<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-26-4187-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title>Frozen soil hydrological modeling for a mountainous catchment <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> northeast of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau</article-title><alt-title>Frozen soil hydrological modeling for a mountainous catchment in China</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Frozen soil hydrological modeling for a mountainous catchment in China}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{H. Gao et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Gao</surname><given-names>Hongkai</given-names></name>
          <email>hkgao@geo.ecnu.edu.cn</email><email>gaohongkai2005@126.com</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0786-8067</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>Chuntan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8412-6692</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Rensheng</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2073-3098</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Feng</surname><given-names>Zijing</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Kang</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3416-572X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Fenicia</surname><given-names>Fabrizio</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Savenije</surname><given-names>Hubert</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2234-7203</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Key Laboratory of Geographic Information Science (Ministry of Education of China), <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> East China Normal University, Shanghai, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>School of Geographical Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System and Resources
Environment (TPESRE), <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>  Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Qilian Alpine Ecology and Hydrology Research Station, Key Laboratory of Ecohydrology of Inland River Basin,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?>  Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology,
Dubendorf, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Water Resources Section, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Hongkai Gao (hkgao@geo.ecnu.edu.cn,
gaohongkai2005@126.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>12</day><month>August</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>26</volume>
      <issue>15</issue>
      <fpage>4187</fpage><lpage>4208</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>6</day><month>March</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>16</day><month>March</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>28</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>30</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 Hongkai Gao et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e178">Increased attention directed at frozen soil hydrology has been prompted by climate change. In spite of an increasing number of field measurements and modeling studies, the impact of frozen soil on hydrological processes at the catchment scale is still unclear. However, frozen soil hydrology models have mostly been developed based on a bottom-up approach, i.e., by aggregating prior knowledge at the pixel scale, which is an approach notoriously suffering from equifinality and data scarcity. Therefore, in this study, we explore the impact of frozen soil at the catchment scale, following a top-down approach, implying the following sequence: expert-driven data analysis <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> qualitative perceptual model <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> quantitative conceptual model <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> testing of model realism. The complex mountainous Hulu catchment, northeast of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP), was selected as the study site. First, we diagnosed the impact of frozen soil on catchment hydrology, based on multi-source field observations, model discrepancy, and our expert knowledge. The following two new typical hydrograph properties were identified: the low runoff in the early thawing season (LRET) and the discontinuous baseflow recession (DBR). Second, we developed a perceptual frozen soil hydrological model to explain the LRET and DBR properties. Third, based on the perceptual model and a landscape-based modeling framework (FLEX-Topo), a semi-distributed conceptual frozen soil hydrological model (FLEX-Topo-FS) was developed. The results demonstrate that the FLEX-Topo-FS model can represent the effect of soil freeze–thaw processes on hydrologic connectivity and groundwater discharge and significantly improve hydrograph simulation, including the LRET and DBR events. Furthermore, its realism was confirmed by alternative multi-source and multi-scale observations, particularly the freezing and thawing front in the soil, the lower limit of permafrost, and the trends in groundwater level variation. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first report of LRET and DBR processes in a mountainous frozen soil catchment. The FLEX-Topo-FS model is a novel conceptual frozen soil hydrological model which represents these complex processes and has the potential for wider use in the vast QTP and other cold mountainous regions.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <label>1.1</label><title>Frozen soil hydrology: 1 of 23 unsolved problems</title>
      <p id="d1e218">The Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) is largely covered by frozen soil and is
characterized by a fragile cold and arid ecosystem (Immerzeel et al., 2010;
Ding et al., 2020). As this region serves as the water tower for nearly
1.4 billion people, understanding the frozen soil hydrology is important for
regional and downstream water resources management and ecosystem conservation. Frozen soil prevents vertical water flow, which often leads to
saturated soil conditions in continuous permafrost, while confining subsurface flow through perennially unfrozen zones in discontinuous permafrost (Walvoord and Kurylyk, 2016). As an aquiclude layer, frozen soil
substantially controls surface runoff and its hydraulic connection with
groundwater. The freeze–thaw cycle in the active layer significantly
impacts soil water movement direction, velocity, storage capacity, and
hydraulic conductivity (Bui et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e221">Frozen soil hydrology attracts increasing attention as the cold regions,
e.g., QTP and the Arctic, are undergoing rapid changes (Song et al., 2020;
Tananaev et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2017). Frozen soil thawing also poses great threats to the
release of frozen carbon in both high-altitude and high-latitude regions, which is likely to create substantial impacts on the climate system (Wang et al., 2020). Attention to the impact of frozen soil hydrology on
nutrient transport and organic matter and frozen soil–climate feedback is also growing (Tananaev et al., 2020). Hence, there are strong motivations to better understand frozen soil hydrological processes (Bring et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e224">Frozen soil degradation and its impact on hydrology is one of the research
frontiers for the hydrologic community (Blöschl et al., 2019; Zhao et
al., 2020; Ding et al., 2020). The question of “How will cold region runoff and groundwater change in a warmer climate?” was identified by the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) as being 1 of 23 major unsolved scientific problems (Blöschl et al., 2019) which requires stronger harmonization of community efforts.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <label>1.2</label><title>The frontier of frozen soil hydrology</title>
      <p id="d1e235">Knowledge on frozen soil hydrology was acquired through detailed
investigations at isolated locations over various time spans by hydrologists
and geocryologists (Woo, 2012; Gao et al., 2021). At the core scale, there are many measurements of soil profiles, including, but not limited to, soil temperature (Kurylyk et al., 2016; Han et al., 2018), soil moisture
(Dobinski, 2011; Chang et al., 2015), groundwater fluctuation (Ma et al.,
2017; Chiasson-Poirier et al., 2020), and active layer seasonal freeze–thaw
processes (Wang et al., 2016; Farquharson et al., 2019). At the
plot/hillslope scale, land surface energy and water fluxes are measured by
eddy covariance, large aperture scintillometer (LAS), lysimeter, and
multi-layers meteorological measurements. Geophysical detection technology
allows us to measure various subsurface permafrost features (Wu et al., 2005). At the basin
scale, except for traditional water level and runoff gauging, water sampling
and the measurements of isotopes and chemistry components provide important
complementary data   to understand catchment-scale hydrological processes
(Streletskiy et al., 2015; Ma et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019). Remote
sensing technology, including optical, near-infrared and thermal infrared, and passive and active microwave remote sensing, has been used to identify surface landscape features (e.g., vegetation and snow cover) and directly or
indirectly retrieve subsurface variables (e.g., near-surface soil freeze–thaw
and permafrost state) in frozen soil regions (Nitze et al., 2018; Jiang et
al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e238">Besides measurement, modeling provides another indispensable dimension to
understand frozen soil hydrology in an integrated way and make predictions
of climate change. There has been a revival in the development of
frozen soil hydrological models simulating coupled heat and water transfer.
Such physically based models typically calculate seasonal freeze–thaw
through solving heat transfer equations. Such equations are either solved
analytically or numerically (Walvoord and Kurylyk, 2016). The Stefan
equation is a typical example of the analytical approach, which calculates
the depth from the ground surface to the thawing (freezing) horizon by the
integral of ground surface temperature and soil features. The Stefan
equation is widely used to estimate active layer thickness (Zhang et al.,
2005; Xie and Gough, 2013) and is incorporated into some hydrological
models (Wang et al., 2010; Fabre et al., 2017). The numerical solution schemes (e.g., finite difference, finite element, or finite volume) to model ground freezing and thawing is typically applied to one-dimensional infiltration into frozen soils and is included in models such as SHAW (Liu et al., 2013), CoupModel (Zhou et al., 2013), the distributed water–heat coupled (DWHC) model (Chen et al., 2018), the distributed ecohydrological model (GBEHM; Wang et al., 2018), and the three-dimensional SUTRA model (Evans et al., 2018). Andresen et al. (2020) compared eight permafrost models on soil moisture and hydrology projection across the major Arctic river basins and found that the projection varied strongly in magnitude and spatial pattern. Except for hydrological models, many land surface models explicitly consider the freeze–thaw process in order to improve land surface water and energy budget estimation and weather forecasting accuracy in frozen soil areas. Such models include VIC (Cuo et al., 2015), JULES (Chadburn et al., 2015),
CLM (Niu and Yang, 2006; Oleson  and Lawrence, 2013; Gao et al., 2019), CoLM (Xiao et al., 2013), Noah-MP (Li et al., 2020), and ORCHIDEE (Gouttevin et al., 2012). Comprehensive reviews on frozen soil hydrological models can be found in Walwoord and Kurylyk (2016), Jiang et al. (2020), and Gao et al. (2021).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS3">
  <label>1.3</label><title>The challenge of frozen soil hydrological modeling</title>
      <p id="d1e249">Although numerous frozen soil hydrological models were developed, most
models have strong prior assumptions on the impacts of frozen soil on
hydrological behavior (Walvoord and Kurylyk, 2016; Gao et al., 2021). Such
models follow a bottom-up modeling approach, which presents an upward or
reductionist philosophy, based on the aggregation of small-scale processes
and a priori perceptions (Jarvis, 1993; Sivapalan et al., 2003). However, most of the upward process understanding has been obtained from in situ
observation and in situ modeling, which have limited spatial coverage and invariably limited temporal coverage (Brutsaert and Hiyama, 2012). It is worthwhile to note that frozen soil has tremendous spatiotemporal heterogeneities, which are strongly influenced by many intertwined factors, including, but not limited to, climate, topography, geology, soil texture, snow cover, and vegetation. Upscaling could average out some variables and turn other variables visible and even become dominant processes (Fenicia and McDonnell, 2022). Unfortunately, translating the spot-/hillslope-scale frozen soil process to its influence on catchment-scale hydrology, guided by carefully expert analysis and constrained by multi-source measurements, is still largely unexplored.</p>
      <p id="d1e252">The effects of the soil freeze–thaw process on hydrology at the catchment scale is still inconclusive. In the headwaters of the Yellow River, some modeling studies concluded that permafrost has a significant impact on streamflow (Sun et al., 2020). But in Sweden and the northeast of the United States, other studies found frozen soil have negligible impact on streamflow (Shanley and Chalmers, 1999; Lindstrom et al., 2002). Some studies found that the impact of frozen soil on streamflow is concentrated in certain periods. For example, Osuch et al. (2019) found permafrost to impact on the groundwater recession and storage capacity of the active layer in Svalbard; Nyberg (2001) found that, in the Vindeln research forest in northern Sweden, permafrost impacted streamflow only in springs. Hence, we argue that the impact of the local-scale freeze–thaw process on runoff should be regarded as a hypothesis to be verified or rejected.</p>
      <p id="d1e255">The unexplored frozen soil hydrology is especially true for mountainous
Asia, due to the lack of long-term observations as a result of the difficulty of access and high cost of operation. The cold region of the QTP is characterized by relatively thin and warm frozen soil with a low ice content, due to the unique environmental conditions of arid climate, high elevation, and a steep geothermal gradient (Cao et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020). The snow cover is thinner and vegetation cover is poorer than in Arctic regions. These features limit the insulation effect on freeze–thaw processes, resulting in a much larger active layer depth (Pan et al., 2016). Topographical features, including elevation and aspect, are major factors affecting permafrost distribution. The complex mountainous terrain, as a result of recent tectonic movement, leads to large spatial heterogeneity in the energy and water balance and underexplored frozen soil hydrology on the QTP (Gao et al., 2021).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS4">
  <label>1.4</label><title>Aims and scope</title>
      <p id="d1e266">In this study, we utilized a top-down approach (Sivapalan et al., 2003)
to understand the effect of frozen soil on hydrology in the Hulu catchment
on the northeastern edge of the QTP. The aims of this study are as follows:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e271">diagnosing the impacts of frozen soil on hydrology in the mountainous Hulu catchment, with multi-source, multi-scale data and model discrepancy;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e275">developing a quantitative conceptual frozen soil hydrological model, based on expert-driven interpretation in the form of perceptual model for the Hulu catchment; and</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e279">testing the realism of the conceptual frozen soil hydrological model with multi-source and multi-scale observations.</p></list-item></list>
In this paper, we first introduced the study site and data in Sect. 2.
An expert-driven perceptual frozen soil hydrology model was proposed in
Sect. 3. A semi-distributed conceptual frozen soil hydrological model,
FLEX-Topo-FS, was developed in Sect. 4. The realism of the FLEX-Topo-FS
model was tested in Sect. 5. In Sects. 6 and 7, last but not least, we
further our discussion and draw the conclusions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Study site and data</title>
      <p id="d1e292">The Hulu catchment (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">38</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">38</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> N, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">99</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">99</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">54</mml:mn><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> E) is located in the upper reaches of the Heihe River
basin, the northeastern edge of the QTP in northwest China (Fig. 1). The
elevation ranges from 2960 to 4820 m a.s.l. (above sea level), gradually increasing from north to south (Fig. 1; Chen et al., 2014; Han et al., 2018). Most precipitation occurs in the summer monsoon time, and snowfall in winter is limited (Han et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2020). There is a runoff gauging
station at the outlet, controlling an area of 23.1 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. There are two minor tributaries that are sourced from glaciers (east) and moraine–talus (west) zones, which merge at the catchment outlet. The Hulu catchment has a rugged terrain and very little human disturbance. We identified four main landscape types, i.e., glaciers (5.6 %), alpine desert (53.5 %), vegetation hillslope (37.5 %), and riparian zone (3.4 %; Fig. 2).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e374">Sketch map of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, with the distribution of
permafrost and seasonal frozen soil of the QTP (Zou et al., 2014) and the
location of the upper Heihe River basin (upper left). Sketch map of permafrost and seasonal frozen soil distribution of the upper Heihe River basin (Sheng, 2020) and the two subbasins, i.e., Zhamashike and Qilian, and the location of the Hulu catchment (upper right). Hulu catchment's digital elevation model (DEM), river channel, runoff, and meteorological gauge station (observed from 2011 to 2014), the locations for soil moisture (2011–2013 with data gap), groundwater level (2016–2019), and freeze/thaw depth (bottom left; 2011–2014). Landscapes and seasonal frozen soil/permafrost map of the Hulu catchment (bottom right).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e383">The Hulu catchment mostly extends on seasonal frozen soil and permafrost
(Zou et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2021). Field survey in the upper Heihe
revealed that the lower limit of permafrost was 3650–3700 m
(Wang et al., 2016); above that elevation is permafrost, and below is seasonal frozen soil. In the Hulu catchment, the lower limit of permafrost is around 3650 m (Fig. 1). Permafrost covers 64 % of the catchment area, and the seasonal frozen soil covers 36 %. There is a strong co-existence between soil freeze–thaw features and landscapes (Fig. 1). Permafrost and moraine/talus with poor vegetation cover co-exist at higher elevations, with large heat conductivity and less heat insulation in winter, resulting in a deep frozen depth. The seasonal frozen soil in relatively lower elevation has better vegetation cover, with better heat insulation and less heat conductivity in winter, resulting in a shallower frozen depth.</p>
      <p id="d1e387">The elevation of the hydrometeorological gauging station is 2980 m. We
collected daily runoff, daily average 2 m air temperature, and daily
precipitation from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2014. There was a flood event in 2013 which damaged the water level sensor and resulted in
a runoff data gap from 17 June to 10 July in 2013. Soil moisture was measured in 20, 40, 80, 120, 180, 240, and 300 cm depths from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2013, with a data gap between 3 August and 2 October 2012. In the same soil moisture site, we also observed the soil freeze/thaw depth from 2011 to 2014. Groundwater depth was measured at the WW01 site by four wells, with depths of 5, 10, 15, and 25 m, respectively (Pan et al., 2022). The observation period was from 2016 to 2019 and not overlaid with other hydrometeorological variables. Hence, we merely used the groundwater level to qualitatively constrain and test our perceptual model.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>An expert-driven perceptual frozen soil hydrology model based on field observations</title>
      <p id="d1e398">A perceptual model is increasingly recognized as being of central importance in hydrological model development (Savenije, 2009;  Fenicia and McDonnell, 2022). Although the
perceptual model is a qualitative representation of hydrological system, it
bridges the gap between experimentalists and modelers and holds the base for a quantitative conceptual model. In this study, we developed a perceptual
frozen soil hydrology model for the Hulu catchment, based on field measurements and our expertise.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Observation 1: low runoff in the early thawing season (LRET)</title>
      <p id="d1e408">Precipitation–runoff time series analysis is a traditional and powerful tool
to understand catchment hydrology. When we plot Hulu catchment's precipitation and runoff data together, we observed an interesting
phenomenon, i.e., low runoff in the early thawing season (LRET; Fig. 3).
