the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Analyzing past and future droughts that induce clay shrinkage in France using an index based on water budget simulation for trees
Abstract. Clay shrinkage is the retraction of clayey soils under dry conditions, caused by the loss of adsorbed water molecules from clay minerals. This phenomenon called clay-shrinkage induced subsidence can cause permanent damage to buildings if the drying extends below the foundations. In France, soils with these characteristics are widespread, affecting 48 % of the mainland territory (MTES, 2021), resulting in damage amounting to 20.8 billion euros since 1989 (CCR, 2023b). The causes of clay shrinkage are not yet fully understood, particularly at large spatial scales that are critical for land management. In a previous study (Barthelemy et al., 2023), a drought index designed specifically for clay shrinkage was created. It is a yearly index called the year drought magnitude. This index measures the daily soil moisture anomaly over the course of a year, based on the Interactions between Soil, Biosphere, and Atmosphere (ISBA) land surface model of Météo-France. Its properties have been fine-tuned by comparing it to a sample of insurance data. As a continuation of this work, our aim is to analyze past and future soil moisture drought events that may cause subsidence by calculating yearly drought magnitudes for France. Prior to this, we refined the ISBA configuration by focusing solely on tree vegetation types. Historical and projected simulations were conducted with the main difference being the meteorological forcing provided to ISBA. The historical simulation covered the years 2000–2022 and used the SAFRAN atmospheric reanalysis, while the projected simulation covered the years 2006–2065 and used an ensemble of climate models under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5. The historical simulation revealed significant soil moisture droughts in France in 2003, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2022. In 2022, there were notably high index values throughout the country. The projected simulation indicated that drought conditions are expected to worsen in the future, particularly under RCP 8.5 compared to RCP 4.5. The scenarios diverged significantly after 2046, and both the north and south of the country were equally affected. Differences between historical and projected year drought magnitudes were observed: projections are more pessimistic on average and more optimistic regarding extreme events. This discrepancy can be explained either by differences in climate forcing or by differences in the vegetation response of the land surface scheme.
- Preprint
(2136 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1246 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1079', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jun 2024
The manuscript focus is a subject of major importance. The approach using a land surface model to derive a drought index at a very large scale with an 8-km resolution is quite ambitious. Connecting meteorological forcing based on 22-year historical and 59-year projected climate simulations (with a covering period of 16 years), under two different warming scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5), makes the contribution interesting. A comparison of drought levels with available insurance claim data in France and a particular focus on two regions with contrasting climates is also interesting. The paper is well structured and well written (except for a few minor typing errors as annotated in the pdf file).
The results are interesting although a discrepancy is reported between the historical and projected simulations. The main shortcoming is that the approach takes into account the soil's hydrodynamic properties, the vegetation, and interactions with the atmosphere, but completely ignores the building structure which is of major importance since the insurance claims are relevant to damage to the constructions and the damage level is known to be directly governed by the soil-structure interactions. This point needs to be mentioned in the work limitations.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jean-Christophe Calvet, 23 Oct 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1079', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Aug 2024
The manuscript analyzed droughts which may lead to clay shrinkage using a statistical method based on ISBA model and predicted future droughts according to some GCMs. This work has some significance in helping people cope with drought, but overall, it lacks innovation, and its conclusions lack strong evidence. I have some specific comments as follows.
- The introduction is overly verbose, and the main theme is unclear.
- Has the model ISBA been calibrated?If so, please provide details on the calibration process and the calibration results.
- Line 150. Why choose these GCM-RCM combinations? Judging from the results, there are significant differences between these models.
- Section 3.1. The historical results lack a comparison with observations.
- Line 215. Why only choose third quartile of YDMI as an indicator. Does it have special significance? Generally, 50th percentile is more commonly used.
- Figure 3-Figure6. From the figure, the trend of the different model are inconsistent. What has caused the significant differences between the different models? Can we draw meaningful conclusions from results with such significant results?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1079-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jean-Christophe Calvet, 23 Oct 2024
Model code and software
SURFEX code CNRM https://www.umr-cnrm.fr/surfex/data/OPEN-SURFEX/open_surfex_v8_1_20210914.tar.gz
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
283 | 110 | 42 | 435 | 47 | 29 | 14 |
- HTML: 283
- PDF: 110
- XML: 42
- Total: 435
- Supplement: 47
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1