Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-629
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-629
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
07 Mar 2024
| 07 Mar 2024
Status: this preprint is open for discussion.
Comment on “Are soils overrated in hydrology?” by Gao et al. (2023)
Abstract. This comment challenges Gao et al. (2023)’s perspective rejecting the role of soil processes in hydrology. We argue that the authors present a false dichotomy between soil-centric and ecosystem-centric views. These two views of hydrology are complementary and reflect on the inherent multiscale complexity of hydrology where soil processes dominate at certain scales but other processes may become important at catchment scale. We recognize the need for a new scale aware framework that reconciles the interplay between soil processes at small scales with emergent behaviors driven by vegetation, topography and climate at large scales.
How to cite. Zhao, Y., Rahmati, M., Vereecken, H., and Or, D.: Comment on “Are soils overrated in hydrology?” by Gao et al. (2023) , EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-629, 2024.
Download & links
Status: open (until 02 May 2024)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-629 from Hongkai Gao, Fabrizio Fenicia and Hubert H. G. Savenije', Hongkai Gao, 02 Apr 2024
reply
Please find our comments in the supplement.
-
CC1: 'Response from the authors (Ying Zhao, Mehdi Rahmati, Harry Vereecken and Dani Or) to RC1', Mehdi Rahmati, 08 Apr 2024
reply
We thank Gao et al. for responding to our comment on their opinion paper (Gao et al., 2023), and we appreciate the opportunity to enhance the exchange. However, for expediency and clarity, we opted to keep our response brief by addressing the main points only.
- We respectfully disagree with the claim that our comment on Gao et al. (2023) is rooted in a misinterpretation of their arguments. A cursory inspection of the original title and abstract stating that: “Here we argue that these theories are founded on a wrong assumption” (in reference to Darcy-Richards equations) and later “We further argue that the integrated hydrological behavior of an ecosystem can be inferred from considerations about ecosystem survival and growth without relying on internal-process descriptions. “ leaves little doubt regarding the authors' views. Moreover, a statement made in the authors’ rebuttal: “However, for a long time, the ecosystem-centered perspective was subordinated to soil-centered approach in hydrology. In our commentary, we challenge this hierarchy, aiming to reverse it and elevate the importance of the ecosystem-centered perspective.” reveals a mindset where such complementary perspectives are considered "competitive," requiring the establishment of a new hierarchy. Scientific progress is typically built on persuasion, hypothesis testing, broad dissemination of new concepts, and the test of time, not on competition among narratives.
- The assertion that “a growing body of research adopting our holistic approach” implies a novel theoretical framework is overstated and potentially misleading. Many of the literature examples cited in the rebuttal employ heuristic models that are “inductive-empirical” in nature; these interesting data-driven studies lack generalization and predictability that physically based models offer. For example, Gao et al. (2018, 2019) used empirical relations between the fraction of saturated contributing area and runoff with other inputs and heuristic connectivity arguments to compare runoff generation models; Bouaziz et al. (2022) employed the Budyko formalism; and de Boer-Euser et al. (2016) implemented an inversion approach similar to Gao et al. (2014) to deduce catchment scale and climatic “effective” root zone storage capacity. While we agree with Gao et al. (2023) on the need to broaden and refine such large-scale approaches for describing (and predicting) the hydrologic behavior of catchments, it is important to recognize that the lack of a general and fundamental framework (not ad-hoc inversion for root zone storage capacity or heuristically inferred connectivity) remains a hindrance. In the absence of a fundamental and general framework for catchment hydrology, data-centered methods such as machine learning and AI can deduce similar dynamics by integrating a broader range of available data without even relying on heuristic yet physical approaches such as FLEX-Topo (Savenije, 2010) or Budyko framework.
- We invoked the notions of “false dichotomy” and “Darwinian hydrology” to provide a broader perspective regarding the lack of originality in the arguments by Gao et al. (2023) and to highlight the futility of framing a scientific discussion in terms of which approach is “superior” (see “new hierarchy” comment 1 above).
- We thank the authors for their generous pedagogical and editorial suggestions; however, upon reviewing our original response, we find it balanced and well-structured.
References:
Savenije, H. H. G.: HESS Opinions “Topography driven conceptual modelling (FLEX-Topo)”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2681–2692, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2681-2010, 2010.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-629-CC1
-
CC1: 'Response from the authors (Ying Zhao, Mehdi Rahmati, Harry Vereecken and Dani Or) to RC1', Mehdi Rahmati, 08 Apr 2024
reply
Viewed
Total article views: 759 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 07 Mar 2024)
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 602 | 145 | 12 | 759 | 8 | 4 |
- HTML: 602
- PDF: 145
- XML: 12
- Total: 759
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 781 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 781 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 26 Apr 2024
Dongying Base of Integration between Industry and Education for High-quality Development of Modern Agriculture, Ludong University, Dongying 257509, China
College of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Ludong University, Yantai 264000, China
Mehdi Rahmati
Department of Soil Science and Engineering, University of Maragheh, Iran
Agrosphere Institute IBG-3, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Germany
Harry Vereecken
Agrosphere Institute IBG-3, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Germany
Dani Or
Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada Reno, USA
Short summary
Gao et al. (2023) question the importance of soil in hydrology, sparking debate. We acknowledge some valid points but critique their broad, unsubstantiated views on soil's role. Our response highlights three key areas: (1) the false divide between ecosystem-centric and soil-centric approaches, (2) the vital yet varied impact of soil properties, and (3) the call for a scale-aware framework. We aim to unify these perspectives, enhancing hydrology's comprehensive understanding.
Gao et al. (2023) question the importance of soil in hydrology, sparking debate. We acknowledge...