For example, on 5–9 June 2013, there was a 45.7 mm rainfall event, with the air temperature ranging from 3.0 to 11.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, but with only 0.68 mm in total runoff generation. Ma et al. (2021) also showed that, in the warm period in the middle of June 2015 in the Hulu catchment, there was a large rainfall event (over 30 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), but no runoff response was observed. Moreover, this LRET
phenomenon happens every year, which allows us to exclude the possibility of measurement errors.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e434">Landscape classification at different elevation bands (with 50 m
interval) of the Hulu catchment.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e445">Observed daily precipitation and air temperature, observed daily
runoff depth of the Hulu catchment, observed freeze/thaw front depth, and
observed soil moisture at depths of 20, 120, and 240 cm are shown.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e455">To further investigate the LRET phenomenon, we plot the time series of observed daily precipitation, temperature, runoff, freeze/thaw front depth,
and soil moisture profile (20, 120, and 240 cm) together (Fig. 3). Soil
moisture data showed that topsoil was dry at the beginning of the thawing season. Gradually, soil was thawing from both topsoil and downwards (Fig. 3), and simultaneously, the soil moisture was increased also downwards. Although the topsoil was thawed, there was still frozen soil underneath (Fig. 3). The water above the frozen soil layer was even saturated with ponding, but there was no percolation and runoff generation. Moreover, the groundwater level further declined (Fig. 11). This illustrated that, during this period, the soil and groundwater system were disconnected, very likely because the frozen soil blocked the percolation. As revealed by isotope data in the Hulu catchment, groundwater contributed the dominant streamflow, i.e., 95 % during the frozen period (Ma et al., 2021). Thus, during this process, there was almost no runoff generation, and the only contribution to streamflow during this period was the discharge from groundwater system as baseflow. Our fieldwork experience also verified that, in the early thawing season, vehicles were easy to be trapped in mires because the surface soil was muddy, saturated, and even over-saturated with ponding. When frozen soil was completely thawed in summer, trafficability became much better.</p>
      <p id="d1e458">When completely thawed, the bidirectional thaw fronts meeting the soil
moisture in the bottom of frozen soil (around 2.4 m in this study site;
Fig. 3) increased sharply and then decreased, with a short period
pulse. We also noted that the observation sites of freeze/thaw front depth
and soil moisture were both near the outlet of the Hulu catchment in lower
elevation (Fig. 1). This means that, once the frozen soil in lower elevation was thawed, soil and groundwater systems were reconnected. Hydrological processes, including groundwater percolation and runoff generation, became the normal condition when they are free of frozen soil.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>3.1.1</label><title>Learning from paired catchments</title>
      <p id="d1e468">The LRET phenomenon was widely documented in other cold regions (Fig. 4),
including, but not limited to, the headwater of Yellow River (Yang et al.,
2019) and a small headwater catchment at the Cape Bounty Arctic Watershed
Observatory, Melville Island, Nunavut, Canada (Lafrenière and Lamoureux,
2019). For example, at the headwater of Yellow River on 8–9 July 2014,
there was a 21.9 mm rainfall event, with a temperature of 6.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C but little 1.5 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> runoff. On 21–23 July 2014, there was a 27.4 mm rainfall event with temperature of 7.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, but only 5.1 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> runoff. Lafrenière and Lamoureux (2019) found that the undisturbed frozen soil at the Cape Bounty Arctic Watershed Observatory had little runoff generation in the early thawing season. But after the frozen soil was disturbed, the runoff response to rainfall event was much larger. Hence, this paired catchment study illustrated that frozen soil played a key role in causing the LRET phenomenon.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Observation 2: discontinuous baseflow recession (DBR)</title>
      <p id="d1e541">Baseflow recession provides an important source of information to infer
groundwater characteristics, including its storage properties, subsurface
hydraulics, and concentration times (Brutsaert and Sugita, 2008; Fenicia et
al., 2006), which is especially true for basins with frozen soil (Ye et al.,
2009; Song et al., 2020).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e546">The little runoff in the early thawing season (LRET) phenomenon in
other places, e.g., the headwater of Yellow River (Yang et al., 2019) and a
small headwater catchment at the Cape Bounty Arctic Watershed Observatory,
Melville Island, Nunavut, Canada (Lafrenière and Lamoureux, 2019).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e555">Baseflow analysis is based on the water balance equation (Eq. 1) and
linear reservoir assumption (Eq. 2). It should be noted that Eq. (1)
assumes no additional inflows (recharge or thawing) or outflow (capillary
rise or freezing). If a reservoir is linear, then this implies that the reservoir discharge (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) has a linear relationship with its storage (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (d) is a time constant controlling the speed of recession in the linear reservoir. With a larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value, the reservoir empties slower and vice versa. Combining Eqs. (1) and (2), we can derive Eq. (3), illustrating how discharge depends on time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is proportional to the initial discharge (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M23" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>3</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>3.2.1</label><title>Baseflow recession analysis results</title>
      <p id="d1e714">In Fig. 5, we plot the groundwater recession on semi-logarithmic scale. In
the beginning of freezing season, baseflow presented a clear linear
recession and was able to be fitted by setting the recession coefficient
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as 80 d. However, interestingly, simultaneously with the LRET phenomenon, we observed a clear discontinuous baseflow recession in the Hulu catchment (Fig. 5). The baseflow bent down, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> became 60 d at the end of the recession period. This DBR phenomenon informed us that the groundwater system was disturbed. We also noted the spikes during the thawing in Fig. 5, which means that groundwater was suddenly released. To our best knowledge, these discontinuous baseflow recession (DBR) phenomena are a new observation for mountainous frozen soil hydrology.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e741">Groundwater recession, from 2011 to 2014, on a logarithmic scale,
with linear recession parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d in the early recession periods and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d at the end of the recession periods.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e780">We also plot the variation in groundwater depth of four wells at the WW01 site from 2016 to 2019 (Figs. 1, 11). The wells of 5, 10, and 15 m only had liquid water in thawing seasons and gradually went dry in recession periods. The water level of the 25 m well was decreasing in the entire frozen seasons but in a discontinuous way. From the observed groundwater depth, the groundwater level decreases faster at beginning. And after the groundwater level dropped below around 17 m, the decrease in the groundwater level became slower. The turning point from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d occurred simultaneously, while the groundwater level went down to 17 m (Figs. 5, 11). The bending down discontinuous baseflow recession and slower decrease of groundwater level indicated that there was a disturbance that reduced the groundwater discharge and lead to a slower decrease in the  groundwater level.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>3.2.2</label><title>Learning from paired catchments</title>
      <p id="d1e821">Frozen soil process is able to disturb the groundwater system by freezing
the liquid groundwater to reduce groundwater storage and leading to the DBR. But the DBR could also be caused by many other reasons, for instance soil evaporation, root tapping, capillary rise, impermeable layer, and heterogenous hydraulic conductivities in different landscapes (riparian area
and hillslope). Since the DBR phenomenon started from the middle of the  freezing period and lasted until the end of frozen season, in which time the
evaporation, root tapping, and capillary rise were very inactive even
totally stopped, this allowed us to exclude these impacts. The impermeable
layer and heterogenous hydraulic conductivities are both able to result in
discontinuous recession at the small scale.</p>
      <p id="d1e824">To further understand the DBR phenomenon, we collected larger-scale runoff
data in this region, including the Zhamashike (5526 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and Qilian
(2924 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), which are also the subbasins of the upper Heihe. The
permafrost and seasonal frozen soil map of the upper Heihe River basin shows
that the Zhamashike subbasin has 74 % permafrost and 26 % seasonal
frozen soil, which is similar to the Hulu catchment while the Qilian subbasin has much less permafrost area (38 %) and is mostly covered by seasonal frozen soil (62 %; Fig. 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e845">Interestingly, when plotting the hydrographs of these two subbasins on a logarithmic scale, we can clearly see that, in the permafrost-dominated Zhamashike subbasin, discontinuous recessions occurred, with  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d in the beginning and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d at the end of the recession period. This DBR phenomenon is the same as found in the Hulu catchment, although the Zhamashike and Hulu catchment have quite different scales (5526 vs. 23.1 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Chen et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2014). Discontinuous baseflow recession happened almost every year at the Zhamashike station, and we only highlight the hydrograph in 1974 to demonstrate this phenomenon in Fig. 6. On the other hand, while being of similar size as the Zhamashike, the Qilian subbasin (2924 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is mostly covered by seasonal frozen soil, only has one continuous recession, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d. The results from these two paired catchments provided good reasons to interpret the DBR phenomenon in the Hulu catchment as the result of frozen soil.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e914">The hydrograph of the Zhamashike and Qilian subbasin on
logarithmic scale, and the linear recession curve with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Perceptual frozen soil hydrology model of Hulu catchment</title>
      <p id="d1e962">We did an expert-driven data analysis of the LRET and DBR observations,
including a time series analysis of precipitation–runoff, soil moisture
profile, freeze/thaw depth, and paired catchments comparison. These
comprehensive data analyses allowed us to identify that both the LRET and
the DBR were the results of frozen soil, and these results motivated the following perceptual model (Fig. 7).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e967">The perceptual and conceptual FLEX-Topo-FS frozen soil hydrological
models.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e976">In the freezing season, at local scale, frozen soil occurs from the topsoil
downwards. But at the catchment scale, the freezing process does not occur in a homogeneous way. Since the higher elevation is colder than the lower
elevation, the freezing process starts from higher elevation and moves downwards. At the beginning of the freezing season, although the topsoil is already frozen, the groundwater discharge from the supra-permafrost layer still continues. It was found that the groundwater recession from the
supra-permafrost layer determines the dominant part of baseflow in permafrost regions (Brutsaert and Sugita, 2008; Ma et al., 2021). Thus, the baseflow recession contributed by both permafrost and seasonal frozen soil areas, during this period, appears not to be influenced by frozen topsoil
and maintains a linear recession pattern, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d in the Hulu catchment.</p>
      <p id="d1e995">In the frozen season, the hydrological processes in the topsoil are almost
completely blocked, although there is still very small amount of unfrozen
liquid water in the frozen soil. Thus, surface hydrological processes are
almost stopped. With the increase in frozen depth, groundwater in the
supra-permafrost layer is frozen gradually from higher to lower elevation,
which gradually but dramatically reduces groundwater discharge. Interestingly, permafrost and seasonal frozen soil have different impacts on
baseflow recession. In a seasonal frozen soil region, with shallower frozen
depth, the groundwater is still active and continues the discharge. But in
the permafrost region, the groundwater in the supra-permafrost layer is
largely inactive. This means that the recession, in the frozen periods, was only contributed by the seasonal frozen soil area, with a faster decline in
baseflow and bending down of the hydrograph, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreasing to 60 d in the Hulu catchment.</p>
      <p id="d1e1009">During the early thawing season, after a long groundwater recession, the
groundwater level is deep. Due to soil evaporation in winter, the soil is
dry and has a moisture deficit. Observations show that, with the progression of thawing, soil temperature and soil moisture increase from top to bottom, and the thawing front deepens downward. Rainfall firstly infiltrates to saturate the moisture deficit without runoff generation. Moreover, the existence of the impermeable deeper frozen soil layer leads to a vertical disconnection between soil water and groundwater. Although there is probably saturated water above the frozen soil (Figs. 3 and 7), the poor vertical connectivity largely hinders soil water percolation. Without recharge to groundwater, there is limited runoff generation during the early thawing.</p>
      <p id="d1e1012">At the end of the thawing season, as soon as the thaw depth reaches its
maximum, or frozen soil no longer exists, the frozen groundwater is released.
The spikes in the observed hydrograph are likely due to different parts of
the catchment reaching a breakthrough, which happens first in the lower
elevations and then gradually moves upward to higher landscape elements.
This would trigger a sequence of sudden groundwater release and the spikes.
