the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Revealing the Causes of Groundwater Level Dynamics in Seasonally Frozen Soil Zones Using Interpretable Deep Learning Models
Abstract. Regional groundwater level prediction is crucial for water resource management, especially in seasonally frozen areas. Accurate predicting groundwater levels during freeze–thaw periods is essential for optimizing water resource allocation and preventing soil salinization. Although deep learning models have been widely employed in groundwater level prediction, they remain black boxes, making it difficult to simultaneously predict groundwater levels and understand the dynamic causes. This study simulated the groundwater level dynamics of 138 monitoring wells in the Songnen Plain, China, using a long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network. The expected gradient (EG) method was applied to interpret LSTM decision principles during different periods, revealing groundwater dynamics mechanisms in seasonally frozen soil areas. The results showed that the LSTM model could accurately simulate daily groundwater level trends, with 81.88 % of monitoring sites achieving NSE above 0.7 on the test set. The EG method revealed that atmospheric precipitation was the primary source of groundwater recharge, while discharge occurred through evaporation, runoff, and artificial extraction, forming three groundwater dynamics types: precipitation infiltration–evaporation, precipitation infiltration–runoff, and extraction. During the freeze–thaw period, groundwater levels in the precipitation infiltration–evaporation type decreased during the freezing period and increased during the thawing period due to water potential gradient changes driving soil–groundwater exchange. In contrast, the precipitation infiltration–runoff and extraction types exhibited continuously increasing and decreasing trends, driven by recovery after extraction and precipitation recharge. Our findings provide essential support for groundwater resource assessment and ecological environmental protection in seasonally frozen soil areas.
- Preprint
(2456 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Jun 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1663', Rui Zuo, 13 May 2025
reply
The groundwater level changes in the seasonal frozen soil region are simulated using interpretable deep learning, while the underlying mechanisms of groundwater level dynamics during the freezing and thawing periods as well as non-freezing and thawing periods are revealed. The topic is interesting and the research results can provide a reference for the assessment of groundwater resources in seasonal frozen soil regions. However, considering that the Hydrology and Earth System Sciences is the world's premier journal publishing research of the highest quality in hydrology, it could not be accepted before a minor revision.
1)During the freeze–thaw process, the groundwater level exhibits a noticeable lag during the recovery phase. Has the author considered the physical mechanisms behind this lag, such as delayed soil thawing or the blockage effect of frozen layers?
2)Line 314 mentions that "there is no significant lag between the simulated and observed values." Has any correlation or lag correlation analysis been conducted to support this statement?
3)Line 211 states that 150 days of meteorological variables were used as model input. What is the basis for selecting this window length? Has other time lengths been tested for their effect on model performance?
4)How is the early stopping strategy for the LSTM model set?
5)It is recommended to include comparison plots for typical sites with NSE > 0.7 in the test set, to contrast with the low-performance sites in Figure 4 (NSE < 0.7), and to further validate the model’s applicability and stability across different locations.
6)When using the EG method to calculate the importance of influencing factors, have you considered converting the EG scores into percentages to more clearly display the dominant factors and their relative contributions at different periods for the same groundwater level dynamic type?
7)The manuscript refers to the “initial groundwater level depth at the start of the freezing period.” How is the time point of this variable consistently defined? Is it synchronized with the time when the maximum freezing depth occurs?
8)In line 691, the conclusion states that a “V-shaped” groundwater level trend indicated a significant influence of the soil freeze–thaw process on the groundwater level. However, the specific causes of the V-shaped dynamics are not clearly explained.
9)In line 222, the formula should be revised to:
10)It is recommended to display the specific NSE value of the representative site in the western low plain region within the test set in Figure 4.
11)It is suggested to delete Figure 2d and merge Figure 2b with Figures 2a and 2c.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1663-CC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
116 | 13 | 6 | 135 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 116
- PDF: 13
- XML: 6
- Total: 135
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1