the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
H2MV (v1.0): Global Physically-Constrained Deep Learning Water Cycle Model with Vegetation
Abstract. The proposed hybrid hydrological model with vegetation (H2MV) uses dynamic meteorology and static features as input to a long short-term memory (LSTM) to model uncertain parameters of process formulations that govern water fluxes and states. In the hydrological model, we explicitly represent vegetation states by the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR), and by the maximum soil moisture capacity (SMmax), which are both learned and predicted by the neural networks. These parameters have an explicit role to model soil moisture (SM) storage and the partitioning of evapotranspiration (ET). The model is optimised concurrently against global observations and observation-based data of terrestrial water storage (TWS) anomalies, fAPAR, snow water equivalent (SWE), ET and gridded runoff in a 10-fold cross-validation setup. To this end, we infer where the model is under-constrained such that different processes could explain the observational constraints in the model due to equifinality. The model reproduces the observed patterns of global hydrological components and fAPAR, while emergent patterns of runoff ratio, evaporative fraction, and T/ET are consistent with our current understanding. Despite robustly predicted temporal patterns of TWS anomalies, we found that the mean soil moisture state is not well constrained causing uncertainty of mean TWS. This emphasizes the importance of SMmax and the necessity for associated enhanced constraints. The proposed model is open-source, and has a highly flexible and modular structure to facilitate future integration of carbon and energy cycles, advancing toward a hybrid land surface model.
- Preprint
(4725 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2044', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Oct 2024
General evaluation:
This paper presents “H2MV”, a Global Physically-Constrained Deep Learning Water Cycle Model with Vegetation. The proposed hybrid hydrological model extends a traditional physics-based hydrological model, combined with a static and a dynamic data-driven module. These modules learn temporal parameters (coefficients) as well as spatially-varying parameters. The novelty lies in explicitly representing vegetation constraints that play a relevant role in the water cycle, with the goal to achieve a more realistic and interpretable partitioning of evapotranspiration. The model is optimized against several observation products, and is tested for equifinality. The model code is publicly available.
Overall, the paper presents a valuable advance in hydrological modelling and is generally well written. However, the placement into existing literature could be more comprehensive. Further, the discussion of results is somewhat hard to follow, since the “analysis route” is not laid out beforehand, and many abbreviations destroy the flow.
With some minor edits, I believe this manuscript would qualify for publication with GMD. Please find my comments below.
Specific comments:
- l. 37: “Hybrid (or differentiable) modeling…” – I would see differentiable modeling as a specific case of hybrid modeling. Please be more specific.
- l. 40 ff.: There are many more studies that demonstrate the use of LSTMs (or other networks) to “hybridize” physics-based hydrological models. Please provide a brief but broader overview of the literature before going into the specific model versions by Kraft et al. that you aim to improve here. (Part of Section 3.4 addresses this to some extent – consider moving this discussion of existing approaches to the introduction.)
- Section 2.1: The introduction to the dataset is very short. Please mention at least which inputs are used, and provide a little context.
- Eq. 2: Since fAPAR and all alphas are space- and time-dependent and are multiplied with each other, could you comment on the expected identifiability of your introduced parameters?
- Given the different alphas and their individual constraints, is there still a mass balance constraint over the entire hydrological model, or is this given up in the spirit of “local adjustments”?
- Section 2.4, “Model Evaluation”: It should be mentioned here that for model performance evaluation, RMSE, Pearson’s r and SDR are used.
- Section 2.4.2: It is not clear why you are particularly interested in TWS, and a decomposition thereof. Please add a motivation here to guide the reader in your model evaluation efforts. In fact, after reading through the full manuscript, it seems this decomposition is never used. Omit this completely or include related results. Overall, the evaluation strategy should be much better explained here, see related comments below.
- Also, in the results part, IAV plays a dominant role, but has never been introduced.
- It would make sense to bring Fig. B1 to the main body of the manuscript.
- Fig. 5 is referenced before Fig. 3, so reorder the Figures, or reorder the storyline of the results Section (Fig. 5 is easier to understand after the discussion of Figs. 3 and 4).
- Fig. 3: How is the target obtained? Is it the mean value over all spatial domains contained in the testing set? Why is the variability of the target not shown? That would help judge the credibility of the model. And/or show individual spatial regions.
- Fig. 8: The term “Equifinality index” is used here for the first time. Introduce in Section 2.4.1 or replace the term in the results part.
- I would have expected a discussion of equifinality (Section 3.3) before Section 3.2 (interpretation of results with respect to emerging global patterns), and a judgement of these interpretations based on the findings about equifinality (how robust are the conclusions you draw in Section 3.2, given that some states are not perfectly constrained?).
Technical comments:
- l. 32: maybe “physics-based” instead of “physical” (they are still computer models…)
- l. 41: “a … network” instead of “a … networks”
- l. 230 “interannual” instead of “interranual” (several instances throughout the manuscript, and other misspellings such as “interannaul”)
- l. 238: “observed patterns … are” instead of “is”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2044-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2044', Uwe Ehret, 15 Oct 2024
Data sets
Model Simulations Zavud Baghirov, Martin Jung, Markus Reichstein, Marco Körner, and Basil Kraft https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12583615
Model code and software
Model code Zavud Baghirov, Martin Jung, Markus Reichstein, Marco Körner, and Basil Kraft https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12608916
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
263 | 33 | 111 | 407 | 4 | 12 |
- HTML: 263
- PDF: 33
- XML: 111
- Total: 407
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1