collaborative network of researchers and data, designed to bridge the current critical information gap in water potential data. The primary objectives of PSInet are as follows. (i) Establishing the first openly accessible global database for time series of plant and soil water potential measurements, while providing important linkages with other relevant observation networks. (ii) Fostering an inclusive and diverse collaborative environment for all scientists studying water potential in various stages of their careers. (iii) Standardizing methodologies, processing and interpretation of water potential data through the engagement of a global community of scientists, facilitated by the dissemination of standardized protocols, best practices and early career training opportunities. (iv) Facilitating the use of the PSInet database for synthesizing knowledge and addressing prominent gaps in our understanding of plants’ physiological responses to various environmental stressors. The PSInet initiative is integral to meeting the fundamental research challenge of discerning which plant species will thrive and which will be vulnerable in a world undergoing rapid warming and increasing aridification.

Forestry↗
DOE OSTI2023

Panama leaf water potential census 2015-2019

This dataset contains values of leaf water potential from a monthly census of predawn and midday measurements conducted on nine trees in each of two sites in Panama from December 2015 to July 2019. The dataset includes individual measurements that were made with a pressure chamber. The measurements were made on the focal trees to complement concurrent measurements of sap flow. The trees were also intensively measured for leaf-level physiological condition during the 2016 ENSO campaign conducted by NGEE-tropics. A subset of measurements was made on leaves that were sealed in plastic bags and protected from solar radiation before they were collected, such that the measurements assessed branch water potential. The dataset contains a csv file that has columns for the time, location, and value of each measurement. The dataset also contains a metadata file, column description file, and an E-Field log file in the recommended NGEE-Tropic formats.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Dynamic regulation of water potential in Juniperus osteosperma mediates ecosystem carbon fluxes

Summary Some plants exhibit dynamic hydraulic regulation, in which the strictness of hydraulic regulation (i.e. iso/anisohydry) changes in response to environmental conditions. However, the environmental controls over iso/anisohydry and the implications of flexible hydraulic regulation for plant productivity remain unknown. InJuniperus osteosperma, a drought‐resistant dryland conifer, we collected a 5‐month growing season time series ofin situ, high temporal‐resolution plant water potential () and stand gross primary productivity (GPP). We quantified the stringency of hydraulic regulation associated with environmental covariates and evaluated how predawn water potential contributes to empirically predicting carbon uptake. Juniperus osteospermashowed less stringent hydraulic regulation (more anisohydric) after monsoon precipitation pulses, when soil moisture and atmospheric demand were high, and corresponded with GPP pulses. Predawn water potential matched the timing of GPP fluxes and improved estimates of GPP more strongly than soil and/or atmospheric moisture, notably resolving GPP underestimation before vegetation green‐up. Flexible hydraulic regulation appears to allowJ. osteospermato prolong soil water extraction and, therefore, the period of high carbon uptake following monsoon precipitation pulses. Water potential and its dynamic regulation may account for why process‐based and empirical models commonly underestimate the magnitude and temporal variability of dryland GPP.

Plant Sciences↗
DOE OSTI2022

Leaf water potential, Feb2016-May2016, PA-SLZ, PA-PNM, PA-BCI: Panama

This data package contains leaf water potential data from the Barro Colorado Island (BCI), Parque Natural Metropolitano (PNM), and Bosque Protector San Lorenzo (SLZ) NGEE Tropics field sites in Panama. Pre-dawn and diurnal leaf water potential were measured on a monthly basis from February to May 2016 at SLZ and PNM. Data from BCI are only available for the month of March. This data was collected as part of the 2016 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) campaign. Included in the attached zip file are data and metadata folders. The single data file "2016ENSO_Panama_LWP" has been provided in both Excel and CSV formats for usability purposes. The metadata file "Metadata_description_2016_ENSO_Panama" provides protocols, site descriptions, equipment information, and more, and has been provided in .docx and PDF file formats. See related datasets (existing and future) for further sample details, leaf spectra, leaf mass area (LMA), gas exchange and leaf chemistry data. VERSION 2 update. The identification of a species from the PNM site has been corrected as follows: the identification of the tree initially identified as Pseudosamanea guachapele (ALBIED) has been revised to Albizia adinocephala (ALBIAD). The updated data package includes revised data, metadata and protocol documents updated to reflect this change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Leaf water potential measurements using the pressure chamber: Synthetic testing of assumptions towards best practices for precision and accuracy