Snowfall is probably another influencing factor that causes the LRET and the
spikes phenomenon by storing precipitation as snow cover to reduce runoff
and releasing melting water in a short time. This hypothesis needs to be
tested by including snow accumulation and melting processes in the
hydrological model.</p>
      <p id="d1e1015">Once the soil is completely thawed at the end of the melting season, the
rainfall–runoff process returns to normal and is free of influence by the
frozen soil. Hence, in the Hulu catchment, frozen soil mainly impacts on
streamflow during the freezing, frozen, and thawing periods.</p>
      <p id="d1e1018">Based on this perceptual model, we developed the conceptual framework of the
frozen soil hydrological model, which needs to at least to consider the
following elements: (1) we need a semi-distributed modeling framework, (2) a distributed forcing should be considered, (3) different landscapes should be
included, (4) topography should be involved, particularly elevation, (5) we
need to consider soil freeze–thaw processes, (6) snowfall and melting should
be included, (7) glacier melting should be included, and (8) last, but not least, the normal rainfall–runoff processes are still important because most
runoff happens in the warm season, which functions in the same way as in temperate climate regions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>A semi-distributed conceptual frozen soil hydrology model</title>
      <p id="d1e1030">The perceptual model requires a quantitative conceptual model to test,
revise, polish, verify, or even reject its hypotheses. Since the Hulu
catchment has heterogenous landscapes with a large elevation gradient,
diverse land cover, and complex freeze–thaw process, we developed a
semi-distributed frozen soil hydrological model, i.e., FLEX-Topo-FS, based on
the landscape-based hydrological modeling framework, i.e., FLEX-Topo.
Numerous processes were involved in FLEX-Topo, including the distributed
meteorological forcing, landscape heterogeneity, and snow and glacier
melting. And in FLEX-Topo-FS, we explicitly considered the impacts of
frozen soil on soil water percolation and groundwater frozen processes in
the supra-permafrost layer. The details of both the FLEX-Topo model (without
frozen soil) and FLEX-Topo-FS model (with frozen soil) are described in
below.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>FLEX-Topo model (without frozen soil)</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>4.1.1</label><title>Catchment discretization and meteorological forcing interpolation</title>
      <p id="d1e1047">The FLEX-Topo model classified the entire Hulu catchment into four
landscapes, i.e., glaciers, alpine desert, vegetation hillslope, and riparian
zone. The Hulu catchment (from 2960 to 4820 m) was classified into 37
elevation bands, with 50 m intervals (Fig. 2). Combining the four landscapes and 37 elevation bands, we had 37 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 148 hydrological response units (HRUs). The structure of FLEX-Topo model consisted of four parallel components representing the distinct hydrological function of different landscape elements (Savenije, 2010; Gao et al., 2014; Gharari et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2016). And the corresponding discharge of all elements was subsequently aggregated to obtain the simulated runoff.</p>
      <p id="d1e1064">We interpolated the precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) based on elevation bands from in situ observation (2980 m) to each elevation band. The precipitation increasing rate was set as 4.2 %/100 m and the temperature lapse rate as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.68 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C/100 m, based on field measurements (Han et al., 2013). Snowfall (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) or rainfall (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was separated by air temperature, with the threshold temperature as 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (Gao et al., 2020).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>4.1.2</label><title>Model description and configuration</title>
      <p id="d1e1137">FLEX-Topo is a semi-distributed conceptual bucket model (Savenije, 2010; Gao
et al., 2014), with three modules, i.e., the snow and glacier module, the
rainfall–runoff module, and the groundwater module. The water balance and
constitutive equations can be found in Table 1. The model parameters and
their prior ranges for calibration are listed in Table 2.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1143">The water balance and constitutive equations used in FLEX-Topo-FS
model. In Eqs. (10), (11), and (12), the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represent root zone reservoirs and their storage capacities in different landscapes, including vegetation hillslope (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">V</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), alpine desert  (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and riparian regions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="7cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reservoirs</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Water balance equations</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Constitutive equations</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Snow reservoir</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dd</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Glacier reservoir</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dd</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mtext> and </mml:mtext><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mtext>or</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Root zone <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>reservoir</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Splitter and lag function</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  (13); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (14) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fl</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lagf</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lagf</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munderover><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fast reservoir</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e2040">The parameters of the FLEX-Topo-FS model and their prior ranges
for calibration.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Explanation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Prior range for calibration</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dd</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Snow degree day factor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(1–5)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Glacier degree factor multiplier</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(1–3)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">V</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Root zone storage capacity for vegetation hillslope</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(50, 200)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Root zone storage capacity for alpine desert</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(10, 100)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Root zone storage capacity for riparian regions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(10, 100)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">The shape of the storage capacity curve</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(0, 1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Soil moisture threshold for reduction of evaporation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(0.1, 1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Splitter to fast and slow response reservoirs</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lagF</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (days)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Lag time from rainfall to peak flow</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(0.8, 3)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (days)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fast recession coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(1, 10)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (days)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Baseflow recession coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(10, 100)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (W (m K)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Thermal conductivity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Water content as a decimal fraction of the dry soil weight</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.12</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Bulk density of the soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1000</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Snow and glacier module</title>
      <p id="d1e2440">The temperature index method was employed to simulate snow and glacier
melting (Gao et al., 2017, 2020; He et al., 2021). We used a snow reservoir
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to account for the snow accumulating, melting (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and water balance (Eq. 4). The snow degree day factor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dd</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) needs to be calibrated. For glaciers, we assumed its area was constant in our simulation (from 2011 to 2014). Glacier melting (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was also calculated by the temperature index method (Eq. 7) but with a different degree day factor. With the same air temperature, the glacier has less albedo than snow cover, thus with a larger amount of melting. The glacier degree factor was obtained by multiplying the snow degree day factor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dd</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with a correct factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 8; Gao et al., 2020).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSSx2" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Rainfall–runoff module</title>
      <p id="d1e2516">There are two reservoirs to simulate rainfall–runoff process, including the
root zone reservoir (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Eq. 10) and fast response reservoir
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Eq. 17). To account for the different rainfall–runoff
processes in different landscapes and simultaneously avoid over-parameterization, we kept the same model structure for vegetation hillslope, riparian zone, and alpine desert (Eqs. 11, 12) but gave different root zone storage capacity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) values, i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for riparian zone, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for cold desert, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">V</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for hillslope vegetation. For vegetation hillslope, a larger prior range was constrained for the root zone storage capacity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">V</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which means more water is required to fill in its storage capacity to meet its water deficit, which is evidenced by previous studies in this region (Gao et al., 2014). For alpine desert, due to its sparse vegetation cover, we constrained a shallower root zone storage capacity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). For the riparian area, due to the location where is prone to be saturated, we also constrained a shallower root zone storage capacity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">umax</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The initial states (beginning of 2011) of the reservoirs were obtained from the end values (end of 2014) of the simulation, which is a normal procedure in modeling practice.</p>
      <p id="d1e2649">Other parameters in the rainfall–runoff module (Eqs. 11–18; Table 1) include the threshold value controlling evaporation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the shape parameter of the root zone reservoir (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), the splitter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) separating the generated runoff (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the root zone reservoir (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to the fast response reservoir, the recession parameter of faster reservoir (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and the lag time from rainfall event to peak flow (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lagF</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). We set <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as 0.2 from the isotope study (Ma et al., 2021) and other parameters were calibrated, with prior ranges (Table 2) based on previous studies (Gao et al., 2014, 2020).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSSx3" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Groundwater module</title>
      <p id="d1e2736">The baseflow (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is generated from groundwater recession. The
groundwater was simulated by a linear reservoir (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), described in Sect. 3.2 and Eq. (19). We set the prior range for s recession
coefficient of the baseflow reservoir (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as 10–100 d. To estimate the impacts of frozen groundwater on hydrological processes, we set the groundwater in different landscapes as parallel. But we analyzed the groundwater level as an integrated system because the groundwater system is connected, and this affects the groundwater level. Since the subpermafrost groundwater is even deeper than 20 m in the Hulu catchment and almost disconnected to streamflow, we only model the supra-permafrost groundwater.
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M115" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2800">Model structures of FLEX-Topo and FLEX-Topo-FS. FLEX-w means the
module for wetland, FLEX-h for hillslope, FLEX-d for alpine desert, and
FLEX-g for glacier, respectively.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>FLEX-Topo-FS model (with frozen soil)</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>4.2.1</label><title>Modeling the soil freeze–thaw processes</title>
      <p id="d1e2827">The FLEX-Topo-FS model employed the Stefan equation (Eq. 20) to provide an
approximate solution to estimate freeze/thaw depth (Fig. 9). The Stefan
equation is a temperature-index-based freeze–thaw algorithm which assumes
the sensible heat is negligible in soil freeze–thaw simulation (Xie and
Gough, 2013). The form of Stefan equation is written as follows:
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M116" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">86</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">86</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the freeze/thaw depth, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the thermal
conductivity (W (m K)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of the soil, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface freeze–thaw index. The freeze index (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of degree days) is the accumulated negative ground temperature while freezing, and the thaw index (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of degree days) is the accumulated positive ground temperature while thawing. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (J m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the volumetric latent heat of soil. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the latent heat of the fusion of ice (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.35</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> J kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the water content, as a decimal fraction of the dry soil weight, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the bulk density of the soil (kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e3070">Comparison between simulated freeze/thaw depth by Stefan equation and observation.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f09.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3079">We set the thermal conductivity as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W (m K)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the water content as a decimal fraction of the dry soil weight <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.12, and the bulk density of the soil as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Since the Stefan equation requires ground surface temperature, which is difficult to measure and often lacks data, we used a multiplier to translate the air temperature to ground temperature. The multiplier during freezing was set as 0.6, and during thawing, we assumed the ground surface temperature was the
same as the air temperature (Gisnås et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e3143">In this model, we did not consider the impacts of snow cover on soil
freeze–thaw because the snow effects were complicated in the Hulu catchment. First, this is because precipitation in the Hulu catchment mostly happens in summer as rainfall, and snow depth in the Hulu catchment was less than 10 mm in most areas most of the time. Second, the snow cover has contrary effects on ground temperature. Snow cover as an isolation layer increased ground temperature in winter. But, simultaneously, snow cover also increased albedo, which decreased the net radiation and decreased ground temperature. To avoid over-parameterization, we did not consider snow effect in the Stefan equation.</p>
      <p id="d1e3146">In this study, the Stefan equation was driven by distributed air
temperature, which allowed us to simulate the distributed soil freeze–thaw
processes. With the distributed soil freeze index and thaw index, we can
also estimate the lower limit of permafrost at which elevation the freeze
index equals the thaw index in mountainous regions. Field surveys on the
lower limit of permafrost (Wang et al., 2016) can provide another strong
confirmation of our simulated soil freeze–thaw process, except for the
spot-scale freeze/thaw depth.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>4.2.2</label><title>Modeling the impacts of frozen soil on hydrology</title>
      <p id="d1e3157">The distributed freeze–thaw status calculated by the FLEX-Topo-FS model allowed us to simulate the impacts of frozen soil on soil and groundwater systems, their connectivity, and, eventually, catchment runoff.</p>
      <p id="d1e3160">In freezing and frozen seasons, precipitation was in the phase of snowfall,
and topsoil was frozen, thus without surface runoff. During this period,
runoff is only contributed from the groundwater discharge of the
supra-permafrost layer (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). There is no runoff generation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the root zone reservoir to the response routine (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in this period. In the conceptual model, we set <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 11). In freezing season, when frozen depth was less than 3 m (the depth of active layer in this region), the entire groundwater volume in the supra-permafrost layer was still connected and could be simulated by linear groundwater reservoir (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Once the frozen depth of certain elevation zone is larger than 3 m, the groundwater in that elevation zone was frozen (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). In the FLEX-Topo-FS model, we reduced the groundwater storage (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to 10 % of
its total storage to simulate its frozen status (Eqs. 21, 22). This
amount of frozen water (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 90 % of groundwater storage when frozen and marked as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was held in the groundwater system as frozen soil (Eq. 22) but did not disappear. We set 90 % as frozen, rather than 100 %, because there is still unfrozen liquid water in frozen soil (Romanovsky and Osterkamp, 2000). Groundwater discharge was controlled by the frozen status, which was frozen from high elevations to lower elevations. This process is progressively stopping the function of a series of cascade groundwater buckets, resulting in the discontinuous recession. Simultaneously, the decrease in discharge (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) slowed down the decrease in the groundwater level (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). This conceptual model allowed us to simulate the bending down of baseflow recession and slower decrease in groundwater level.<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>

                  <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M149" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>6</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E7"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>7</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="" open="{"><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{8.7}{8.7}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>once freeze depth</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mtext>3 m</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>once thaw depth reach to yearly max </mml:mtext></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>or thaw  depth</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mtext>freeze  depth</mml:mtext><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              In thawing seasons, the freeze–thaw condition in the lowest elevation zone
plays a key role, controlling the hydraulic connectivity between soil and
groundwater systems. In the conceptual model, if the freeze depth calculated by the Stefan equation is larger than the thaw depth, then this means that the frozen layer still exists, which obstructs the soil and groundwater connection. In the conceptual model, we kept <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 11) as the runoff generation. Since there is no percolation from soil to  groundwater, root zone soil moisture (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is accumulating and even ponding in some local depressions (Fig. 7). The only outflow of the root zone is evaporation in this period. This conceptual model allowed us to reproduce the LRET observation. For groundwater reservoir, once the thaw depth goes to its yearly maximum (in permafrost area) or thaw depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> freeze depth (in seasonal frozen soil area), the frozen water (90 % of groundwater storage when frozen; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">̃</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was released to the groundwater again (Eq. 22). The sudden release of frozen groundwater causes the spikes in hydrograph, which could happen in either thawing seasons or complete thaw seasons, depending on its elevation. But either way, the
water balance calculation is 100 % closed.</p>
      <p id="d1e3515">Complete thaw in the lowest elevation marked the end of thawing season and
the start of complete thaw season. In the complete thaw season, soil water
and groundwater are connected, and runoff generation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) returns to normal circumstances, which can be simulated by the FLEX-Topo model without frozen soil.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Model uncertainty analysis and evaluation metrics</title>
      <p id="d1e3538">The Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE; Gupta et al., 2009) was used as the
performance metric in model calibration, as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M155" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">KGE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the linear correlation coefficient between simulation and
observation. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is a measure of relative variability in the simulated and observed values, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation of simulated variables, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation of observed variables. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ratio between the average value of simulated and observed variables.</p>
      <p id="d1e3669">We applied the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation framework
(GLUE; Beven and Binley, 1992) to estimate model parameter uncertainty.
