the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Implementation of global soil databases in NOAH-MP model and the effects on simulated mean and extreme soil hydrothermal changes
Abstract. Soil properties and their associated hydro-physical parameters represent a significant source of uncertainty in Land Surface Models (LSMs) with consequent effects on simulated sub-surface thermal and moisture characteristics, surface energy exchanges and turbulent fluxes. These effects can result in large model differences particularly during extreme events. Typical of many model based approaches, spatial soil information such as location, extent and depth of textural classes are derived from coarse scale soil information and employed largely due to their ready availability rather than suitability. However, the use of a particular spatial soil dataset has important consequences for many of the processes simulated within a LSM. This study investigates NOAH-MP model uncertainty in simulating soil moisture (expressed as a ratio of water to soil volume, m3 m-3) and soil temperature changes associated with two widely used global soil databases (STATSGO and SOILGRIDS) across the Island of Ireland. Both soil datasets produced a significant dry bias in loam soils, up to 0.15 m3 m-3 in a wet period and 0.10 m3 m-3 in a dry period. The spatial disparities between STATSGO and SOILGRIDS also influenced the regional soil hydrothermal changes and extremes. SOILGRIDS was found to intensify drought characteristics – shifting low/moderate drought areas into extreme/exceptional during dry periods – relative to STATSGO. Our results demonstrate that the coarse STATSGO performs as good as the fine-scale SOILGRIDS soil database. However, the results underscore the need to develop detailed regionally-derived soil texture characteristics, and for better representations of soil physics in LSMs to improve operational modeling and forecasting of hydrological processes and extremes.
- Preprint
(3240 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-304', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Jul 2024
This work compared the simulation performance of Noah-MP land surface model over Ireland using two global soil property datasets, including a high-resolution SOILGRID data and a coarse-resolution STASGO data. The results showed that, the coarse STATSGO performs as good as the fine-scale SOILGRIDS soil database, although they both have dry biases. Overall, I think comparing the added value of high-resolution soil dataset to land surface modeling is an important and meaningful topic for both data and model developers. However, there are lots of uncertainties caused by other processes, such as the observation and the model physical parameterization, instead of the soil database. Following major issues should be carefully considered before the further consideration of the publication.
1.The innovation. The current innovation is somewhat weak for the HESS journal. The work is very similar to Zhang et al. (2023), although the authors said that they used the SOILGRID dataset. The work compared the difference of soil moisture/temperature simulation and drought processes (2 drought events) over Ireland, and made some conclusions. This makes the work like a technical comparison without in depth analysis of the uncertainties and related reasons. For example, why the high-resolution soil database performs similarly with the coarse-resolution? Is it because the uncertainties from soil database itself or the model structure and physical parameteritzations (for example, the uncertainties of PFT function to accurately derive the soil hydrological properties based on soil texture data)?
2.The station observation. There are 6 observation stations used in this work, and 4 of them are from a new network (Terrain-AI) using Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) sensors. I found noteworthy difference between the Terrain-AI based observations and the 2 long-time eddy covariance grass flux sites. For example, most of the Terrain-AI based observations show high values during wet seasons (larger than 0.5 m3/m3),while observations from 2 eddy covariance grass flux sites are generally lower than 0.5. I wonder whether these high-values in Terrain-AI stations are true or not? This is very important to the conclusion, as the dry bias is mainly due to these stations. If the observation is true, then why there are such large differences considering they are all loam or loam-sand stations?
3.The satellite observation. Why you chose the ASCAT database as a reference? In my practice, the ESA-CCI or SMAP datasets are usually perform better than ASCAT. Is it because the ASCAT has best performance (use the station observation as a reference) or just ASCAT dataset can reproduce a dry bias pattern? In addition, how do you consider the influence of uncertainties of ASCAT dataset on the evaluation results?
4.The soil moisture or soil moisture anomaly. Although SOILGRID seems to show larger negative bias in modeling soil moisture, it improves the correlation coefficient. An important issue is whether the soil moisture absolute value is more important than the soil moisture anomaly (dynamics)? Actually, the observed soil moisture and model simulated soil moisture are physically different. Model simulation is a mean state of a grid box with specific thickness, while observations only represent a point at a fixed depth.