Leaf water potential (ψ leaf ), typically measured using the pressure chamber, is the most important metric of plant water status, providing high theoretical value and information content for multiple applications in quantifying critical physiological processes including drought responses. Pressure chamber measurements of ψ leaf (ψ leafPC ) are most typical, yet, the practical complexity of the technique and of the underlying theory has led to ambiguous understanding of the conditions to optimize measurements. Consequently, specific techniques and precautions diversified across the global research community, raising questions of reliability and repeatability. Here, we surveyed specific methods of ψ leafPC from multiple laboratories, and synthesized experiments testing common assumptions and practices in ψ leafPC for diverse species: (i) the need for equilibration of previously transpiring leaves; (ii) leaf storage before measurement; (iii) the equilibration of ψ leaf for leaves on bagged branches of a range of dehydration; (iv) the equilibration of ψ leaf across the lamina for bagged leaves, and the accuracy of measuring leaves with artificially ‘elongated petioles’; (v) the need in ψ leaf measurements for bagging leaves and high humidity within the chamber; (vi) the need to avoid liquid water on leaf surfaces; (vii) the use of ‘pulse’ pressurization versus gradual pressurization; and (viii) variation among experimenters in ψ leafPC determination. Based on our findings we provide a best practice protocol to maximise accuracy, and provide recommendations for ongoing species-specific tests of important assumptions in future studies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Pre-dawn leaf water potential, San Lorenzo, Panama, 2020

This data package contains predawn leaf water potential (LWP) data for leaves sampled in the San Lorenzo forest canopy crane site in Panama (PA-SLZ) from January to March 2020. Data were collected from 31 species, from top of canopy and vertical profiles within the canopy. All data and metadata are presented in .csv files. The protocol details are provided as *.pdf. See related data packages from the BNL 2020 field campaign for leaf optical properties and gas exchange measurements. Sample information including canopy elevation and leaf area index (LAI) can be found in the related “Leaf and canopy traits” data package.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Irrigation Infrastructure and Modernization – Setting a Baseline: Estimates of Irrigation Water Conveyance Infrastructure Extents and Composition and the Potential Water, Energy, and Economic Benefits of Modernization in the Western U.S.

In the Western United States (U.S.), water delivery for irrigation is still largely managed using century-old equipment and designs. Modernization of this vital water conveyance infrastructure, such as piping of earthen canals, is known to improve water availability and water quality for farmers, while saving energy and enabling new hydropower. However, there is sparse information about the extent of irrigation water delivery infrastructure, which makes it challenging to estimate the cost of upgrades at scale and the potential benefits of accelerating modernization work. This report estimates a variety of previously unquantified data points related to irrigation water delivery infrastructure in the Western U.S. to support stakeholders interested in nationwide modernization planning. The findings should be considered approximations, useful for understanding the scale, range, or variability of these indicators. Taken together, the findings of this report illustrate some of the challenges and opportunities involved in modernizing the agricultural water delivery infrastructure in the Western U.S. Accelerating the pace of modernization could strengthen the long-term resilience of U.S. food systems while providing significant economic, energy, water, and environmental benefits.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Leaf gas exchange, leaf water potential and spectral reflectance, BIONTE, Brazil, 2023

Leaf traits measured at the top of the canopy on 30 tree species in the BIONTE experimental forest, near Manaus, Brazil, at three time points during August to November, 2023. The aim of this study was to test the relationship between leaf water use efficiency and wood density. Leaf gas exchange was measured on top-of-canopy leaves accessed by an articulated boom lift. Response curves (A-Ci and A-Q), and dark adapted respiration were measured on cut branches. Survey gas exchange measurements were performed on attached leaves at various times during the day. Following gas exchange, leaves were harvested, and measured for leaf water potential and spectral reflectance. Data in this data package is presented in csv files, with metadata in csv and descriptive experimental protocols as pdf. Gas exchange data and metadata meets the requirements of the ESS-DIVE reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Polarizable Water Potential Derived from a Model Electron Density