We sampled the parameter space with 20 000 parameter sets and selected the top 1 % parameter as behavioral parameter sets.</p>
      <p id="d1e3672">For a comprehensive assessment of model performance in validation (Zhang et al., 2018), the
behavioral model runs were evaluated using multiple criteria, including KGE,
KGL (the KGE of the logarithms' flow and more sensitive to baseflow),
Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE; Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970; Eq. 24),
coefficient of determination (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and root mean square error (RMSE).
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>9</label><mml:math id="M163" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NSE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is observed runoff, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the observed average runoff, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is modeled runoff.</p>
      <p id="d1e3807">The model was calibrated in the period 2011–2012 and uses KGE as the objective function. The second half of the time series (2013–2014) was used to quantify the model performance in streamflow split-sample validation, with multi-criteria including KGE, KGL, NSE, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and RMSE. The KGE, KGL, NSE and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are all less than 1, and their valuation closer to 1 indicates better model performance, while the lower value of RMSE indicates less error and better performance.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Testing the realism of FLEX-Topo-FS model</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>FLEX-Topo model results and its discrepancy</title>
      <p id="d1e3850">Figure 10 shows that the FLEX-Topo model can somehow reproduce the observed
hydrography in most periods, except for the LRET and DBR events. In the
calibration, the KGE was 0.78. And in the validation, KGE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.58, KGL <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.36, NSE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.41, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.82, and RMSE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.95 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. While taking account the impacts of landscape heterogeneity, the FLEX-Topo model can, to some extent, simulate the LRET phenomenon. The vegetated hillslope in relatively lower elevation has larger unsaturated storage capacity, with larger soil moisture deficit in the beginning of melting season, and is capable of holding more rainfall with initial dry soil. Moreover, FLEX-Topo model has taken snow accumulation and melting into account, which also reduced the runoff generation during the LRET periods. However, there was still large overestimation in the early thawing season.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e3911">Modeling results of FLEX-Topo and FLEX-Topo-FS models and the
comparisons with observation on both normal and logarithmic scales.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3920">Additionally, the simulated hydrography on the logarithm scale clearly shows
that the baseflow is the result of a linear reservoir (Fig. 10). The linear reservoir model can mimic recession quite well at the beginning of a baseflow recession, but the model discrepancy becomes larger in the middle to the end of frozen season. Hence, the FLEX-Topo model is not able to simulate the discontinuous recession. The model discrepancy indicates that, without considering frozen soil, FLEX-Topo cannot reproduce the observed LRET
and DBR observations well, although it explicitly considered landscape
heterogeneity, snow, and glacier processes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>FLEX-Topo-FS model results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>5.2.1</label><title>Freeze–thaw simulation by FLEX-Topo-FS model</title>
      <p id="d1e3938">Figure 9 demonstrates that the Stefan equation was capable to reproduce the
freeze–thaw process. This verified the success of the freeze–thaw
parameterization and the parameter sets. Also, the simulated lower limit of
permafrost is 3716 m, which is largely close to the field survey in the upper Heihe River basin, at around 3650–3700 m (Wang et al., 2016), and the
expert-based estimation of 3650 m of the Hulu catchment. Both the well
reproduced freeze–thaw variation in the spot scale and the lower limit of
permafrost in the catchment scale gave us strong confidence in the simulation
of soil freeze–thaw processes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>5.2.2</label><title>Runoff simulation by FLEX-Topo-FS model</title>
      <p id="d1e3949">While considering the impacts of frozen soil, the FLEX-Topo-FS model,
compared with FLEX-Topo, dramatically improved the model performance. Figure 10 shows the simulated hydrograph by FLEX-Topo-FS on both normal and log scales. Both the LRET and the DBR observations were almost perfectly
reproduced by the FLEX-Topo-FS model. The KGE of FLEX-Topo-FS in calibration
was 0.78, which was the same as FLEX-Topo. But in validation, the performance was significantly improved; the KGE improved from 0.58 to 0.66, KGL from 0.36 to 0.72, NSE from 0.41 to 0.60, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 0.82 to 0.83, and RMSE reduced from 0.95 to 0.79 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. All the model evaluation criteria were improved. The most significant improvement was the baseflow simulation, and KGL was increased from 0.36 to 0.72. We also noted that the FLEX-Topo-FS model reproduced the spikes during the thawing in Fig. 10. This further confirms our conceptual model of a sequence of thawing breakthroughs, which triggers the sudden release of groundwater starting at lower elevations and progressing to higher landscape elements.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>5.2.3</label><title>Modeling groundwater trends</title>
      <p id="d1e3983">To further verify the FLEX-Topo-FS model, we averaged the simulated
groundwater storage (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of all HRUs and compared this with the observed groundwater depth on the log scale (Fig. 11). We included the frozen
groundwater in the total groundwater storage (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) because the liquid groundwater is in connection with the frozen groundwater, and this affects the groundwater level variation. Figure 11 clearly demonstrates that the simulated groundwater storage decreased slower, and the timescale of the
recession increased. The trends of simulated groundwater storage and observed groundwater level, which are not the same but have a similar physical meaning describing the groundwater dynamic, correspond surprisingly well. This
is particularly encouraging, given that the periods of simulation (2011–2014) and observation (2016–2019) were not overlaid, and a point
observation may not be straightforwardly representative for the entire
basin.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e4010">Observed groundwater depth from 2016 to 2019 at WW01 wells, at
depths of 5, 10, 15, and 25 m, and the simulated groundwater storage by the
FLEX-Topo-FS model from 2011 to 2014.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f11.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4019">The success in reproducing groundwater level trends is another strong confirmation for the FLEX-Topo-FS model. All the successes of the FLEX-Topo-FS model in reproducing spot-scale freeze/thaw depth variations lower the limit of permafrost, LRET and DBR events, and groundwater level trends, giving us strong confidence in the realism of our qualitative perceptual model and quantitative conceptual model.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1">
  <label>6.1</label><title>Diagnosing the impacts of frozen soil on complex mountainous hydrology</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>6.1.1</label><title>Understanding complex frozen soil hydrology by hydrography analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e4046">Frozen soil happens underneath the ground, with frustrating spatiotemporal heterogeneities, and is difficulty to measure. Although there are spot and
hillslope measurements, its impact on catchment hydrology is still hard to
explore. Hydrography, easily and widely observed and globally accessible,
can be regarded as the by-product of the entire catchment hydrological
system (Gao, 2015). Hydrography as an integrated signal provides us with a vital source of information, reflecting how the complex hydrological system works, i.e., transforming precipitation into runoff. Hence, hydrography itself is a valuable source of data for understanding catchment frozen soil hydrology.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
Especially the baseflow embodies the influence of basin characteristics,
including the geology, soils, morphology, vegetation, and frozen soil (Blume
et al., 2007; Ye et al., 2009). Hence, a quantitative description of
baseflow is a valuable tool for understanding how the groundwater system
behaves (McNamara et al., 1998). Baseflow recession was used to identify the
impacts of climate change on permafrost hydrology. In previous studies,
Slaughter and Kane (1979) found that basins with permafrost have higher peak flows and lower baseflows. The baseflow, representing groundwater recession, provides important information about the storage capacity and recession characteristics of the active layer in permafrost regions (Brutsaert and Hiyama, 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e4051">Moreover, the hydrological system has tremendous influencing factors. The
hydrograph of paired catchments provides a good reference, as a controlled
experiment, to isolate one influencing factor from the others. Nested
catchments help us to acknowledge the importance of region-specific knowledge, which is often the key to interpreting the unexplained variability
in large sample studies (Fenicia and McDonnell, 2022). In this study, the
pair catchment method helped us to confirm the impacts of frozen soil on
LRET and DBR observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e4054">Additionally, by analyzing the nested subbasins of the Lena river in
Siberia, Ye et al. (2008) used the peak flow<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>baseflow ratio to quantify the
impact of permafrost coverage on hydrograph regime in the Lena river basin and found that frozen soil only affects the discharge regime over high permafrost regions (greater than 60 %) and has no significant affect over the low permafrost (less than 40 %) regions. In this study, we reconfirmed this statement. The permafrost area proportions of the Hulu catchment and
Zhamashike subbasin are 64 % and 74 %, with significant effects on
discharge, while 38 % of the Qilian subbasin is covered by permafrost,
with no significant effects on discharge regime.</p>
      <p id="d1e4064">By using the paired catchments comparison, interestingly, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Zhamashike and Qilian in the early recession period are both 60 d, which is exactly within the standard value of 45 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 d derived in earlier studies for basins ranging in size between 1000 and 100 000 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Brutsaert and Sugita, 2008; Brutsaert and Hiyama, 2012), which was likely the results of catchment self-similarity and co-evolution. But we also noticed that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the small Hulu catchment (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 60 d) is quite a bit larger than the Zhamashike (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 20 d) and Qilian (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d). This could be rooted in different scale and drainage density (Brutsaert and Hiyama, 2012). The Hulu catchment is located in the headwater with less drainage density; hence, there is less contact area between the hillslope and river channel, a slower baseflow recession, and a larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value. We argue that, even without the impacts from frozen soil, it is difficult to give accurate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimation in small catchments (less than 1000 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in moderate climates. It is more substantially difficult to estimate the discontinuous <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in different periods in frozen soil catchments without calibration. Thus, estimating the value of recession coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in different catchments and periods, especially for small catchments and in cold regions, is still an intriguing scientific question for hydrologists.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>6.1.2</label><title>Understanding complex frozen soil hydrology by multi-source
observations</title>
      <p id="d1e4213">Observation is still a bottleneck in complex mountainous cold regions.
Traditionally, fragmented observations are only for specific variables, like
puzzles. In this study, we collected multi-source data, including soil
moisture, groundwater level, topography, geology survey, isotope, soil
temperature, freeze/thaw depth, permafrost and seasonal frozen soil maps, and
hydrographs in paired catchments. Multi-source data analysis provides a multi-dimensional perspective to investigate frozen soil hydrology. We argue
that, on the one hand, multi-source observations helped us to deliver the
perceptual and conceptual models. And on the other hand, perceptual and
conceptual models bridge the gap between experimentalists and modelers
(Seibert and McDonnell, 2002), allowing us put fragmented observations
together and understand the hydrological system in an integrated and
qualitative way.</p>
      <p id="d1e4216">The data gap is a common issue in mountainous hydrology studies. For example, in this study, runoff data have a gap period at the end of the thawing season in 2013 due to flooding and equipment malfunction. Soil moisture and
groundwater level data had large gap, which cannot be used for continuous
modeling. Luckily, the meteorological data, which are important forcing data
for running the models, were continuous and without any gap. With sufficient
meteorological forcing data, we successfully run the hydrological models
from 2011 to 2014. The runoff data gap at the end of thawing season in 2013
merely influenced model validation. While evaluating the models, we did not
involve the data gap period. Hence, the data gap does not have any impact on
the consolidation of the conclusions.</p>
      <p id="d1e4219">Although soil moisture had large gap, there were, fortunately, some observations during the LRET periods, which were sufficient to distinguish
the impacts of frozen soil on soil moisture profile. Additionally, although
the groundwater level observation (2016–2019) was not overlaid with other
hydrometeorological measurements (2011–2014), its repeating seasonal pattern
allowed us to qualitatively understand how groundwater system behaves. Groundwater fluctuation in natural catchments has strong periodicity, which
can be observed in Fig. 11. Groundwater variation does not show significant difference among different years, which is especially true for the 25 m well. Due to the extreme difficulty of continuous observation in this region, there was no groundwater measurement in 2011–2014. But, due to
the strong repeated temporal variation in the groundwater level, we have good
reason to believe the trends in 2016–2019 also happened in 2011–2014.
Moreover, this is a qualitative comparison rather than a quantitative one,
which we do not think has any impact on our conclusions.</p>
      <p id="d1e4222">In general, we argue that data gap always exists. In another words, we can
never have sufficient data. The only thing we can do is use the accessible
data to understand processes. Although perfect data do not exist, the
more multi-source and the better the data quality, the more accurate understanding we can achieve. This needs close collaboration among multi-disciplinary researchers, including, but not limited to, hydrologists, meteorologists, ecologists, geocryologists, geologists, and engineers.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>6.1.3</label><title>Understanding complex frozen soil hydrology by model discrepancy</title>
      <p id="d1e4233">By a simple water balance inspection, we found that the total annual runoff
of the Hulu catchment was 499 mm a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is even larger than the observed annual precipitation of 433 mm a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This means that, without considering the distributed meteorological forcing, the runoff coefficient is larger than 1, and the water balance cannot be closed. This result is also in line with previous studies, showing that precipitation in mountainous areas is largely underestimated (Immerzeel et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e4260">Although the semi-distributed FLEX-Topo has considered tremendous processes,
including rainfall–runoff processes, distributed forcing, landscape
heterogeneity, topography, and snow and glacier melting, there was still model discrepancy in reproducing the LRET and DBR observations. This means that there must be some processes that were missed in the model. After our expert-driven data analysis, we attributed the model discrepancy to soil freeze–thaw processes.</p>
      <p id="d1e4263">Model fitness is the goal which all modelers are pursuing. But we argue that,
in many cases, the model discrepancy can tell us more interesting things than a perfect fit can. In this study, we used the FLEX-Topo model, without
frozen soil, as a diagnostic tool to understand the possible impacts of
frozen soil on the complex mountainous hydrology. Using tailor-made hydrological model and integrated observations as diagnostic tools is a
promising approach to understanding the complex mountainous
hydrology in a stepwise manner understand.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2">
  <label>6.2</label><title>Modeling frozen soil hydrology: top-down vs. bottom-up approach</title>
      <p id="d1e4275">Top-down and bottom-up approaches are two philosophies for model development
(Sivalpalan et al., 2003). The bottom-up approach attempts to model the
catchment-scale response based on the prior knowledge learned in small-scale settings. The bottom-up approach is commonly used in frozen soil hydrological
modeling because this is straightforward. And, for modeling, it is a common
practice to experiment with/without a certain process and claim its impacts
on runoff. But bottom-up modeling largely missed the key step needed to
diagnose the impacts of small-scale processes on catchment response. A lack of process understanding usually leads modeling studies to data pre- and
pro-processing and extensive parameter calibration, with the risk of
equifinality and model malfunction.</p>
      <p id="d1e4278">By our expert-driven, top-down modeling approach, we firstly tried to
understand the hydrological processes at work, using multi-source data and
analyzing the model discrepancy. We then translated our understanding to
perceptual and conceptual models. The top-down method is an appealing way to
identify the key influencing factors rather than being lost in endless
details and heterogeneities. Such informed analysis of the data helps to
bring experimentalist insights into the initiation of the conceptual model
construction.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS3">
  <label>6.3</label><title>Warming impacts on frozen soil hydrology</title>
      <p id="d1e4289">To quantify the impacts of warming on frozen soil hydrology, we arbitrarily
set the air temperature to increase by 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The FLEX-Topo-FS
simulation illustrated that the complete thaw date became 16–19 d earlier,
and the lower limit of permafrost increased by 294 m, from 3716 to 4010 m.
