the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simple process-led algorithms for simulating habitats (SPLASH v.2.0): calibration-free calculations of water and energy fluxes
Abstract. The current representation of key processes in Land Surface Models for estimating water and energy balances still relies heavily on empirical equations that require site-specific calibration. When multiple parameters are used, different combinations of parameter values can produce equally acceptable results leading to a risk of obtaining “right answers for wrong reasons”, compromising the reproducibility of the simulations and limiting the ecological interpretability of the results. To reduce the need for free parameters, here we present novel formulations based on first-principles to calculate key components of water and energy balances, extending the already parsimonious SPLASH v.1.0 model (Davis et al. 2017, GMD). We found analytical solutions for many processes, enabling us to increase spatial resolution and include the terrain effects directly in the calculations without unreasonably inflating computational demands. This calibration-free model estimates quantities such as net radiation, evapotranspiration, condensation, soil water content, surface runoff, subsurface lateral flow and snow-water equivalent. These quantities are derived from readily meteorological data such as near-surface air temperature, precipitation and solar radiation, and soil physical properties. Whenever empirical formulations were required, we selected and optimized the best-performing equations through a combination of remote sensing and globally distributed terrestrial observational datasets. Simulations at global scales at different resolutions were run to evaluate spatial patterns, while simulations with point-based observations were run to evaluate seasonal patterns using data from hundreds of stations and comparisons with the VIC-3L model, demonstrating improved performance based on statistical tests and observational comparisons. In summary, our model offers a more robust, reproducible, and ecologically interpretable solution compared to more complex LSMs.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(27539 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(27539 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1626', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1626', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jan 2024
This manuscript presents an ambitious global modeling framework, describing terrestrial water and energy processes using many analytical solutions. It is a valuable modeling exercise. Reviewer #1 provided nice, detailed comments. Here my comments are relatively high level.
1. "Calibration-free" in the title is misleading or at least questionable. In fact, the authors used the words "calibrate" and "calibration" several times in their own method description, e.g., L390, L403, L425, L439. Perhaps, "parameter-parsimonious" is more appropriate.
2. Using analytical solutions to describe water/energy processes in global LSMs is attempting, but may not be feasible for all the processes that are necessary in LSMs. Most analytical solutions are based on strong assumptions, and these assumptions may be valid at certain locations or time scales, but not at others. For example, the Green-Ampt equation was originally derived as a point-scale theory, hence a key assumption underpinning it is the (horizontal) homogeneity of soil properties and other relevant variables. Here "point scale" is roughly at the order of 1-10 square meters. When applied globally, each spatial unit (say a lat/lon grid) is much larger than 1 square kilometer and thus contains strong spatial heterogeneity. It is quite often that, within the same lat/lon grid, at the same time, there are patches already saturated, and others are unsaturated. Whether the Green-Ampt equation can be applied at such a spatial scale is highly questionable. The runoff scheme used in the VIC model, nonetheless, is not empirical but at least partially physically based. It explicitly embraces the spatial heterogeneity of soil moisture deficit levels in a spatial unit, hence theoretically more suitable to be used in LSMs for regional or global applications. The authors should at least point out these theoretical limitations (hence potential limitations in SPLASH applications) in their introduction and discussion.
3. More clarifications need to be provided on the comparison between SPLASH and VIC-3L at the global scale. Are they applied at the same spatiotemporal resolutions? Has VIC-3L been properly spun up and calibrated? Why not use more hydrologic data to compare these two models, e.g., observed streamflow data?
4. Many observed data are already available globally in a spatially distributed fashion (e.g., SWE). Showing the comparisons in the form of spatial maps might be more informative than climatic zones. For global LSMs, one main objective is to capture the spatial variability in the variables of interest.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1626-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1626', David Sandoval, 17 Feb 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1626/egusphere-2023-1626-AC1-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1626', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1626', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jan 2024
This manuscript presents an ambitious global modeling framework, describing terrestrial water and energy processes using many analytical solutions. It is a valuable modeling exercise. Reviewer #1 provided nice, detailed comments. Here my comments are relatively high level.
1. "Calibration-free" in the title is misleading or at least questionable. In fact, the authors used the words "calibrate" and "calibration" several times in their own method description, e.g., L390, L403, L425, L439. Perhaps, "parameter-parsimonious" is more appropriate.
2. Using analytical solutions to describe water/energy processes in global LSMs is attempting, but may not be feasible for all the processes that are necessary in LSMs. Most analytical solutions are based on strong assumptions, and these assumptions may be valid at certain locations or time scales, but not at others. For example, the Green-Ampt equation was originally derived as a point-scale theory, hence a key assumption underpinning it is the (horizontal) homogeneity of soil properties and other relevant variables. Here "point scale" is roughly at the order of 1-10 square meters. When applied globally, each spatial unit (say a lat/lon grid) is much larger than 1 square kilometer and thus contains strong spatial heterogeneity. It is quite often that, within the same lat/lon grid, at the same time, there are patches already saturated, and others are unsaturated. Whether the Green-Ampt equation can be applied at such a spatial scale is highly questionable. The runoff scheme used in the VIC model, nonetheless, is not empirical but at least partially physically based. It explicitly embraces the spatial heterogeneity of soil moisture deficit levels in a spatial unit, hence theoretically more suitable to be used in LSMs for regional or global applications. The authors should at least point out these theoretical limitations (hence potential limitations in SPLASH applications) in their introduction and discussion.
3. More clarifications need to be provided on the comparison between SPLASH and VIC-3L at the global scale. Are they applied at the same spatiotemporal resolutions? Has VIC-3L been properly spun up and calibrated? Why not use more hydrologic data to compare these two models, e.g., observed streamflow data?
4. Many observed data are already available globally in a spatially distributed fashion (e.g., SWE). Showing the comparisons in the form of spatial maps might be more informative than climatic zones. For global LSMs, one main objective is to capture the spatial variability in the variables of interest.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1626-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1626', David Sandoval, 17 Feb 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1626/egusphere-2023-1626-AC1-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
259 | 270 | 23 | 552 | 16 | 21 |
- HTML: 259
- PDF: 270
- XML: 23
- Total: 552
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
David Sandoval
Iain Colin Prentice
Rodolfo L. B. Nóbrega
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(27539 KB) - Metadata XML