the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Adaptation of root zone storage capacity to climate change and its effects on future streamflow in Alpine catchments: towards non-stationary model parameters
Abstract. Hydrological models play a vital role in projecting future changes in streamflow. Despite the strong awareness of non-stationarity in hydrological system characteristics, model parameters are typically assumed to be stationary and derived through calibration on past conditions. Integrating the dynamics of system change in hydrological models remains challenging due to uncertainties related to future changes in climate and ecosystems.
Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that vegetation adjusts its root zone storage capacity – considered a critical parameter in hydrological models – to prevailing hydroclimatic conditions. This adaptation of the root zone to moisture deficits can be estimated by the Memory Method. When combined with long-term water budget estimates in the Budyko framework, the Memory method offers a promising approach to estimate future climate-vegetation interaction and thus time-variable parameters in process-based hydrological models.
Our study provides an exploratory analysis of non-stationary parameters for root zone storage capacity in hydrological models for projecting streamflow in six catchments in the Austrian Alps, specifically investigating how future changes in root zone storage impact modeled streamflow. Using the Memory method, we derive climate-based parameter estimates of the root zone storage capacity under historical and projected future climate conditions. These climate-based estimates are then implemented in our hydrological model to assess the resultant impact on modeled past and future streamflow.
Our findings indicate that climate-based parameter estimations significantly narrow the parameter ranges linked to root zone storage capacity. This contrasts with the broader ranges obtained solely through calibration. Moreover, using projections from 14 climate models, our findings indicate a substantial increase in the root zone storage capacity parameters across all catchments in the future, ranging from +10 % to +100 %. Despite these alterations, the model performance remains relatively consistent when evaluating past streamflow, independent of using calibrated or climate-based estimations for the root zone storage capacity parameter. Additionally, no significant differences are found when modeling future streamflow when including future climate-induced adaptation of the root zone storage capacity in the hydrological model. Variations in annual mean, maximum, and minimum flows remain within a 5 % range, with slight increases found for monthly streamflow and runoff coefficients. Our research shows that although climate-induced changes in root zone storage capacity occur, they do not notably affect future streamflow projections in the Alpine catchments under study. Our findings suggest that incorporating a dynamic representation of the root zone storage capacity parameter may not be crucial for modeling streamflow in humid and energy-limited catchments. However, our observations indicate relatively larger changes in root zone storage capacity within the less humid catchments, corresponding to higher variations in modeled future streamflow. This suggests a potentially higher importance of dynamic representations of root zone characteristics in arid regions and underscores the necessity for further research on non-stationarity in these regions.
- Preprint
(7850 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(16168 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-260', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Sep 2024
Ponds et al. explore how a non-stationary model parameter (root zone storage capacity) will impact streamflow in humid (energy-limited) catchments under future climate scenarios. My understanding is that previous work from the coauthors has used the same model and the same data to explore the impact of future climate scenarios in the same catchments (Bouaziz et al. and Hanus et al.). Thus, this contribution’s impact hinges on what we learn about nature/how the world works by exploring the implications for streamflow of changing a single parameter (S_R) in an existing hydrological model in a particular climate type.(0) I am not as familiar with the large literature on process-based hydrologic models, but while reading I was left with the impression that surely this knob must have been turned in prior studies? Could the authors please make explicit the novelty of exploring the impacts of changing this parameter, and summarize previous works that have done so (or state that it has indeed never been done)?Many previous works have explored the interactions between root zone storage capacity, aridity, and water partitioning (e.g., Porporato et al., 2004, and references cited therein). These studies have emphasized the distinct dynamics that are likely to occur under arid vs. humid regimes. I think that the restriction of this contribution to a narrow range of aridity (humid, energy-limited environments) limits the scope of the findings and usefulness of the study, and (1) suggest that the impact of the paper would be significantly greater if a diversity of climate regimes were explored.(2) the paper is very long and complicated for what it is - the exploration of how a parameter changed in a model compares to previously published work with the same model. I would suggest that the authors consider ways to simplify and shorten the work where possible.