For runoff simulation, the DBR phenomenon became less obvious (Fig. 12). This is because 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C warming results in permafrost degradation, which
means most permafrost is degraded to seasonal frozen soil, since the DBR was
caused by the different groundwater discharge behaviors in permafrost and
seasonal frozen soil areas. Especially, the first recession period was contributed by the groundwater discharge from both permafrost and seasonal
frozen soil areas, and the second recession period was only from the seasonal frozen soil area. The permafrost degradation turns most permafrost into seasonal frozen soil and makes groundwater discharge nearly only from
the seasonal frozen soil region and leads to more continuous baseflow recession. Eventually, warming leads to the increase in both the baseflow
and runoff in early thawing seasons. The warming effect on baseflow was
already widely observed in the Arctic and mountainous permafrost rivers (Ye et al., 2009; Brutsaert and Hiyama, 2012; Niu et al., 2010; Song et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). Hence, these wide observations could be another verification for the FLEX-Topo-FS model realism. For implications in water resource management, the results indicate that frozen soil degradation caused by climate change may largely alter the streamflow regime, especially for the thirsty spring and early summer, in the vast cold QTP. It is also worthwhile to be note that this is a primary prediction. We used 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C warmer more like a sensitivity
analysis to illustrate how warming will impact on baseflow and to further
verify the capability and robustness of the model itself. In future studies,
we need more detailed modeling studies to use the state-of-the-art climate
prediction and downscaling methodologies to assess the frozen soil changes
and hydrology variations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e4321">Simulated hydrograph in current climate condition, and the
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C warmer condition.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/26/4187/2022/hess-26-4187-2022-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS4">
  <label>6.4</label><title>Implications for other cold regions</title>
      <p id="d1e4347">We believe that the FLEX-Topo-FS model has great potential to be applied in
other cold regions. There are mainly three reasons.</p>
      <p id="d1e4350">First, our study site, the Hulu catchment, although small (23.1 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>),
has a large elevation gradient (from 2960 to 4820 m), diverse landscapes
(hillslope vegetation, riparian area, alpine desert, and glaciers), snowfall
and snowmelt, and both permafrost and seasonal frozen soil. Our newly developed model explicitly considered all these spatial and temporal heterogeneities and eventually achieved excellent performance. With such a
comprehensive modeling toolkit, the model has the potential to be upscaled or
transferred to other cold regions.</p>
      <p id="d1e4362">Second, we obtained the perceptual model from not only the observations
and our expert knowledge at the Hulu catchment itself, but we also widely
considered the impact of frozen soil on hydrological processes in other
catchments, including the Zhamashike and Qilian (two nested subcatchments
of the upper Heihe), the headwater of Yellow River, and the Cape Bounty
Arctic Watershed Observatory in Canada. Thus, we developed the model for the
Hulu catchment in the context of larger-scale observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e4365">Third, the realism of the conceptual model was confirmed not only by
streamflow measurement but also by multi-source and multi-scale
observations, particularly the freezing and thawing front in the soil, the
lower limit of permafrost, and the trends in groundwater level variation.</p>
      <p id="d1e4369">Although our new model generally has great potential to be used in other
cold regions, we should be cautious of arbitrarily using the model without any prior understanding of the modeling system. Since frozen soil is merely one influential factor for cold region hydrology, there are other factors that have notable impacts which are intertwined with frozen soil. This relates especially to the geology condition, which can have considerable impact on frozen soil but has large spatial heterogeneity, and where it is difficult to take measurements. For the model's empirical parameters, most of them are related to the freeze–thaw processes related to Stefan equation, which have clear physical meanings and have been confirmed by previous studies with a good spatial distribution over the entire QTP (e.g., Zou et al., 2017; Ran et al., 2022). Due to the extreme complexity of soil and geology in mountainous catchments, we still need to recalibrate their values while modeling other basins on the QTP. Hence, before upscaling to other cold regions, we recommend following a stringent modeling procedure, i.e., expert-driven data analysis <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> qualitative perceptual model <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> quantitative conceptual model <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> testing of model realism.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>7</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4402">Our knowledge on frozen soil hydrology is still incomplete, which is
particularly true for complex mountainous catchment on the QTP. In the past few decades, we have collected numerous heterogeneities and complexities in
frozen soil regions, but most of these observations are still neither well
integrated into hydrological models nor used to constrain model structure
or parameterization in catchment-scale studies. More importantly, we still
largely lack quantitative knowledge on which variables play more dominant
roles at certain spatiotemporal scales and should be included in models
with priority.</p>
      <p id="d1e4405">By conducting this frozen soil hydrological modeling study for the complex
mountainous Hulu catchment, we reached the following conclusions: (1) we
observed two new phenomena in the frozen soil catchment, i.e., the low runoff
in early thawing seasons (LRET) and discontinuous baseflow recession (DBR),
which are widespread but not yet reported. (2) Without considering the
frozen soil, the FLEX-Topo model was not able to reproduce LRET and DBR
observations. (3) Considering frozen soil impacts on soil–groundwater
connectivity and groundwater recession, and the FLEX-Topo-FS model successfully reproduced the LRET and DBR events. The FLEX-Topo-FS results were also verified by observing the freeze/thaw depth variation, groundwater level, and lower limit of permafrost. We believe this study is able to give us new insights into further implications to help us understand the impact of frozen soil on hydrology and project the impacts of climate change on water resources in vast cold regions, which is one of the 23 major unsolved scientific problems in the hydrology community.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e4412">The code is available upon request to the contact author.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e4418">The field work data are available upon request to the contact author.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4424">HG, HS, FF, and KW designed the study. CH and RC provided the valuable fieldwork data, including both measured data and expert knowledge of the study site. HG, KW, and ZF conducted the analyses. HG wrote the paper. All authors discussed the results and the first draft and contributed to the final paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4430">At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of <italic>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</italic>. The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors have also no other competing interests to declare.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e4439">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4446">We thank two anonymous reviewers, for their constructive comments and
suggestions, which helped us to improve the paper.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e4451">This research has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 42122002, 42071081, 42171125, and 41971041).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4457">This paper was edited by Fuqiang Tian and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Andresen, C. G., Lawrence, D. M., Wilson, C. J., McGuire, A. D., Koven, C., Schaefer, K., Jafarov, E., Peng, S., Chen, X., Gouttevin, I., Burke, E., Chadburn, S., Ji, D., Chen, G., Hayes, D., and Zhang, W.: Soil moisture and hydrology projections of the permafrost region – a model intercomparison, The Cryosphere, 14, 445–459, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-445-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-14-445-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Beven, K. and Binley, A.: The future of distributed models: Model
calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.3360060305</ext-link>, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Blume, T., Zehe, E., and Bronstert, A.: Rainfall-runoff response, event-based
runoff coefficients and hydrograph separation, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52,
843–862, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.5.843" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1623/hysj.52.5.843</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Blöschl, G., Bierkens, M. F. P., Chambel, A., Cudennec, C., Destouni, G., Fiori, A., Kirchner, J. W., McDonnell, J. J., Savenije, H. H. G., Sivapalan, M., Stumpp, C., Toth, E., Volpi, E., Carr, G., Lupton, C., Salinas, J., Széles, B., Viglione, A., Aksoy, H., Allen, S. T., Amin, A., Andréassian, V., Arheimer, B., Aryal, S. K., Baker, V., Bardsley, E., Barendrecht, M. H., Bartosova, A., Batelaan, O., Berghuijs, W. R., Beven, K., Blume, T., Bogaard, T., de Amorim, P. B., Böttcher, M. E., Boulet, G., Breinl, K., Brilly, M., Brocca, L., Buytaert, W., Castellarin, A., Castelletti, A., Chen, X., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chifflard, P., Claps, P., Clark, M. P., Collins, A. L., Croke, B., Dathe, A., David, P. C., de Barros, F. P. J., de Rooij, G., Baldassarre, G. D., Driscoll, J. M., Duethmann, D., Dwivedi, R., Eris, E., Farmer, W. H., Feiccabrino, J., Ferguson, G., Ferrari, E., Ferraris, S., Fersch, B., Finger, D., Foglia, L., Fowler, K., Gartsman, B., Gascoin, S., Gaume, E., Gelfan, A., Geris, J., Gharari, S., Gleeson, T., Glendell, M., Bevacqua, A. G., González-Dugo, M. P., Grimaldi, S., Gupta, A. B., Guse, B., Han, D., Hannah, D., Harpold, A., Haun, S., Heal, K., Helfricht, K., Herrnegger, M., Hipsey, M., Hlaváciková, H., Hohmann, C., Holko, L., Hopkinson, C., Hrachowitz, M., Illangasekare, T. H., Inam, A., Innocente, C., Istanbulluoglu, E., Jarihani, B., Kalantari, Z., Kalvans, A., Khanal, S., Khatami, S., Kiesel, J., Kirkby, M., Knoben, W., Kochanek, K., Kohnová, S., Kolechkina, A., Krause, S., Kreamer, D., Kreibich, H., Kunstmann, H., Lange, H., Liberato, M. L. R., Lindquist, E., Link, T., Liu, J., Loucks, D. P., Luce, C., Mahé, G., Makarieva, O., Malard, J., Mashtayeva, S., Maskey, S., Mas-Pla, J., Mavrova-Guirguinova, M., Mazzoleni, M., Mernild, S., Misstear, B. D., Montanari, A., Müller-Thomy, H., Nabizadeh, A., Nardi, F., Neale, C., Nesterova, N., Nurtaev, B., Odongo, V. O., Panda, S., Pande, S., Pang, Z., Papacharalampous, G., Perrin, C., Pfister, L., Pimentel, R., Polo, M. J., Post, D., Sierra, C. P., Ramos, M.-H., Renner, M., Reynolds, J. E., Ridolfi, E., Rigon, R., Riva, M., Robertson, D. E., Rosso, R., Roy, T., Sá, J. H. M., Salvadori, G., Sandells, M., Schaefli, B., Schumann, A., Scolobig, A., Seibert, J., Servat, E., Shafiei, M., Sharma, A., Sidibe, M., Sidle, R. C., Skaugen, T., Smith, H., Spiessl, S. M., Stein, L., Steinsland, I., Strasser, U., Su, B., Szolgay, J., Tarboton, D., Tauro, F., Thirel, G., Tian, F., Tong, R., Tussupova, K., Tyralis, H., Uijlenhoet, R., van Beek, R., van der Ent, R. J., van der Ploeg, M., Loon, A. F. V., van Meerveld, I., van Nooijen, R., van Oel, P. R., Vidal, J.-P., von Freyberg, J., Vorogushyn, S., Wachniew, P., Wade, A. J., Ward, P., Westerberg, I. K., White, C., Wood, E. F., Woods, R., Xu, Z., Yilmaz, K. K., and Zhang, Y.: Twenty-three
unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH) – a community perspective, Hydrol. Sci.
J., 64, 1141–1158, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1620507" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02626667.2019.1620507</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bring, A., Fedorova, I., Dibike, Y., Hinzman, L., Mård, J., Mernild, S.
H., Prowse, T., Semenova, O., Stuefer, S. L., and Woo, M. K.: Arctic
terrestrial hydrology: A synthesis of processes, regional effects, and
research challenges, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 121, 621–649,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG003131" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JG003131</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brutsaert, W. and Hiyama, T.: The determination of permafrost thawing trends
from long-term streamflow measurements with an application in eastern
Siberia, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, 1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018344" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD018344</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brutsaert, W. and Sugita, M.: Is Mongolia's groundwater increasing or
decreasing? The case of the Kherlen River basin, Hydrol. Sci. J., 53,
1221–1229, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.6.1221" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1623/hysj.53.6.1221</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bui, M. T., Lu, J., and Nie, L.: A review of hydrological models applied in
the permafrost-dominated Arctic region, Geosciences, 10, 1–27,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100401" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/geosciences10100401</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cao, B., Zhang, T., Wu, Q., Sheng, Y., Zhao, L., and Zou, D.: Permafrost
zonation index map and statistics over the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau based on
field evidence, Permafrost Periglac., 30, 178–194,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/ppp.2006</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chadburn, S., Burke, E., Essery, R., Boike, J., Langer, M., Heikenfeld, M., Cox, P., and Friedlingstein, P.: An improved representation of physical permafrost dynamics in the JULES land-surface model, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1493–1508, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1493-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-1493-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chang, J., Wang, G. X., Li, C. J., and Mao, T. X.: Seasonal dynamics of
suprapermafrost groundwater and its response to the freeing-thawing
processes of soil in the permafrost region of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Sci.
