the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The ISIMIP Groundwater Sector: A Framework for Ensemble Modeling of Global Change Impacts on Groundwater
Abstract. Groundwater serves as a crucial freshwater resource for people and ecosystems, vital in adapting to climate change. Yet, its availability and dynamics are affected by climate variations, changes in land use, and excessive extraction. Despite its importance, our understanding of how global change will influence groundwater in the future remains limited. Multi-model ensembles are powerful tools for impact assessments; compared to single-model studies, they provide a more comprehensive understanding of uncertainties and enhance the robustness of projections by capturing a range of possible outcomes. However, to this point no ensemble of groundwater models was available. Here, we present the new groundwater sector within ISIMIP which combines multiple global, continental, and regional-scale groundwater models. We describe the rationale for the sector, present the sectoral output variables, show first results of a model comparison, and outline the synergies with other existing ISIMIP sectors such as the global water sector and the water quality sector. Currently, eight models are participating in this sector, ranging from gradient-based groundwater models to specialized karst recharge models, each producing up to 19 out of 23 modeling protocol-defined output variables. Utilizing available model outputs for a subset of participating models, we find that the arithmetic mean global water table depth varies substantially between models (6–127 m) and shows a shallower water table compared to other recent studies. Groundwater recharge also differs greatly in the global mean (78–228 mm/y), which is consistent with recent studies on the uncertainty of groundwater recharge but with different spatial patterns. Groundwater recharge changes between 2001 and 2006 show plausible patterns that align with droughts in Spain and Portugal during this period. The simplified comparison highlights the value of a structured model intercomparison project which will help to better understand the impacts of climate change on the world’s largest accessible freshwater store – groundwater.
- Preprint
(1637 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1181', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Apr 2025
reply
I appreciate the efforts of Reinecke et al, and support the effort to better represent groundwater in ISIMIP - this is a much needed, and long called for effort. But overall this manuscript feels a thin, uncritical, non-exhaustive and somewhat repetitive. This may strongly worded, but it feels more like a paper written quickly after a great workshop rather than a deep effort with longer rumination and iteration.
The manuscript seems thin in that each section seems quick and brief rather than deeply insightful or critical. I think a number of the ideas could be expanded upon with more critique and reflection. For example, when I look at the models in Table 2 compared to the linkages in Figure 4, I was struck by the limited capacity of most models to simulate outputs that would be useful for other sectors. At a basic level, if water use is not even in a model, how is it useful to assess water resources? And nothing to do with groundwater quality or contamination is mentioned in Table 1 so how can this effort be useful for water quality?
Section 4 about unstructured experiments seemed repetitive to other recent articles on uncertainty in the water table depth and recharge including those of co-authors. It also felt thin and preliminary, and frankly uninspiring (in that the models seem to show little consistency) and unsurprising (due to overlap with previous articles).
Examples of it not being exhaustive is that it does not even mention the recent GroMoPo effort that a number of the authors have been involved with (Zipper et al. 2023; Zamrsky et al., 2025). This initiative has compiled hundreds of regional scale model even though line 98 claims to 'integrate currently available groundwater models that operate at regional scale'. Also missing are any mention of linking with global groundwater quality and contamination efforts such as Friends of Groundwater which seems important for the groundwater quality linkage. Finally, I was a recent reviewer of this manuscript by Huggins et al. (again with some of the same coauthors) and am struck that many of the linkages to other sectors would be much better created by taking a more holistic, social-ecological systems approach or at least bringing in insights and data from this approach than the narrow hydrologic approach outline in the manuscript. I strongly implore the authors consider and describe the synergies with these other ongoing efforts so that all these efforts are supported and elevated.
Overall, I am unsure it makes sense to consider or brand this effort as an ISIMIP ‘sector’. My understanding is that in the context of ISIMIP, a "sector" refers to a thematic area of climate impact modeling that groups together models and research focused on a particular domain of human or natural systems affected by climate change. These sectors are broad like Agriculture and Forestry and not really specific components of the water cycle like ‘groundwater’. I suggest the authors consider this framing and whether it is consistent with ISIMIP more broadly. Should groundwater really be treated as a sub-component or cross-sectoral area?
On a related note, I was also confused about what all the things around the outside of Figure 4 are… Is agro-economic modeling really a sector in ISIMIP?
I think the authors could do much more work to make Figure 4 more useful… what are the linkages that are really? how would they be developed? what models would you use? how could this be improved by better incorporating the initiatives mentioned above?
I was also surprised to see that PCR GLOB-WB was not mentioned or included eventhough it has been important to a number of global groundwater studies. I would clarify the recent for this.
Based on the review criteria of GMD….
Scientific significance: Fair (3)
Scientific quality: Poor (4)
Scientific reproducibility: N/A
Presentation quality: Fair (3)
Overall, I think I would focus the article on the idea of the ISIMIP groundwater ‘sector’ and drop section 4 since it seems scientifically inadequate as is, and significantly deepen the discussion and analysis.
References:
Huggins, X., Gleeson, T., Famiglietti, J.S. The open data landscape to study groundwater dynamics in social-ecological systems: A scoping review of global datasets and an aspirational future outlook. ERL https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/8503/
Zamrsky, D., S.Ruzzante, K. Compare, D. Kretschmer, S. Zipper, K.M. Befus, R. Reinecke, T.Gleeson, et al. (2025) Current trends and biases in groundwater modelling using the community-driven groundwater model portal (GroMoPo). Hydrogeology Journal. doi: 10.1007/s10040-025-02882-7
Sam Zipper, Kevin M. Befus, Robert Reinecke, Daniel Zamrsky, Tom Gleeson, Sacha Ruzzante, et al. (2023) GroMoPo: A Groundwater Model Portal to promote Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) practices for groundwater modeling. Groundwater. 61: 764-767 doi: 10.1111/gwat.13343
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1181-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
186 | 30 | 5 | 221 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 186
- PDF: 30
- XML: 5
- Total: 221
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1