Improved soil evaporation remote sensing retrieval algorithms  and associated uncertainty analysis on the Tibetan Plateau

Feng, Jin; Zhang, Ke; Zhan, Huijie; Chao, Lijun

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-363-2023

Articles | Volume 27, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-363-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-363-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 27, issue 2

Research article

|

19 Jan 2023

Research article |

| 19 Jan 2023

Improved soil evaporation remote sensing retrieval algorithms and associated uncertainty analysis on the Tibetan Plateau

Jin Feng, Ke Zhang, Huijie Zhan, and Lijun Chao

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Jan 2023)
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Jun 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on hess-2022-210', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jul 2022
General Comment:

This manuscript tried to improve the satellite-based land surface ET algorithm by introducing soil moisture. Using satellite data to simulate the water cycle or calibrate models are very attractive considering the growing availability of remote sensing data. The method is reasonable, the findings are useful, and the article was well written. However, there are still some minor issues that need to be addressed.

Specific Comments:

L15: ‘… introducing two frameworks …’ there are no any information about these ‘two’ in this sentence. It would be better combine this and the following sentence.

L20: ‘two improved P-LSH algorithm’ seems not clear. What are they?

It is better to highlight the significant point of the study further.

Table 1: why use 30’’

Figure 3 and 4: More information (A1, …; ETrecon) is needed in the caption to make it be understandable.

I am not quite clear how the authors evaluate the ‘uncertainty’.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-210-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Ke Zhang, 30 Jul 2022
  We greatly appreciate the anonymous referee for providing valuable and constructive comments that are of great help for us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have fully considered the comments and will revise the manuscript accordingly. The point-to-point responses to the comments and our plans for revision are listed below.
  Replies to the General Comments:This manuscript tried to improve the satellite-based land surface ET algorithm by introducing soil moisture. Using satellite data to simulate the water cycle or calibrate models are very attractive considering the growing availability of remote sensing data. The method is reasonable, the findings are useful, and the article was well written. However, there are still some minor issues that need to be addressed.
  Response:
  Thanks for your positive evaluation and encouraging comments on our manuscript. Your individual comments are replied below.
  
  Replies to the Specific Comments:
  Replies to the Specific Comments:
  L15: ‘… introducing two frameworks …’ there are no any information about these ‘two’ in this sentence. It would be better combine this and the following sentence.
  
  Response:
  Thanks for your suggestion. We proposed to modified the descriptions to “…remains understudied. In this study, we aimed to improve the satellite-driven Process-based Land Surface ET/Heat fluxes algorithm (P-LSH) by introducing two frameworks for quantifying moisture constraints to ET, with the first framework normalizing the surface soil moisture, and the second framework taking the ratio of cumulative precipitation to cumulative equilibrium evaporation. As a result, it formed two improved P-LSH algorithms. We systematically assessed the performances of the two improved P-LSH algorithms and …”.
  
  L20: ‘two improved P-LSH algorithm’ seems not clear. What are they?
  
  Response:
  Thanks for your suggestion. “the two improved P-LSH algorithms” refers to the improved algorithms composed of the two moisture constraint frameworks. We have restated the description and make the sentence clearer, as shown in Comment #1.
  
  It is better to highlight the significant point of the study further.
  
  Response:
  Thanks for your suggestion. We conducted this study based on the following backgrounds. On one hand, the Tibetan Plateau is crucial for Asian monsoon development and concurrent water and energy cycles, but relatively few studies have been carried out on its hinterland because of the difficulty of surveying. Remote sensing retrieval can conveniently estimate ET in this region, but the accuracy needs to be evaluated. On the other hand, some studies (Zhang et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2020) have shown that water supply is the main control factor of ET in arid and semi-arid regions, whose structures are rarely systematically assessed or discussed in existing studies.
  In this paper, the feasibility of various moisture constraint equations in existing ET algorithms in typical arid/semi-arid basins was analyzed, and then the soil moisture and precipitation were used to improve the P-LSH algorithm. Finally, the uncertainties of key inputs are assessed. Thanks again. We will further highlight the significant point in the revised manuscript.
  
  Table 1: why use 30’’
  
  Response:
  As we mentioned in the caption of Table 1, we listed the original resolution of the datasets. The soil properties dataset is in a raster format with a resolution of 30 arc seconds. To match other inputs in the ET algorithm, we aggregated the dataset from the original 30'' resolution to 1/12° using the arithmetic averaging method.
  
  Figure 3 and 4: More information (A1, …; ET_recon) is needed in the caption to make it be understandable.
  
  Response:
  Thanks for your suggestion. The A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 are the coupling algorithms that coupled the vegetation evapotranspiration scheme and water evaporation scheme from the P-LSH algorithm with the six existing soil evaporation algorithms (see Table 2). The ET_recon item represents the reconstructed ET estimates derived from the terrestrial water balance method. We will add more information in the caption of Figures 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript.
  
  I am not quite clear how the authors evaluate the ‘uncertainty’.
  