China Earth Sci., 58, 727–738, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-014-5009-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11430-014-5009-y</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chen, R., Song, Y., Kang, E., Han, C., Liu, J., Yang, Y., Qing, W., and Liu,
Z.: A cryosphere-hydrology observation system in a small alpine watershed in
the Qilian mountains of China and its meteorological gradient, Arct.,
Antarct. Alp. Res., 46, 505–523, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1657/1938-4246-46.2.505" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1657/1938-4246-46.2.505</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chen, R., Wang, G., Yang, Y., Liu, J., Han, C., Song, Y., Liu, Z., and Kang,
E.: Effects of Cryospheric Change on Alpine Hydrology: Combining a Model
With Observations in the Upper Reaches of the Hei River, China, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 123, 3414–3442, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027876" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JD027876</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chiasson-Poirier, G., Franssen, J., Lafrenière, M. J., Fortier, D., and
Lamoureux, S. F.: Seasona evolution of active layer thaw depth and
hillslope-stream connectivity in a permafrost watershed, Water Resour. Res.,
56, 1–18, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019WR025828</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cuo, L., Zhang, Y., Bohn, T. J., Zhao, L., Li, J., Liu, Q., and Zhou, B.:
Journal of geophysical research, Nature, 175, 238,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/175238c0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/175238c0</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ding, Y., Zhang, S., Chen, R., Han, T., Han, H., Wu, J., Li, X., Zhao, Q.,
Shangguan, D., Yang, Y., Liu, J., Wang, S., Qin, J., and Chang, Y.:
Hydrological Basis and Discipline System of Cryohydrology: From a
Perspective of Cryospheric Science, Front. Earth Sci., 8, 574707,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.574707" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2020.574707</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dobinski, W.: Permafrost, Earth-Sci. Rev., 108, 158–169, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Evans, S. G., Ge, S., Voss, C. I., and Molotch, N. P.: The Role of Frozen
Soil in Groundwater Discharge Predictions for Warming Alpine Watersheds,
Water Resour. Res., 54, 1599–1615, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022098" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017WR022098</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fabre, C., Sauvage, S., Tananaev, N., Srinivasan, R., Teisserenc, R., and
Pérez, J. M. S.: Using modeling tools to better understand permafrost
hydrology, Water (Switzerland), 9, 418, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060418" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/w9060418</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Farquharson, L. M., Romanovsky, V. E., Cable, W. L., Walker, D. A., Kokelj,
S. V., and Nicolsky, D.: Climate Change Drives Widespread and Rapid
Thermokarst Development in Very Cold Permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 6681–6689, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082187" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019GL082187</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fenicia, F. and McDonnell, J. J.: Modeling streamflow variability at the
regional scale: (1) perceptual model development through signature analysis,
J. Hydrol., 605, 127287, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127287" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127287</ext-link>,
2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H. G., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: Is the groundwater reservoir linear? Learning from data in hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 139–150, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-139-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-10-139-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, H.: Landscape-based hydrological modelling: understanding the influence
of climate, topography, and vegetation on catchment hydrology, PhD
Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, H.,  Hrachowitz, M.,  Sriwongsitanon, N.,  Fenicia, F.,  Gharari, S., and  Savenije, H. H. G.: Accounting for the influence of vegetation and landscape improves model transferability in a tropical savannah region, Water Resour. Res., 52,  7999–8022, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019574" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016WR019574</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, H., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., Gharari, S., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Testing the realism of a topography-driven model (FLEX-Topo) in the nested catchments of the Upper Heihe, China, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1895–1915, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1895-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-18-1895-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, H., Ding, Y., Zhao, Q., Hrachowitz, M., and Savenije, H. H. G.: The
importance of aspect for modelling the hydrological response in a glacier
catchment in Central Asia, Hydrol. Process., 31, 2842–2859,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11224" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.11224</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, H., Dong, J., Chen, X., Cai, H., Liu, Z., Jin, Z., Mao, D., Yang, Z.,
and Duan, Z.: Stepwise modeling and the importance of internal variables
validation to test model realism in a data scarce glacier basin, J. Hydrol.,
591, 125457, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125457" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125457</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, H., Wang, J., Yang, Y., Pan, X., Ding, Y., and Duan, Z.: Permafrost
Hydrology of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: A Review of Processes and Modeling,
Front. Earth Sci., 8, 576838, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.576838" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2020.576838</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, J., Xie, Z., Wang, A., Liu, S., Zeng, Y., Liu, B., Li, R., Jia, B.,
Qin, P., and Xie, J.: A New Frozen Soil Parameterization Including Frost and
Thaw Fronts in the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11,
659–679, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001399" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018MS001399</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gharari, S., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., Gao, H., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Using expert knowledge to increase realism in environmental system models can dramatically reduce the need for calibration, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 4839–4859, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4839-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-18-4839-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gisnås, K., Westermann, S., Schuler, T. V., Melvold, K., and Etzelmüller, B.: Small-scale variation of snow in a regional permafrost model, The Cryosphere, 10, 1201–1215, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1201-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-10-1201-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gouttevin, I., Krinner, G., Ciais, P., Polcher, J., and Legout, C.: Multi-scale validation of a new soil freezing scheme for a land-surface model with physically-based hydrology, The Cryosphere, 6, 407–430, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-407-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-6-407-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of
the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for
improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Han, C., Chen, R., Liu, J., Yang, Y., and Liu, Z.: Hydrological characteristics
in non-freezing period at the alpine desert zone of Hulugou watershed,
Qilian Mountains, J. Glaciol. Geocryol., 35, 1536–1544,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Han, C., Chen, R., Liu, Z., Yang, Y., Liu, J., Song, Y., Wang, L., Liu, G.,
Guo, S., and Wang, X.: Cryospheric Hydrometeorology Observation in the Hulu
Catchment (CHOICE), Qilian Mountains, China, Vadose Zone J., 17, 180058,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.03.0058" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2136/vzj2018.03.0058</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>He, Z., Duethmann, D., and  Tian, F.: A meta-analysis based review of quantifying
the contributions of runoff components to streamflow in glacierized basins.
J. Hydrol., 603, 126890, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126890" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126890</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Immerzeel, W. W., Van Beek, L. P. H., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Climate change
will affect the asian water towers, Science, 328, 1382–1385,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183188" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1183188</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Immerzeel, W. W., Wanders, N., Lutz, A. F., Shea, J. M., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Reconciling high-altitude precipitation in the upper Indus basin with glacier mass balances and runoff, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4673–4687, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4673-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-19-4673-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jarvis, P. G.: Prospects for bottom-up models, in: Scaling Physiological
Processes: Leaf to Globe, edited by: Ehleringer J. R. and Field, C. B., Academic Press,
1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jiang, H., Zheng, G., Yi, Y., Chen, D., Zhang, W., Yang, K., and Miller, C.
E.: Progress and Challenges in Studying Regional Permafrost in the Tibetan
Plateau Using Satellite Remote Sensing and Models, Front. Earth Sci.,
8, 560403, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.560403" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2020.560403</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kurylyk, B. L.,  Hayashi, M.,  Quinton, W. L.,  McKenzie, J. M., and  Voss, C. I.:
Influence of vertical and lateral heat transfer on permafrost thaw, peatland
landscape transition, and groundwater flow, Water Resour. Res., 52,
1286–1305, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018057" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015WR018057</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lafrenière, M. J. and Lamoureux, S. F.: Effects of changing permafrost
conditions on hydrological processes and fluvial fluxes, Earth-Sci.
Rev., 191, 212–223, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Li, X., Wu, T., Zhu, X., Jiang, Y., Hu, G., Hao, J., Ni, R., Li, Y., Qiao, C., Yang, W.,  Ma, A., and Wen, X. Y.: Improving
the Noah-MP model for simulating hydrothermal regime of the active layer in
the permafrost regions of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032588,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032588" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020JD032588</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lindstrom, G., Bishop, K., and Lofvenius, M. O.: Soil frost and runoff at
Svartberget, northern Sweden – measurements and model analysis, Hydrol.
Process., 16, 3379–3392, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, Y., Zhao, L., and Li, R.: Simulation of the soil water-thermal features
within the active layerin Tanggula region, Tibetan plateau, by using SHAW
model, J. Glaciol. Geocryol. 35, 280–290, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ma, R., Sun, Z., Hu, Y., Chang, Q., Wang, S., Xing, W., and Ge, M.: Hydrological connectivity from glaciers to rivers in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: roles of suprapermafrost and subpermafrost groundwater, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4803–4823, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4803-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-21-4803-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ma, R., Sun, Z., Chang, Q., Ge, M., and Pan, Z.: Control of the interactions
between stream and groundwater by permafrost and seasonal frost in an alpine
catchment, northeastern Tibet Plateau, China, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033689,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033689" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020JD033689</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>McNamara, J. P., Kane, D. L., and Hinzman, L. D.: An analysis of streamflow
hydrology in the Kuparuk River Basin, Arctic Alaska: A nested watershed
approach, J. Hydrol., 206, 39–57, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00083-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00083-3</ext-link>,
1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nash, J. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River Flow Forecasting through Conceptual
Models Part I – A Discussion of Principles, J. Hydrol., 10,
282–290, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6</ext-link>, 1970.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Niu, G. Y. and Yang, Z. L.: Effects of frozen soil on snowmelt runoff and
soil water storage at a continental scale, J. Hydrometeorol., 7,
937–952, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM538.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM538.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Niu, L., Ye, B. S., Li, J., and Yu, S.: Effect of permafrost degradation on
hydrological processes in typical basins with various permafrost coverage in
Western China, Sci. China Earth Sci., 54, 615–624, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-010-4073-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11430-010-4073-1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nitze, I., Grosse, G., Jones, B. M., Romanovsky, V. E., and Boike, J.: Remote
sensing quantifies widespread abundance of permafrost region disturbances
across the Arctic and Subarctic, Nat. Commun., 9, 1–11,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07663-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-018-07663-3</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nyberg, L.: Soil frost effects on soil water and runoff dynamics along a
boreal forest transect: 1. Field investigations, Hydrol. Process., 15,
909–926, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oleson, K. and Lawrence, D.: NCAR / TN-503 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> STR NCAR Technical Note July
2013 Technical Description of version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM), (March 2014), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Osuch, M., Wawrzyniak, T. and Nawrot, A.: Diagnosis of the hydrology of a
small Arctic permafrost catchment using HBV conceptual rainfall-runoff
model, Hydrol. Res., 50, 459–478, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2019.031" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2166/nh.2019.031</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pan, X., Li, Y., Yu, Q., Shi, X., Yang, D., and Roth, K.: Effects of stratified active layers on high-altitude permafrost warming: a case study on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, The Cryosphere, 10, 1591–1603, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1591-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-10-1591-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pan, Z., Ma, R., Sun, Z., Hu, Y., Chang, Q., Ge, M., Wang, S., Bu, J., Long, X., Pan, Y., and Zhao, L.: Integrated hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical dataset of an alpine catchment in the northern Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 2147–2165,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-2147-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-14-2147-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ran, Y., Li, X., Cheng, G., Che, J., Aalto, J., Karjalainen, O., Hjort, J., Luoto, M., Jin, H., Obu, J., Hori, M., Yu, Q., and Chang, X.: New high-resolution estimates of the permafrost thermal state and hydrothermal conditions over the Northern Hemisphere, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 865–884, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-865-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-14-865-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Romanovsky, V. E. and Osterkamp, T. E.: Effects of unfrozen water on
heat and mass transport processes in the active layer and permafrost,
Permafrost Periglac., 11, 219–239, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Savenije, H. H. G.: HESS Opinions “The art of hydrology”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 157–161, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-157-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-13-157-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Savenije, H. H. G.: HESS Opinions “Topography driven conceptual modelling (FLEX-Topo)”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2681–2692, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2681-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-14-2681-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Seibert, J. and McDonnell, J. J.: On the dialog between experimentalist and
modeler in catchment hydrology: Use of soft data for multicriteria model
calibration, Water Resour. Res., 38, 23-1–23-14,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000978" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001wr000978</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shanley, J. B. and Chalmers, A.: The effect of frozen soil on snowmelt
runoff at Sleepers River, Vermont, Hydrol. Process., 13, 1843–1857,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199909)13:12/13&lt;1843::AID-HYP879&gt;3.0.CO;2-G" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199909)13:12/13&lt;1843::AID-HYP879&gt;3.0.CO;2-G</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sheng, Y.: Map of permafrost distribution in the Qilian Mountains. National
Tibetan Plateau Data Center [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.11888/Geocry.tpdc.270456" ext-link-type="DOI">10.11888/Geocry.tpdc.270456</ext-link>,  2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sivapalan, M., Blöschl, G., Zhang, L., and Vertessy, R.: Downward
approach to hydrological prediction, Hydrol. Process., 17, 2101–2111,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1425" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.1425</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Song, C., Wang, G., Mao, T., Dai, J., and Yang, D.: Linkage between permafrost
distribution and river runoff changes across the Arctic and the Tibetan
Plateau, Sci. China Earth Sci., 63, 292–302, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Streletskiy, D. A., Tananaev, N. I., Opel, T., Shiklomanov, N. I., Nyland,
K. E., Streletskaya, I. D., Tokarev, I., and Shiklomanov, A. I.: Permafrost
hydrology in changing climatic conditions: Seasonal variability of stable
isotope composition in rivers in discontinuous permafrost, Environ. Res.
Lett., 10, 095003, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095003</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sun, A., Yu, Z., Zhou, J., Acharya, K., Ju, Q., Xing, R., Huang, D., and Wen, L.: Quantified hydrological responses to permafrost degradation in the headwaters of the Yellow River (HWYR) in High Asia, Sci. Total Environ., 712, 135632, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135632" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135632</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tananaev, N., Teisserenc, R., and Debolskiy, M.: Permafrost hydrology
research domain: Process-based adjustment, Hydrology, 7, 6,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology7010006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/hydrology7010006</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Walvoord, M. A. and Kurylyk, B. L.: Hydrologic Impacts of Thawing
Permafrost-A Review, Vadose Zone J., 15, vzj2016.01.0010,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.01.0010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2136/vzj2016.01.0010</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, G. X., Mao, T. X., Chang, J., Song, C. L., and Huang, K. W.: Processes
of runoff generation operating during the spring and autumn seasons in a
permafrost catchment on semi-arid plateaus, J. Hydrol. 550, 307–317,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.020</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, L., Koike, T., Yang, K., Jin, R., and Li, H.: Frozen soil parameterization in a distributed biosphere hydrological model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 557–571, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-557-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-14-557-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, P., Huang, Q., Pozdniakov, S. P., Liu, S., Ma, N., Wang, T., Zhang,
Y., Yu, J., Xie, J., Fu, G., Frolova, N. L., and Liu, C.: Potential role of
permafrost thaw on increasing Siberian river discharge, Environ. Res. Lett.,
16, 034046, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe326" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/abe326</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Q. F., Jin, H. J., Zhang, T. J., Wu, Q. B., Cao, B., Peng, X. Q., Wang, K., and Li, L. L. : Active layer seasonal freeze-thaw
processes and influencing factors in the alpine permafrost regions in the
upper reaches of the Heihe River in Qilian Mountains, Chin. Sci.