(3) The study adopts the assumption that roots will be able to grow as much or as little as needed to obtain water to overcome droughts of a particular recurrence interval, without consideration to how substrate may limit rooting. The catchments studied include glaciers (and presumably, large expanses of exposed, relatively fresh bedrock, whose area grows under the future climate scenarios in which warming has resulted in glacier retreat). It is not clear that this assumption is realistic for the study catchments.(4) There is a strong coupling between the omega value in the Budyko framework and the root-zone water storage capacity, which has been explored extensively in the literature (including by the references cited in this contribution). It was unclear to me how the assumption of a static omega under a future climate did not result in a circular or forced outcome when then determining how plants would ‘resize’ their root zone water storage capacities. I may have missed something fundamental - but by forcing the omega value to be the same, under a warmer (more arid) future, the future water partitioning is being forced as well under the Budyko framework. It is therefore unclear how what was being studied (the impact on streamflow under a future climate with a different storage capacity) was independent (not baked into) the methodology that forced streamflow to behave a certain way (according to Budyko, with a fixed omega value). Alternatively, if the outcome for streamflow is not already predetermined by assuming the fixed omega value, then another issue appears: how is the storage capacity allowed to independently evolve (if, as already established by previous studies, it is strongly coupled to the aridity index and evaporative index). In other words, if omega is a function of storage capacity, and you fix omega, how are you exploring a dynamic storage capacity?(5) there is a crucial methodologic step that is described in one sentence but without sufficient detail to understand what was actually being done: “By implementing the long-term evaporative indices in the water balance equation, one Sr,clim,past and 28 estimates of Sr,clim,f ut are derived for each vegetation type”. Please elaborate.(6) The model employed has so many free parameters and processes and things involved (different land cover classes behaving differently, e.g.), that the suspicion arises of whether we can expect to actually isolate the desired impact on streamflow of the term of interest (S_R). Can the authors convince the reader that the other numerous features of the model are not drowning out a signal?Line 59 - missing reference. also on line 251Line 80-81. It is important to emphasize that deficit-based approaches can only constrain (i.e., provide a lower bound or minimum estimate) on S_R. For example, the deficit may be quite large in a dry year, and small in the following year if it is particularly rainy. That doesn’t mean that the root zone changed size over the span of one year. Only that a certain amount was detected.There seems to be a lot of description concern about the impact of interception, followed by a decision to assign transpiration to be equal to all of ET. The paper could be simplified here.Eq. 3 effectively forces the system to be energy limited by scaling ET with PET. Is it not the case that water limitation ever occurs at any time of the year?Eqs. 4 and 5 - why cast the deficit as negative? Confusing and a departure from most of the rest of the literature (e.g., Wang Erlandsson et al. 2016)Eq. 5 Is this equation correct? Or should it just be the minimum of the annual values - not their summation.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/hess-2024-260-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Magali Ponds, 19 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-260', Massimiliano Zappa, 04 Oct 2024
General remarks:
The thematic of parameter stationarity in climate impact studies is an important topic when aiming at generating suitable future water resources projections. The authors explore here a framework to ingrate possible evolution of root zone storage capacity (S_R) in hydrological modelling experiments. The focus on alpine catchments in Austria and focus on impacts on streamflow response to changing soils. I like the topic and the way the authors present it. The findings represent a sample on the topic that might help future developments in this direction.
I list here below some thoughts and issues to be addressed.
Issues to be addressed (Line(s)):
30 – 109: When accepting this review, I wondered if the authors would make a comment on Gao et al. (2023). I witnessed an interesting discussion on that between a hydrologist and a soil scientist. This was rather interesting, and I really wish the authors make their thoughts on it.
69-84 The introduction on optimality is very well formulated. At line 534 you compare your findings to the ones presented in Speich et al. (2018). In the paper you cite optimality approaches are used and discussed. You could consider adding this study also in the introduction.
103-105 Staying with Speich et al research, they published in 2020 a study with transient evolution of root zone storage capacities in an alpine catchment according to different scenarios (Fig 9 in Speich et al., 2020). This might be relevant for you. Also, in Speich et al. simulations with and without dynamic S_R are presented and discussed.
113-115 The authors focus on alpine catchments with shallow soils. Is this more than an opportunistic choice stemming from the Hanus et al. (2011) study? I agree that there are the places where possibly most of soil genesis might occur, but is S_R not more dynamic in low-land areas? More in general, I see the trade-off in terms of “duplication” between this section 2 and section 2 in Hanus et al. (2021) as unproblematic.
