the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Regional Terrestrial Water Storage Changes in the Yangtze River Delta over the Recent 20 years
Abstract. Monitoring changes in regional terrestrial water storage (TWS) and groundwater storage (GWS) is important for effectively managing water resources. Here, we investigate the TWS and GWS changes in the Yangtze River Delta using the GRACE/GRACE-FO mascon solutions, GLDAS NOAH models and in situ groundwater level changes from monitoring wells over the period of April 2002 to December 2022. The results show that the regional mean TWS change rate of the entire Yangtze River Delta is 0.62±0.10 mm/year, at 0.47±0.07 mm/year for the GWS component and 0.15±0.08 mm/year for the other components, which includes soil moisture, snow water and surface water change derived from the GLDAS NOAH models. At the basin scale, significant positive trends existed in water storage in Shanghai and Zhejiang Provinces; however, relatively small negative trends existed in Jiangsu and Anhui Provinces, which was confirmed by the spatial distributions of areas with linear trends. After comparing the estimated GWS change with the in situ groundwater level change from thirteen monitoring wells, we concluded that the groundwater levels in Shanghai and Zhejiang Provinces slightly recovered over the last 20 years and that this trend will continue in the coming years, mainly due to the sustainable water resource management policies of the local governments.
- Preprint
(3362 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1406', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Aug 2024
Summary: The manuscript uses GRACE(-FO) along with GLDAS NOAH (1 deg 2.1 version) simulations to study the trend in TWS and GWS between 2002 and 2022. They show that nearly 1/4th of the trend value is coming from GWS trends over the Yangtze river basin. They a finer spatial analysis is done where they try to compare trends between the observed groundwater levels and GRACE derived GWS.
General comments: The work done here is a routine analysis and does not carry significant scientific novelty. The manuscript is hard to follow. There are several language related issues (a few examples, Line 26 (occurence of and twice), Line 28-32: not clear, and so on). Here are some recommendations/concerns/suggestions:
- It appears that GLDAS is assumed to be able to capture all the components accurately, which is not true. GLDAS only goes up to 2 meters. If the Groundwater aquifer starts at depths lower than 2 meters, then that part is missing from simulations. Several statements such as in Line 25-28, Line 39-40, Line 74-75, indicate that authors are suggesting that GLDAS simulations are accurate, which contradicts the findings in Scanlon at al., 2018.
- Why GLDAS NOAH? Why not use CLM or VIC? Or even consider other models such as WGHM? Using multiple models would probably provide real sense of uncertainty in the analysis.
- GRACE resolution is coarse, approx 3 degrees. Hence using it for Sanghai is not appropriate. I request authors to kindly look into the resolution issues much closer. Even they do the best they can, assuming Mascons are perfect, the ideal resolution is around 70000 sq. Km (Devaraju and Sneeuw 2016). Even the Mascons are higher spatial resolution are interpolated products.
- Authors have performed a spatial interpolation to make figures appear to follow the sharp boundaries of the provinces? What happens if the interpolation is not carried out? Are the results the same?
- How are the well data compared to GRACE-GLDAs data? Just a time-series and visual inspection is not enough. I did not see any numerical comparison. The section 3.2 appears to be statements without evidence.
- The figures should not plot the GRACE gaps as straight lines, they should be left as gaps in the time-series.
- Some bold statements are made from time-to-time, such as Line 118 to 120, how can you be sure that the trend will continue? Also without proving comprehensively, statements such as “groundwater storage level in two basins have recovered over the last 20 years”, should be avoided. For example, this might be due to proximity to sea and sea level signal leaking into GRACE products. Or this might be due to decadal scale long-term variability in hydrology?
- The manuscript requires major revision, or probably a completely new attempt.
Scanlon, B. R., Zhang, Z., Save, H., Sun, A. Y., Müller Schmied, H., Van Beek, L. P., ... & Bierkens, M. F. (2018). Global models underestimate large decadal declining and rising water storage trends relative to GRACE satellite data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(6), E1080-E1089.
Devaraju, B., & Sneeuw, N. (2016). On the spatial resolution of homogeneous isotropic filters on the sphere. In VIII Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy: Proceedings of the Symposium in Rome, 17-21 June, 2013 (pp. 67-73). Springer International Publishing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1406-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1406', Yulong Zhong, 04 Oct 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1406', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Aug 2024
Summary: The manuscript uses GRACE(-FO) along with GLDAS NOAH (1 deg 2.1 version) simulations to study the trend in TWS and GWS between 2002 and 2022. They show that nearly 1/4th of the trend value is coming from GWS trends over the Yangtze river basin. They a finer spatial analysis is done where they try to compare trends between the observed groundwater levels and GRACE derived GWS.
General comments: The work done here is a routine analysis and does not carry significant scientific novelty. The manuscript is hard to follow. There are several language related issues (a few examples, Line 26 (occurence of and twice), Line 28-32: not clear, and so on). Here are some recommendations/concerns/suggestions:
- It appears that GLDAS is assumed to be able to capture all the components accurately, which is not true. GLDAS only goes up to 2 meters. If the Groundwater aquifer starts at depths lower than 2 meters, then that part is missing from simulations. Several statements such as in Line 25-28, Line 39-40, Line 74-75, indicate that authors are suggesting that GLDAS simulations are accurate, which contradicts the findings in Scanlon at al., 2018.
- Why GLDAS NOAH? Why not use CLM or VIC? Or even consider other models such as WGHM? Using multiple models would probably provide real sense of uncertainty in the analysis.
- GRACE resolution is coarse, approx 3 degrees. Hence using it for Sanghai is not appropriate. I request authors to kindly look into the resolution issues much closer. Even they do the best they can, assuming Mascons are perfect, the ideal resolution is around 70000 sq. Km (Devaraju and Sneeuw 2016). Even the Mascons are higher spatial resolution are interpolated products.
- Authors have performed a spatial interpolation to make figures appear to follow the sharp boundaries of the provinces? What happens if the interpolation is not carried out? Are the results the same?
- How are the well data compared to GRACE-GLDAs data? Just a time-series and visual inspection is not enough. I did not see any numerical comparison. The section 3.2 appears to be statements without evidence.
- The figures should not plot the GRACE gaps as straight lines, they should be left as gaps in the time-series.
- Some bold statements are made from time-to-time, such as Line 118 to 120, how can you be sure that the trend will continue? Also without proving comprehensively, statements such as “groundwater storage level in two basins have recovered over the last 20 years”, should be avoided. For example, this might be due to proximity to sea and sea level signal leaking into GRACE products. Or this might be due to decadal scale long-term variability in hydrology?
- The manuscript requires major revision, or probably a completely new attempt.
Scanlon, B. R., Zhang, Z., Save, H., Sun, A. Y., Müller Schmied, H., Van Beek, L. P., ... & Bierkens, M. F. (2018). Global models underestimate large decadal declining and rising water storage trends relative to GRACE satellite data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(6), E1080-E1089.
Devaraju, B., & Sneeuw, N. (2016). On the spatial resolution of homogeneous isotropic filters on the sphere. In VIII Hotine-Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy: Proceedings of the Symposium in Rome, 17-21 June, 2013 (pp. 67-73). Springer International Publishing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1406-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1406', Yulong Zhong, 04 Oct 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
181 | 73 | 48 | 302 | 12 | 10 |
- HTML: 181
- PDF: 73
- XML: 48
- Total: 302
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1