A new empirical potential for efficient, large scale molecular dynamics simulation of water is presented. The HIPPO (Hydrogen-like Intermolecular Polarizable POtential) force field is based upon the model electron density of a hydrogen-like atom. This framework is used to derive and parametrize individual terms describing charge penetration damped permanent electrostatics, damped polarization, charge transfer, anisotropic Pauli repulsion, and damped dispersion interactions. Initial parameter values were fit to Symmetry Adapted Perturbation Theory (SAPT) energy components for ten water dimer configurations, as well as the radial and angular dependence of the canonical dimer. The SAPT-based parameters were then systematically refined to extend the treatment to water bulk phases. The final HIPPO water model provides a balanced representation of a wide variety of properties of gas phase clusters, liquid water, and ice polymorphs, across a range of temperatures and pressures. This water potential yields a rationalization of water structure, dynamics, and thermodynamics explicitly correlated with an ab initio energy decomposition, while providing a level of accuracy comparable or superior to previous polarizable atomic multipole force fields. The HIPPO water model serves as a cornerstone around which similarly detailed physics-based models can be developed for additional molecular species.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Transferable Water Potentials Using Equivariant Neural Networks

Machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) have emerged as a technique that promises quantum theory accuracy for reduced cost. It has been proposed [J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 158, 084111] that MLIPs trained on solely liquid water data cannot accurately transfer to the vapor–liquid equilibrium while recovering the many-body decomposition (MBD) analysis of gas-phase water clusters. This suggests that MLIPs do not directly learn the physically correct interactions of water molecules, limiting transferability. In this work, we show that MLIPs using equivariant architecture and trained on 3200 liquid water structures reproduces liquid-phase water properties (e.g., density within 0.003 g/cm 3 between 230 and 365 K), vapor–liquid equilibrium properties up to 550 K, the MBD analysis of gas-phase water cluster up to six-body interactions, and the relative energy and the vibrational density of states of ice phases. We show that potentials developed using equivariant MLIPs allow transferability for arbitrary phases of water that remain stable in nanosecond long simulations.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2021

Plant functional types broadly describe water use strategies in the Caatinga, a seasonally dry tropical forest in northeast Brazil

In seasonally dry tropical forests, plant functional type can be classified as deciduous low wood density, deciduous high wood density, or evergreen high wood density species. While deciduousness is often associated with drought-avoidance and low wood density is often associated with tissue water storage, the degree to which these functional types may correspond to diverging and unique water use strategies has not been extensively tested. We examined (a) tolerance to water stress, measured by predawn and mid-day leaf water potential; (b) water use efficiency, measured via foliar δ 13 C; and (c) access to soil water, measured via stem water δ 18 O. We found that deciduous low wood density species maintain high leaf water potential and low water use efficiency. Deciduous high wood density species have lower leaf water potential and variable water use efficiency. Both groups rely on shallow soil water. Evergreen high wood density species have low leaf water potential, higher water use efficiency, and access alternative water sources. These findings indicate that deciduous low wood density species are drought avoiders, with a specialized strategy for storing root and stem water. Deciduous high wood density species are moderately drought tolerant, and evergreen high wood density species are the most drought tolerant group. Our results broadly support the plant functional type framework as a way to understand water use strategies, but also highlight species-level differences.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Compressional wave velocity and effective stress in unsaturated soil: Potential application for monitoring moisture conditions in vadose zone sediments

Compressional seismic (P-wave) velocities were measured experimentally at different water potentials and confining pressure states using a variety of sediments collected from the US Department of Energy Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. P-wave velocity was measured in variably saturated sediments using ultrasonic piezoelectric transducers and water potential was measured with a heat dissipation sensor. We propose a model to relate changes in P-wave velocity to soil stress conditions using an effective stress formulation that includes capillary stress as well as adsorptive stress. We show that compressional wave velocities can be related to water potential and confining stress using a model with five fitted parameters. A single set of parameters provides an excellent fit to data acquired from all of the sediment samples. Under very dry conditions, corresponding to low water potentials, water flow occurs in adsorptive thin films associated with very low unsaturated hydraulic conductivities. The results presented here suggest the utility of seismic methods for establishing low water potential and flow conditions within variably saturated Hanford formation sediments and providing feedback on the performance of mitigation efforts such as soil desiccation and surface infiltration barriers. Seismic methods can provide minimally invasive, three-dimensional information on relevant flow conditions in vadose zone sediments as well as changes that occur over time.

Linneman, Dorothy C.↗
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 Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