Table 1: Is there any soil information to be included here?
Figure 2 is a well-designed graphical abstract of the envisaged methodology. The indication of the colour schemes used is also very useful here. At the size presented in the submitted manuscript I don’t see the reason for keeping the text at such small fonts. A couple of more points everywhere would ease the reader.
148 ff Considering the large number of assumptions that are declared in the 5 steps of the methodology, wouldn’t be useful to introduce some very basic benchmarks such has prescribed increase or decrease of S_R between the current and future time slice?
206-215 When you introduce the concept of supply and demand limited systems (also know as water and energy limited systems), wouldn’t be beneficial to elaborate on the blue and green water paradox in the Alps? Cfr. Mastrotheodoros et al (2020).
Figure 3 This Figure is presented in the Methodology but has also some results. As ω is fixed, we see no scatter in how the six basins respond to future climate. Have you done this exercise with past data (e.g. 1961-1990 vs 1991-2020) to see if such projections are realistic? (e.g. if ω is constant).
247-248 How did you partition for different vegetation types? Or did you just miss to refer to S2 also here?
251 When you speak of observed and modelled past, I think you mean “past obtained from simulations with observed data” and “past obtained with data from GCM/RCM”. If I am wrong, please explain me if I am correct, please state it clearly somewhere.
Figure 4 The violins show especially in RCP85 a clustering of the outcomes in to two families. Does this relate to specific GMCs or RMCs?
Figure 5 I like This plot, which speaks a lot for plausibility of your approach, as you get decreasing S_R (and chance to survive) for forest in high altitude basins, while grassland seems to have more chance to survive. Is this an independent achievement from your procedure, or does this follow one of several constraints you defined? (lines 269-271)
Figure 7 Did I miss a discussion on the cause of larger spread of “Modelled S_R_,clim” in the Pitztal? Glacier I guess?
The whole analysis of signatures is solid and follows very closely the Hanus et al. (2021) pattern. I see here potential for shortening the paper. Instead of replicating all these analyses, I would prefer you explore the sensitity of S_R with more simple benchmarks as I suggest for lines 148 ff.
539-552 I like this “Broader implication section”. As far as the catchment selection part is concerned, it is a pity that the study only concentrated on the Hanus et al. basins, all of them being humid and energy limited. So this counts also as limitation
Final considerations:
I like the organization and focus of this study. Having focus and analysed strongly connected with Hanus et al. (2021) is in first sight a good idea, but when looking at the results and analyses. I really considered a missed chance not including water limited catchments here. I fear that a follow-up study with addition of such basins would also be “jeopardized” by this “in between study”. My honest request is here major revision with addition of ~6 water limited basins. Another option would the to keep it in this form but adding some simple S_R scenarios to test the sensitivity against your sophisticated approach.
Best regards
Massimiliano Zappa, WSL
04.10.2024
References:
Speich, M. J. R., Zappa, M., Scherstjanoi, M., and Lischke, H.: FORests and HYdrology under Climate Change in Switzerland v1.0: a spatially distributed model combining hydrology and forest dynamics, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 537–564, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-537-2020, 2020.
Speich, M. J. R., Lischke, H., and Zappa, M.: Testing an optimality-based model of rooting zone water storage capacity in temperate forests, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4097–4124, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4097-2018, 2018.
Gao, H., Fenicia, F., and Savenije, H. H. G.: HESS Opinions: Are soils overrated in hydrology?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2607–2620, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2607-2023, 2023.
Hanus, S., Hrachowitz, M., Zekollari, H., Schoups, G., Vizcaino, M., and Kaitna, R.: Future changes in annual, seasonal and monthly runoff signatures in contrasting Alpine catchments in Austria, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3429–3453, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3429-2021, 2021.
Mastrotheodoros, T., Pappas, C., Molnar, P. et al. More green and less blue water in the Alps during warmer summers.at. Clim. Chang. 10, 155–161 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0676-5
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-260-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Magali Ponds, 19 Nov 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
301 | 90 | 106 | 497 | 35 | 8 | 7 |
- HTML: 301
- PDF: 90
- XML: 106
- Total: 497
- Supplement: 35
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1