5.Why the SOILGRID improves the simulation of soil moisture dynamics but increases the dry biases? Some in-depth analysis should be provided. In addition, the differences in soil moisture drought may not simply related to the simulation of soil moisture absolute values because the soil moisture percentiles are used here. I wonder whether the soil hydraulic conductivity or diffusivity is responsible for the difference here. For example, a higher conductivity can cause a faster response of soil moisture to the water deficit.Overall, I suggest the authors to analyze the issue in-depth and comprehensively consider the uncertainties of model, observation, and soil datasets, so as to provide more novel and impressive results.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-304-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kazeem Ishola, 11 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2023-304/hess-2023-304-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Kazeem Ishola, 11 Sep 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-304', Oluwafemi Adeyeri, 02 Aug 2024
This study investigates the uncertainty in the NOAH-MP model's simulation of soil moisture (expressed as a ratio of water to soil volume, m³/m³) and soil temperature changes using two global soil databases (STATSGO and SOILGRIDS) across Ireland. Both databases exhibited significant dry bias in loam soils, especially during wet and dry periods. Spatial differences between STATSGO and SOILGRIDS influenced regional soil hydrothermal changes and extremes, with SOILGRIDS intensifying drought conditions more than STATSGO.
Key findings include:
Both databases can replicate general soil hydrothermal variations but under-represent soil properties in wet loam soils, leading to systematic dry biases.
No distinct difference was found between the soil physics applied to the same soil texture category in both datasets, but disparities increase for different soil texture categories.
Spatial comparison with satellite-based ASCAT SWI showed more pronounced dry bias in the midland, south, and east in SOILGRIDS, while wet bias dominates the west and north.
While this work is similar to “Impact of alternative soil data sources on the uncertainties in simulated land-atmosphere interactions," using the SOILGRID dataset could be an added advantage. Nevertheless, my concerns are as follows:
- P3L25-33: These lines are unclear. It is unclear if the authors are evaluating what you already stated as a setback. Are you inheriting these setbacks into your focus?
- P5L1: Does this improvement assume no heat flux transfer between soil layers? How is this practicable?
- P6L29: I am not sure landuse is static, as notable transformations could occur in 10 years.
- P5L3: Does the model account for scale-gap effects considering input data resolutions?
- P6L10: What are the bases for the classification? What is the method used and what is the rationale behind it?
- P6L334: How is the stability of the model ascertained?
- P7L4: Are there any uncertainties regarding the station data quality and how are thgey assessed?
- P7L14: What does time for the soil to settle mean?
- P7L34: Is this a standard product or the authors develop it? If it is a standard product, it needs referencing. If developed by authors, what method was used for this fusion, bearing in mind the transfer of error from fusion approaches?
- P8L1: Is this different from previously explained?
- P8L11: what does extracted at model resolution mean and how was this done?
- P9L27: Seasonal variability can not be assessed simply from the time series presented. In fact, 4f and g are misleading as they did not show seasonal variabilities.
- P9L35: This assumption does not warrant generalization. The uncertainty associated with comparing the model areal grid to measurement points should be quantified.
- P10L1: I suggest the authors combine error metrics instead of individual ones. Since error metrics are sensitive to differences in precision, it is vital to have a combined metric to account for the different statistical properties of an ideal model performance. Collectively assessing these statistical metrics provides a comprehensive understanding of the performance of each model. This approach provides valuable insights for the overall evaluation of the models. The ensemble method of statistical metrics will further reveal the overall efficacy and reliability of the models.
- Figure 5: It is also important to understand this distribution's mean changes. Also, check if these changes are significant.
- Figures 10 and 11: No section in the methodology explicitly addressed how these were calculated or generated.
- Address potential limitations of your study, uncertainties in the results, and sources of error. Acknowledge the challenges and potential biases that might affect the interpretation of the findings.
- The manuscript's introduction appears overly extensive, encompassing information tangential to the study objectives. A thorough revision to streamline the introduction and enhance focus is recommended.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-304-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Kazeem Ishola, 11 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2023-304/hess-2023-304-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2023-304', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Aug 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Kazeem Ishola, 11 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2023-304/hess-2023-304-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Kazeem Ishola, 11 Sep 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
446 | 112 | 28 | 586 | 20 | 18 |
- HTML: 446
- PDF: 112
- XML: 28
- Total: 586
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1