  Response:
  In the improved algorithms, the precipitation and soil moisture data are used to express the moisture constraint on ET. We investigated the impact of various precipitation and soil moisture datasets on the ET to determine the impacts of key inputs uncertainty on model outputs. Taking the P-LSH_θ algorithm as an example, we investigated the variation between multiple ET estimates derived from multiple soil moisture datasets, and as a comparison, we also investigated the variation of multiple soil moisture datasets. The same method is also applied to the uncertainty evaluation of P-LSH_Palgorithm, as shown in Figures 10-12. By quantifying the variations between soil moisture/precipitation and their responding ET estimates, the characteristics and uncertainties of the improved algorithms are discussed in Section 4.3. Thanks for your question. We will add the clear description to the revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-210-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on hess-2022-210', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jul 2022
This manuscript improves satellite-based algorithm for estimating soil evaporation by adding the frameworks for quantifying moisture constraints to ET into P-LSH model, and assesses the impact of moisture constraint uncertainty on the estimated ET. Mechanism studies about ET and their components (e.g., transpiration, soil evaporation etc) in alpine barren areas, especially for Tibetan Plateau (TP), are very limited, and this study of ET mechanism in TP region is quite necessary. There are still some issues should be addressed before a publication.

The main comments:

The authors have paidmore attention to soil evaporation, and neglected the vegetation transpiration. For example, in line 538-539 of page 23, “On the barrens of the TP, vegetation is sparse, and only soil evaporation exists”. This addressing is not very rigorous. Grasslands account for 20.2% in Qaidam basin and 39.7% in Qiangtang Plateau, respectively, and Nelson et al (2020) indicate that transpiration in grasslands accounts for 40%-60% ET during growing reasons. I think that the authors should pay some attentions to transpiration estimation by considering the uncertainties of some others vegetation canopy conductance models. And, it is not clear the canopy conductance is calculated by which model; is it the empirical relationship between conductance and climatic variables, or the Jarvis-Stewart model? If the later, Jarvis model has poor performances in capturing the responses of conductance to climatic variables (e.g. air temperature), compared to other models such as Ball-Berry model, Ball-Berry-Leuning model and Mdelyn model. The uncertainties caused by choice of conductance model on ET may result in 32%-53% errors (Zhao et al., 2020). Therefore, I suggest the authors can also consider the influences of vegetation conductance model on estimated ET in TP.

The methoddescription for estimating soil evaporation is not clear in section 3. The authors introduced five existing soil evaporation algorithms and then proposed two improvements. In each algorithm, descriptions of main parameters are needed. For example, how the biome-specific constants are determined in the PM-Brust soil evaporation algorithm?

What is the difference between P-LSH soil evaporation algorithm (P-LSHp) and PML soil evaporation algorithm? How thepotential evaporation was calculated? Actually, it is not fair to compare soil evaporation algorithms with different potential evaporation equations. If the authors use the same equations, it is reasonable to compare soil evaporation algorithms. And, the difference between P-LSH soil evaporation algorithm (PLSθ) and PML soil evaporation algorithm is fwet. Why the authors do not add the fwet into PLSθ ?

Figure 3 and 4 have showedthe results of A1-A6 for five existing soil evaporation algorithms. I suggest that two improvement soil evaporation algorithms proposed by the authors should be added into the comparisons.

Some specific comments:

Line 68: “32 days”is right?

Sometimes, the logical relationshipbetween some context sentences is not strong. For example, line 110-111: “Saline lakes and deserts cover approximately one-quarter 110 and one-third of the Qaidam Basin, respectively. This region is thus very dry.”.

Figure 1 should include scale bar and compass.

Line 301: the description “vegetation evapotranspiration”is not right.

References

Nelson JA, Pérez-Priego O, Zhou S, et al. Ecosystem transpiration and evaporation: Insights from three water flux partitioning methods across FLUXNET sites. Glob Change Biol. 2020;00:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15314.

Zhao, Wen Li; Qiu, Guo Yu; Xiong, Yu Jiu; Paw U, Kyaw Tha; Gentine, Pierre; Chen, Bao Yu (2020). Uncertainties caused by resistances in evapotranspiration estimation using high-density eddy covariance measurements. Journal of Hydrometeorology, doi:10.1175/JHM-D-19-0191.1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-210-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ke Zhang, 20 Aug 2022
  
  Please see the attached PDF file for the detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-210-AC2

Peer review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (28 Aug 2022) by Xing Yuan

AR by Ke Zhang on behalf of the Authors (17 Sep 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (25 Sep 2022) by Xing Yuan

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (02 Oct 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Dec 2022)

ED: Publish as is (05 Dec 2022) by Xing Yuan

Short summary

Here we improved a satellite-driven evaporation algorithm by introducing the modified versions of the two constraint schemes. The two moisture constraint schemes largely improved the evaporation estimation on two barren-dominated basins of the Tibetan Plateau. Investigation of moisture constraint uncertainty showed that high-quality soil moisture can optimally represent moisture, and more accessible precipitation data generally help improve the estimation of barren evaporation.