Bull., 61, 2742–2756, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1360/N972015-01237" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1360/N972015-01237</ext-link>, 2016  (in Chinese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, T., Yang, D., Yang, Y., Piao, S., Li, X., Cheng, G., and Fu, B.:
Permafrost thawing puts the frozen carbon at risk over the Tibetan Plateau,
Sci. Adv., 6, 2–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz3513" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.aaz3513</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Yang, H., Gao, B., Wang, T., Qin, Y., and Yang, D.: State Key
Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic School
of Water Resources and Environment, China University of Geosciences, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Watson, V., Kooi, H., and Bense, V.: Potential controls on cold-season river
flow behavior in subarctic river basins of Siberia, J. Hydrol., 489,
214–226, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.03.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.03.011</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Woo, M.-K.: Permafrost Hydrology, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 564 pp., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23462-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-3-642-23462-0</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wu, T., Li, S., Cheng, G., and Nan, Z.: Using ground-penetrating radar to
detect permafrost degradation in the northern limit of permafrost on the
Tibetan Plateau, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 41, 211–219,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2004.10.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coldregions.2004.10.006</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xiao, Y., Zhao, L., Dai, Y., Li, R., Pang, Q. and Yao, J.: Representing
permafrost properties in CoLM for the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibetan) Plateau, Cold
Reg. Sci. Technol., 87, 68–77, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2012.12.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coldregions.2012.12.004</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xie, C. and Gough, W. A.: Short Communication: A Simple Thaw-Freeze Algorithm
for a Multi-Layered Soil using the Stefan Equation, Permafrost Periglac., 24, 252–260, 2013.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yang, Y., Wu, Q., Jin, H., Wang, Q., Huang, Y., Luo, D., Gao, S., and Jin,
X.: Delineating the hydrological processes and hydraulic connectivities
under permafrost degradation on Northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China,
J. Hydrol., 569, 359–372, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.068" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.068</ext-link>,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ye, B., Yang, D., Zhang, Z., and Kane, D. L.: Variation of hydrological
regime with permafrost coverage over Lena Basin in Siberia, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114,   D07102, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010537" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD010537</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, R., Liu, J., Gao, H., and Mao, G.: Can multi-objective calibration of
streamflow guarantee better hydrological model accuracy?, J.
Hydroinformatics, 20, 687–698, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2018.131" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2166/hydro.2018.131</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, T., Frauenfeld, O. W., Serreze, M. C., Etringer, A., Oelke, C.,
McCreight, J., Barry, R. G., Gilichinsky, D., Yang, D., Ye, H., Ling, F., and
Chudinova, S.: Spatial and temporal variability in active layer thickness
over the Russian Arctic drainage basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110,
1–14, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005642" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005642</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhao, L., Zou, D., Hu, G., Du, E., Pang, Q., Xiao, Y., Li, R., Sheng, Y.,
Wu, X., Sun, Z., Wang, L., Wang, C., Ma, L., Zhou, H., and Liu, S.: Changing
climate and the permafrost environment on the Qinghai–Tibet (Xizang)
plateau, Permafrost Periglac., 31, 396–405, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2056" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/ppp.2056</ext-link>,
2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhou, J., Kinzelbach, W., Cheng, G., Zhang, W., He, X., and Ye, B.:
Monitoring and modeling the influence of snow pack and organic soil on a
permafrost active layer, qinghai-tibetan plateau of china, Cold Reg. Sci.
Technol., 90–91, 38–52, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2013.03.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coldregions.2013.03.003</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zou, D., Zhao, L., Wu, T., Wu, X., Pang, Q., and Wang, Z.: Modeling ground
surface temperature by means of remote sensing data in high-altitude areas:
test in the central Tibetan Plateau with application of moderate-resolution
imaging spectroradiometer Terra/Aqua land surface temperature and
ground-based infrared, J. Appl. Remote Sens., 8, 083516,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jrs.8.083516" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1117/1.jrs.8.083516</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Frozen soil hydrological modeling for a mountainous catchment  northeast of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Andresen, C. G., Lawrence, D. M., Wilson, C. J., McGuire, A. D., Koven, C., Schaefer, K., Jafarov, E., Peng, S., Chen, X., Gouttevin, I., Burke, E., Chadburn, S., Ji, D., Chen, G., Hayes, D., and Zhang, W.: Soil moisture and hydrology projections of the permafrost region – a model intercomparison, The Cryosphere, 14, 445–459, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-445-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-445-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Beven, K. and Binley, A.: The future of distributed models: Model
calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305</a>, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Blume, T., Zehe, E., and Bronstert, A.: Rainfall-runoff response, event-based
runoff coefficients and hydrograph separation, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52,
843–862, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.5.843" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.5.843</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Blöschl, G., Bierkens, M. F. P., Chambel, A., Cudennec, C., Destouni, G., Fiori, A., Kirchner, J. W., McDonnell, J. J., Savenije, H. H. G., Sivapalan, M., Stumpp, C., Toth, E., Volpi, E., Carr, G., Lupton, C., Salinas, J., Széles, B., Viglione, A., Aksoy, H., Allen, S. T., Amin, A., Andréassian, V., Arheimer, B., Aryal, S. K., Baker, V., Bardsley, E., Barendrecht, M. H., Bartosova, A., Batelaan, O., Berghuijs, W. R., Beven, K., Blume, T., Bogaard, T., de Amorim, P. B., Böttcher, M. E., Boulet, G., Breinl, K., Brilly, M., Brocca, L., Buytaert, W., Castellarin, A., Castelletti, A., Chen, X., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Chifflard, P., Claps, P., Clark, M. P., Collins, A. L., Croke, B., Dathe, A., David, P. C., de Barros, F. P. J., de Rooij, G., Baldassarre, G. D., Driscoll, J. M., Duethmann, D., Dwivedi, R., Eris, E., Farmer, W. H., Feiccabrino, J., Ferguson, G., Ferrari, E., Ferraris, S., Fersch, B., Finger, D., Foglia, L., Fowler, K., Gartsman, B., Gascoin, S., Gaume, E., Gelfan, A., Geris, J., Gharari, S., Gleeson, T., Glendell, M., Bevacqua, A. G., González-Dugo, M. P., Grimaldi, S., Gupta, A. B., Guse, B., Han, D., Hannah, D., Harpold, A., Haun, S., Heal, K., Helfricht, K., Herrnegger, M., Hipsey, M., Hlaváciková, H., Hohmann, C., Holko, L., Hopkinson, C., Hrachowitz, M., Illangasekare, T. H., Inam, A., Innocente, C., Istanbulluoglu, E., Jarihani, B., Kalantari, Z., Kalvans, A., Khanal, S., Khatami, S., Kiesel, J., Kirkby, M., Knoben, W., Kochanek, K., Kohnová, S., Kolechkina, A., Krause, S., Kreamer, D., Kreibich, H., Kunstmann, H., Lange, H., Liberato, M. L. R., Lindquist, E., Link, T., Liu, J., Loucks, D. P., Luce, C., Mahé, G., Makarieva, O., Malard, J., Mashtayeva, S., Maskey, S., Mas-Pla, J., Mavrova-Guirguinova, M., Mazzoleni, M., Mernild, S., Misstear, B. D., Montanari, A., Müller-Thomy, H., Nabizadeh, A., Nardi, F., Neale, C., Nesterova, N., Nurtaev, B., Odongo, V. O., Panda, S., Pande, S., Pang, Z., Papacharalampous, G., Perrin, C., Pfister, L., Pimentel, R., Polo, M. J., Post, D., Sierra, C. P., Ramos, M.-H., Renner, M., Reynolds, J. E., Ridolfi, E., Rigon, R., Riva, M., Robertson, D. E., Rosso, R., Roy, T., Sá, J. H. M., Salvadori, G., Sandells, M., Schaefli, B., Schumann, A., Scolobig, A., Seibert, J., Servat, E., Shafiei, M., Sharma, A., Sidibe, M., Sidle, R. C., Skaugen, T., Smith, H., Spiessl, S. M., Stein, L., Steinsland, I., Strasser, U., Su, B., Szolgay, J., Tarboton, D., Tauro, F., Thirel, G., Tian, F., Tong, R., Tussupova, K., Tyralis, H., Uijlenhoet, R., van Beek, R., van der Ent, R. J., van der Ploeg, M., Loon, A. F. V., van Meerveld, I., van Nooijen, R., van Oel, P. R., Vidal, J.-P., von Freyberg, J., Vorogushyn, S., Wachniew, P., Wade, A. J., Ward, P., Westerberg, I. K., White, C., Wood, E. F., Woods, R., Xu, Z., Yilmaz, K. K., and Zhang, Y.: Twenty-three
unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH) – a community perspective, Hydrol. Sci.
J., 64, 1141–1158, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1620507" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1620507</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bring, A., Fedorova, I., Dibike, Y., Hinzman, L., Mård, J., Mernild, S.
H., Prowse, T., Semenova, O., Stuefer, S. L., and Woo, M. K.: Arctic
terrestrial hydrology: A synthesis of processes, regional effects, and
research challenges, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 121, 621–649,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG003131" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG003131</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Brutsaert, W. and Hiyama, T.: The determination of permafrost thawing trends
from long-term streamflow measurements with an application in eastern
Siberia, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, 1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018344" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018344</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Brutsaert, W. and Sugita, M.: Is Mongolia's groundwater increasing or
decreasing? The case of the Kherlen River basin, Hydrol. Sci. J., 53,
1221–1229, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.6.1221" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.6.1221</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Bui, M. T., Lu, J., and Nie, L.: A review of hydrological models applied in
the permafrost-dominated Arctic region, Geosciences, 10, 1–27,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100401" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100401</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Cao, B., Zhang, T., Wu, Q., Sheng, Y., Zhao, L., and Zou, D.: Permafrost
zonation index map and statistics over the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau based on
field evidence, Permafrost Periglac., 30, 178–194,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2006</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation> Chadburn, S., Burke, E., Essery, R., Boike, J., Langer, M., Heikenfeld, M., Cox, P., and Friedlingstein, P.: An improved representation of physical permafrost dynamics in the JULES land-surface model, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1493–1508, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1493-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1493-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Chang, J., Wang, G. X., Li, C. J., and Mao, T. X.: Seasonal dynamics of
suprapermafrost groundwater and its response to the freeing-thawing
processes of soil in the permafrost region of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Sci.
China Earth Sci., 58, 727–738, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-014-5009-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-014-5009-y</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Chen, R., Song, Y., Kang, E., Han, C., Liu, J., Yang, Y., Qing, W., and Liu,
Z.: A cryosphere-hydrology observation system in a small alpine watershed in
the Qilian mountains of China and its meteorological gradient, Arct.,
Antarct. Alp. Res., 46, 505–523, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1657/1938-4246-46.2.505" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1657/1938-4246-46.2.505</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Chen, R., Wang, G., Yang, Y., Liu, J., Han, C., Song, Y., Liu, Z., and Kang,
E.: Effects of Cryospheric Change on Alpine Hydrology: Combining a Model
With Observations in the Upper Reaches of the Hei River, China, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 123, 3414–3442, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027876" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027876</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Chiasson-Poirier, G., Franssen, J., Lafrenière, M. J., Fortier, D., and
Lamoureux, S. F.: Seasona evolution of active layer thaw depth and
hillslope-stream connectivity in a permafrost watershed, Water Resour. Res.,
56, 1–18, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025828" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025828</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Cuo, L., Zhang, Y., Bohn, T. J., Zhao, L., Li, J., Liu, Q., and Zhou, B.:
Journal of geophysical research, Nature, 175, 238,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/175238c0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/175238c0</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Ding, Y., Zhang, S., Chen, R., Han, T., Han, H., Wu, J., Li, X., Zhao, Q.,
Shangguan, D., Yang, Y., Liu, J., Wang, S., Qin, J., and Chang, Y.:
Hydrological Basis and Discipline System of Cryohydrology: From a
Perspective of Cryospheric Science, Front. Earth Sci., 8, 574707,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.574707" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.574707</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Dobinski, W.: Permafrost, Earth-Sci. Rev., 108, 158–169, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Evans, S. G., Ge, S., Voss, C. I., and Molotch, N. P.: The Role of Frozen
Soil in Groundwater Discharge Predictions for Warming Alpine Watersheds,
Water Resour. Res., 54, 1599–1615, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022098" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022098</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Fabre, C., Sauvage, S., Tananaev, N., Srinivasan, R., Teisserenc, R., and
Pérez, J. M. S.: Using modeling tools to better understand permafrost
hydrology, Water (Switzerland), 9, 418, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060418" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060418</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Farquharson, L. M., Romanovsky, V. E., Cable, W. L., Walker, D. A., Kokelj,
S. V., and Nicolsky, D.: Climate Change Drives Widespread and Rapid
Thermokarst Development in Very Cold Permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 6681–6689, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082187" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082187</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Fenicia, F. and McDonnell, J. J.: Modeling streamflow variability at the
regional scale: (1) perceptual model development through signature analysis,
J. Hydrol., 605, 127287, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127287" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127287</a>,
2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H. G., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: Is the groundwater reservoir linear? Learning from data in hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 139–150, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-139-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-139-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Gao, H.: Landscape-based hydrological modelling: understanding the influence
of climate, topography, and vegetation on catchment hydrology, PhD
Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Gao, H.,  Hrachowitz, M.,  Sriwongsitanon, N.,  Fenicia, F.,  Gharari, S., and  Savenije, H. H. G.: Accounting for the influence of vegetation and landscape improves model transferability in a tropical savannah region, Water Resour. Res., 52,  7999–8022, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019574" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019574</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation> Gao, H., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., Gharari, S., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Testing the realism of a topography-driven model (FLEX-Topo) in the nested catchments of the Upper Heihe, China, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1895–1915, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1895-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1895-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Gao, H., Ding, Y., Zhao, Q., Hrachowitz, M., and Savenije, H. H. G.: The
importance of aspect for modelling the hydrological response in a glacier
catchment in Central Asia, Hydrol. Process., 31, 2842–2859,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11224" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11224</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Gao, H., Dong, J., Chen, X., Cai, H., Liu, Z., Jin, Z., Mao, D., Yang, Z.,
and Duan, Z.: Stepwise modeling and the importance of internal variables
validation to test model realism in a data scarce glacier basin, J. Hydrol.,
591, 125457, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125457" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125457</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Gao, H., Wang, J., Yang, Y., Pan, X., Ding, Y., and Duan, Z.: Permafrost
Hydrology of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: A Review of Processes and Modeling,
Front. Earth Sci., 8, 576838, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.576838" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.576838</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Gao, J., Xie, Z., Wang, A., Liu, S., Zeng, Y., Liu, B., Li, R., Jia, B.,
Qin, P., and Xie, J.: A New Frozen Soil Parameterization Including Frost and
Thaw Fronts in the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11,
659–679, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001399" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001399</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Gharari, S., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., Gao, H., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Using expert knowledge to increase realism in environmental system models can dramatically reduce the need for calibration, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 4839–4859, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4839-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4839-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Gisnås, K., Westermann, S., Schuler, T. V., Melvold, K., and Etzelmüller, B.: Small-scale variation of snow in a regional permafrost model, The Cryosphere, 10, 1201–1215, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1201-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1201-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation> Gouttevin, I., Krinner, G., Ciais, P., Polcher, J., and Legout, C.: Multi-scale validation of a new soil freezing scheme for a land-surface model with physically-based hydrology, The Cryosphere, 6, 407–430, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-407-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-407-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of
the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for
improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Han, C., Chen, R., Liu, J., Yang, Y., and Liu, Z.: Hydrological characteristics
in non-freezing period at the alpine desert zone of Hulugou watershed,
Qilian Mountains, J. Glaciol. Geocryol., 35, 1536–1544,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Han, C., Chen, R., Liu, Z., Yang, Y., Liu, J., Song, Y., Wang, L., Liu, G.,
Guo, S., and Wang, X.: Cryospheric Hydrometeorology Observation in the Hulu
Catchment (CHOICE), Qilian Mountains, China, Vadose Zone J., 17, 180058,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.03.0058" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.03.0058</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>He, Z., Duethmann, D., and  Tian, F.: A meta-analysis based review of quantifying
the contributions of runoff components to streamflow in glacierized basins.
