Development and evaluation of an efficient soil-atmosphere model (FHAVeT) based on the Ross fast solution of the Richards equation for bare soil conditions

Tinet, A.-J.; Chanzy, A.; Braud, I.; Crevoisier, D.; Lafolie, F.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-969-2015

Articles | Volume 19, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-969-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-969-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 2

Research article

|

20 Feb 2015

Research article |

| 20 Feb 2015

Development and evaluation of an efficient soil-atmosphere model (FHAVeT) based on the Ross fast solution of the Richards equation for bare soil conditions

A.-J. Tinet, A. Chanzy, I. Braud, D. Crevoisier, and F. Lafolie

Download

Final revised paper (published on 20 Feb 2015)
Preprint (discussion started on 25 Jul 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C3193: 'reviewer comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2014
- AC C3731: 'Answer to reviewer 1', Anne-Julie Tinet, 11 Sep 2014
RC C3236: 'Review of: ``Development of an efficient coupled model of soil-atmosphere modelling (FHAVeT): model evaluation and comparison''', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Aug 2014
- AC C3745: 'Answer to reviewer 2', Anne-Julie Tinet, 11 Sep 2014
RC C3395: 'Comments on "Development of an efficient coupled model for soil–atmosphere modelling (FHAVeT): model evaluation and comparison"', Anonymous Referee #3, 27 Aug 2014
- AC C3748: 'Answer to reviewer 3', Anne-Julie Tinet, 11 Sep 2014
AC C3723: 'General comments for all reviewers', Anne-Julie Tinet, 11 Sep 2014

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (09 Oct 2014) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Anne-Julie Tinet on behalf of the Authors (17 Nov 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (07 Dec 2014) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Anne-Julie Tinet on behalf of the Authors (09 Jan 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Jan 2015) by Nunzio Romano

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (20 Jan 2015)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (21 Jan 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Comments to
Development and evaluation in bare soil conditions of an efficient soil-atmosphere model (FHAVeT) based on the Ross fast solution of the Richards equation

by: Tinet et al.

General Comments:

The title should be changes to e.g.;
Development and evaluation of an efficient soil-atmosphere model (FHAVeT) based on the Ross fast solution of the Richards equation for bare soil conditions

Still I do not agree to the problem that the code cannot be validated against analytical solutions. For sure not the coupled code under atmospheric conditions but the implementation of the Ross approach can easily be validated against analytical solutions as well as the energy balance model using appropriate BC and initializations.

Specific Comments:

P1 L16: should be: …model based on…

P1 L20: … better performance in regard to mass balance… This is already an indicator that the TEC model is either not a good model or that something went wrong with the model (shit in - shit out). To overcome this problem I would still suggest working on analytical solutions.

P1 L21: wrong unit? See definition in figure caption Fig. 3.

P1 L32: yielding is not a management practice. Management practice would be harvesting.

P2 L88: It is based on…. Not the equation is based on but solving the equation is based on.

P2 L101: I would speculate that it is the same for upward flow but less intense studied.

P3 L205: how does it compute rainfall? I would expect that rainfall is only an input. Evaporation will be computed – at least actual evaporation.

P3 L221: units missing for RaH and Rav.

P3 L230: should be Table. 2

P4 L240: should be soil depth not elevation.

P4 L254: there is also a reference for the Mualem van Genuchten approach. Even if it is a little bit older Rien still deserves some citations for it!

P4 L265: should be: is shown in Table 1.

P4 L274: Units missing for bulk density

P4 L280: parameters of Eq. 6 not introduced but listed in line 372 page 5

P4 L305: But this depends on the user. Theoretically, both can be run with same discretization

P5 L332: Figure 5. Do you mean Tab. 3? I can also see the periods in Fig. 5 but than Fig. 5 should be labelled Fig.3 to be consistent in order.

P5 L358: shape parameter. Which is classically denoted as tortuosity lambda.

P8 L409: Fig. 3. Either Figure 3 or Fig. 3. Be consistent within the manuscript

P9 L444: …for the surface layer and in one particular simulation is shown in Figure 5.

P10 L485: should be. Therefore, ….

Tables:

Table 1: you should provide references for the models.

Table 2: delete points between units.

Table 3: delete points between units.

Figures:

Fig. 4. The tolerance cannot be detected in a print.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (22 Jan 2015) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Anne-Julie Tinet on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (29 Jan 2015) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Anne-Julie Tinet on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2015)

Short summary

In agricultural management, a good timing in operations is essential to enhance economical and environmental performance. To improve such timing, predictive software is of particular interest. The objective of this study is to assess the accuracy of a physically based model with high efficiency. Compared to a more complex software (TEC) under bare soil conditions, a coupled model shows mostly improved efficiency and balance and a good capacity to predict water content thresholds.