J. Hydrol., 603, 126890, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126890" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126890</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Immerzeel, W. W., Van Beek, L. P. H., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Climate change
will affect the asian water towers, Science, 328, 1382–1385,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183188" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183188</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation> Immerzeel, W. W., Wanders, N., Lutz, A. F., Shea, J. M., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Reconciling high-altitude precipitation in the upper Indus basin with glacier mass balances and runoff, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4673–4687, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4673-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4673-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Jarvis, P. G.: Prospects for bottom-up models, in: Scaling Physiological
Processes: Leaf to Globe, edited by: Ehleringer J. R. and Field, C. B., Academic Press,
1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Jiang, H., Zheng, G., Yi, Y., Chen, D., Zhang, W., Yang, K., and Miller, C.
E.: Progress and Challenges in Studying Regional Permafrost in the Tibetan
Plateau Using Satellite Remote Sensing and Models, Front. Earth Sci.,
8, 560403, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.560403" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.560403</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Kurylyk, B. L.,  Hayashi, M.,  Quinton, W. L.,  McKenzie, J. M., and  Voss, C. I.:
Influence of vertical and lateral heat transfer on permafrost thaw, peatland
landscape transition, and groundwater flow, Water Resour. Res., 52,
1286–1305, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018057" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018057</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Lafrenière, M. J. and Lamoureux, S. F.: Effects of changing permafrost
conditions on hydrological processes and fluvial fluxes, Earth-Sci.
Rev., 191, 212–223, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Li, X., Wu, T., Zhu, X., Jiang, Y., Hu, G., Hao, J., Ni, R., Li, Y., Qiao, C., Yang, W.,  Ma, A., and Wen, X. Y.: Improving
the Noah-MP model for simulating hydrothermal regime of the active layer in
the permafrost regions of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD032588,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032588" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032588</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Lindstrom, G., Bishop, K., and Lofvenius, M. O.: Soil frost and runoff at
Svartberget, northern Sweden – measurements and model analysis, Hydrol.
Process., 16, 3379–3392, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Liu, Y., Zhao, L., and Li, R.: Simulation of the soil water-thermal features
within the active layerin Tanggula region, Tibetan plateau, by using SHAW
model, J. Glaciol. Geocryol. 35, 280–290, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Ma, R., Sun, Z., Hu, Y., Chang, Q., Wang, S., Xing, W., and Ge, M.: Hydrological connectivity from glaciers to rivers in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: roles of suprapermafrost and subpermafrost groundwater, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4803–4823, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4803-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4803-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Ma, R., Sun, Z., Chang, Q., Ge, M., and Pan, Z.: Control of the interactions
between stream and groundwater by permafrost and seasonal frost in an alpine
catchment, northeastern Tibet Plateau, China, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033689,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033689" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033689</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>McNamara, J. P., Kane, D. L., and Hinzman, L. D.: An analysis of streamflow
hydrology in the Kuparuk River Basin, Arctic Alaska: A nested watershed
approach, J. Hydrol., 206, 39–57, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00083-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00083-3</a>,
1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Nash, J. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River Flow Forecasting through Conceptual
Models Part I – A Discussion of Principles, J. Hydrol., 10,
282–290, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6</a>, 1970.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Niu, G. Y. and Yang, Z. L.: Effects of frozen soil on snowmelt runoff and
soil water storage at a continental scale, J. Hydrometeorol., 7,
937–952, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM538.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM538.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Niu, L., Ye, B. S., Li, J., and Yu, S.: Effect of permafrost degradation on
hydrological processes in typical basins with various permafrost coverage in
Western China, Sci. China Earth Sci., 54, 615–624, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-010-4073-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-010-4073-1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Nitze, I., Grosse, G., Jones, B. M., Romanovsky, V. E., and Boike, J.: Remote
sensing quantifies widespread abundance of permafrost region disturbances
across the Arctic and Subarctic, Nat. Commun., 9, 1–11,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07663-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07663-3</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Nyberg, L.: Soil frost effects on soil water and runoff dynamics along a
boreal forest transect: 1. Field investigations, Hydrol. Process., 15,
909–926, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Oleson, K. and Lawrence, D.: NCAR / TN-503 + STR NCAR Technical Note July
2013 Technical Description of version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM), (March 2014), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Osuch, M., Wawrzyniak, T. and Nawrot, A.: Diagnosis of the hydrology of a
small Arctic permafrost catchment using HBV conceptual rainfall-runoff
model, Hydrol. Res., 50, 459–478, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2019.031" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2019.031</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation> Pan, X., Li, Y., Yu, Q., Shi, X., Yang, D., and Roth, K.: Effects of stratified active layers on high-altitude permafrost warming: a case study on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, The Cryosphere, 10, 1591–1603, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1591-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1591-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, Z., Ma, R., Sun, Z., Hu, Y., Chang, Q., Ge, M., Wang, S., Bu, J., Long, X., Pan, Y., and Zhao, L.: Integrated hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical dataset of an alpine catchment in the northern Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 2147–2165,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-2147-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-2147-2022</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Ran, Y., Li, X., Cheng, G., Che, J., Aalto, J., Karjalainen, O., Hjort, J., Luoto, M., Jin, H., Obu, J., Hori, M., Yu, Q., and Chang, X.: New high-resolution estimates of the permafrost thermal state and hydrothermal conditions over the Northern Hemisphere, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 865–884, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-865-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-865-2022</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Romanovsky, V. E. and Osterkamp, T. E.: Effects of unfrozen water on
heat and mass transport processes in the active layer and permafrost,
Permafrost Periglac., 11, 219–239, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Savenije, H. H. G.: HESS Opinions “The art of hydrology”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 157–161, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-157-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-157-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Savenije, H. H. G.: HESS Opinions “Topography driven conceptual modelling (FLEX-Topo)”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2681–2692, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2681-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2681-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Seibert, J. and McDonnell, J. J.: On the dialog between experimentalist and
modeler in catchment hydrology: Use of soft data for multicriteria model
calibration, Water Resour. Res., 38, 23-1–23-14,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000978" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000978</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Shanley, J. B. and Chalmers, A.: The effect of frozen soil on snowmelt
runoff at Sleepers River, Vermont, Hydrol. Process., 13, 1843–1857,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199909)13:12/13&lt;1843::AID-HYP879&gt;3.0.CO;2-G" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199909)13:12/13&lt;1843::AID-HYP879&gt;3.0.CO;2-G</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Sheng, Y.: Map of permafrost distribution in the Qilian Mountains. National
Tibetan Plateau Data Center [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.11888/Geocry.tpdc.270456" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.11888/Geocry.tpdc.270456</a>,  2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Sivapalan, M., Blöschl, G., Zhang, L., and Vertessy, R.: Downward
approach to hydrological prediction, Hydrol. Process., 17, 2101–2111,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1425" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1425</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Song, C., Wang, G., Mao, T., Dai, J., and Yang, D.: Linkage between permafrost
distribution and river runoff changes across the Arctic and the Tibetan
Plateau, Sci. China Earth Sci., 63, 292–302, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Streletskiy, D. A., Tananaev, N. I., Opel, T., Shiklomanov, N. I., Nyland,
K. E., Streletskaya, I. D., Tokarev, I., and Shiklomanov, A. I.: Permafrost
hydrology in changing climatic conditions: Seasonal variability of stable
isotope composition in rivers in discontinuous permafrost, Environ. Res.
Lett., 10, 095003, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095003</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation> Sun, A., Yu, Z., Zhou, J., Acharya, K., Ju, Q., Xing, R., Huang, D., and Wen, L.: Quantified hydrological responses to permafrost degradation in the headwaters of the Yellow River (HWYR) in High Asia, Sci. Total Environ., 712, 135632, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135632" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135632</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Tananaev, N., Teisserenc, R., and Debolskiy, M.: Permafrost hydrology
research domain: Process-based adjustment, Hydrology, 7, 6,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology7010006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology7010006</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Walvoord, M. A. and Kurylyk, B. L.: Hydrologic Impacts of Thawing
Permafrost-A Review, Vadose Zone J., 15, vzj2016.01.0010,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.01.0010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.01.0010</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Wang, G. X., Mao, T. X., Chang, J., Song, C. L., and Huang, K. W.: Processes
of runoff generation operating during the spring and autumn seasons in a
permafrost catchment on semi-arid plateaus, J. Hydrol. 550, 307–317,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.020</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation> Wang, L., Koike, T., Yang, K., Jin, R., and Li, H.: Frozen soil parameterization in a distributed biosphere hydrological model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 557–571, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-557-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-557-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Wang, P., Huang, Q., Pozdniakov, S. P., Liu, S., Ma, N., Wang, T., Zhang,
Y., Yu, J., Xie, J., Fu, G., Frolova, N. L., and Liu, C.: Potential role of
permafrost thaw on increasing Siberian river discharge, Environ. Res. Lett.,
16, 034046, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe326" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe326</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Q. F., Jin, H. J., Zhang, T. J., Wu, Q. B., Cao, B., Peng, X. Q., Wang, K., and Li, L. L. : Active layer seasonal freeze-thaw
processes and influencing factors in the alpine permafrost regions in the
upper reaches of the Heihe River in Qilian Mountains, Chin. Sci.
Bull., 61, 2742–2756, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1360/N972015-01237" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1360/N972015-01237</a>, 2016  (in Chinese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>Wang, T., Yang, D., Yang, Y., Piao, S., Li, X., Cheng, G., and Fu, B.:
Permafrost thawing puts the frozen carbon at risk over the Tibetan Plateau,
Sci. Adv., 6, 2–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz3513" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz3513</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Yang, H., Gao, B., Wang, T., Qin, Y., and Yang, D.: State Key
Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic School
of Water Resources and Environment, China University of Geosciences, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>Watson, V., Kooi, H., and Bense, V.: Potential controls on cold-season river
flow behavior in subarctic river basins of Siberia, J. Hydrol., 489,
214–226, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.03.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.03.011</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>Woo, M.-K.: Permafrost Hydrology, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 564 pp., <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23462-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23462-0</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>Wu, T., Li, S., Cheng, G., and Nan, Z.: Using ground-penetrating radar to
detect permafrost degradation in the northern limit of permafrost on the
Tibetan Plateau, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 41, 211–219,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2004.10.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2004.10.006</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>Xiao, Y., Zhao, L., Dai, Y., Li, R., Pang, Q. and Yao, J.: Representing
permafrost properties in CoLM for the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibetan) Plateau, Cold
Reg. Sci. Technol., 87, 68–77, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2012.12.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2012.12.004</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>Xie, C. and Gough, W. A.: Short Communication: A Simple Thaw-Freeze Algorithm
for a Multi-Layered Soil using the Stefan Equation, Permafrost Periglac., 24, 252–260, 2013.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>Yang, Y., Wu, Q., Jin, H., Wang, Q., Huang, Y., Luo, D., Gao, S., and Jin,
X.: Delineating the hydrological processes and hydraulic connectivities
under permafrost degradation on Northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China,
J. Hydrol., 569, 359–372, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.068" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.068</a>,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Ye, B., Yang, D., Zhang, Z., and Kane, D. L.: Variation of hydrological
regime with permafrost coverage over Lena Basin in Siberia, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114,   D07102, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010537" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010537</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R., Liu, J., Gao, H., and Mao, G.: Can multi-objective calibration of
streamflow guarantee better hydrological model accuracy?, J.
Hydroinformatics, 20, 687–698, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2018.131" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2018.131</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, T., Frauenfeld, O. W., Serreze, M. C., Etringer, A., Oelke, C.,
McCreight, J., Barry, R. G., Gilichinsky, D., Yang, D., Ye, H., Ling, F., and
Chudinova, S.: Spatial and temporal variability in active layer thickness
over the Russian Arctic drainage basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110,
1–14, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005642" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005642</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, L., Zou, D., Hu, G., Du, E., Pang, Q., Xiao, Y., Li, R., Sheng, Y.,
Wu, X., Sun, Z., Wang, L., Wang, C., Ma, L., Zhou, H., and Liu, S.: Changing
climate and the permafrost environment on the Qinghai–Tibet (Xizang)
plateau, Permafrost Periglac., 31, 396–405, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2056" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2056</a>,
2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, J., Kinzelbach, W., Cheng, G., Zhang, W., He, X., and Ye, B.:
Monitoring and modeling the influence of snow pack and organic soil on a
permafrost active layer, qinghai-tibetan plateau of china, Cold Reg. Sci.
Technol., 90–91, 38–52, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2013.03.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2013.03.003</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>Zou, D., Zhao, L., Wu, T., Wu, X., Pang, Q., and Wang, Z.: Modeling ground
surface temperature by means of remote sensing data in high-altitude areas:
test in the central Tibetan Plateau with application of moderate-resolution
imaging spectroradiometer Terra/Aqua land surface temperature and
ground-based infrared, J. Appl. Remote Sens., 8, 083516,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jrs.8.083516" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jrs.8.083516</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
