the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Runoff Evaluation in an Earth System Land Model for Permafrost Regions
Abstract. Modeling of hydrological runoff is essential for accurately capturing spatiotemporal feedbacks within the land–atmosphere system, particularly in sensitive regions such as permafrost landscapes. However, substantial uncertainties persist in the terrestrial runoff parameterization schemes used in Earth system and land surface models. This is particularly true in permafrost regions, where landscape heterogeneity is high and reliable observational data are scarce. In this study, we evaluate the performance of runoff parameterization schemes in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) land model (ELM). Our proposed framework leverages simulation results from the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), which is a physics-rich integrated surface/subsurface hydrologic model that has been successfully evaluated previously in Arctic tundra regions. We used ATS to simulate runoff from 22 representative hillslopes in the Sagavanirktok River basin, located on the North Slope of Alaska, then compared the output with ELM’s parameterized representation of total runoff. Results show that 1) ELM’s total runoff was the same order of magnitude as the ATS simulations, and both models were similarly variable over time; 2) minor adjustments to coefficients in ELM’s runoff parameterization improved the match between the ATS simulation and ELM’s parameterized representation of annual and seasonal total runoff; 3) overall, runoff responses in ATS and ELM are more similar in flat hillslope environments compared to steep hillslopes; and 4) shallower active layer thicknesses and higher precipitation simulations resulted in lower correlations between the two models due to greater total runoff. By incorporating the optimized runoff coefficients from the Sagavanirktok River basin into ELM, the simulated total runoff better matched the streamflow observations at a small watershed located on the Seward Peninsula of Alaska. Our findings revealed important insights into the effectiveness of runoff parameterizations in land surface models and pathways for improving runoff coefficients in typical Arctic regions.
- Preprint
(1466 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1753 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlin your "Code and Data Availability" statement you do not share the data that you use, saying that it will become available upon acceptance. Also for others you state that "Data sets are in the transfer process between the NGEE Arctic data portal and the ESS DIVE repository, and will be updated as soon as possible. " Our policy clearly states that all the datasets used for a manuscript must be published and open to anyone without restrictions before submission to our journal.
For the code you state that it is available in websites that are not valid for scientific publication. Among them, you list a Github website, which is specifically listed as non-compliant by the policy of the journal.
Therefore, given all these issues, your manuscript should have not been accepted for peer review and Discussions in Geoscientific Model Development. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy. Please, publish your code and data in one of the appropriate repositories according to our policy and reply as soon as possible to this comment with a modified 'Code and Data Availability' section for your manuscript, which must include the relevant information (link and handle or DOI) of the new repositories, and which you should include in a potentially reviewed manuscript.
In the meantime, I advise the Topical Editor to stop the peer-review process for your manuscript, as we should not investing the time of reviewers to review something that as it is right now, is not publishable in our journal.
Finally, I must note that if you do not fix these outstanding issues in a prompt manner, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-CEC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Katrina Bennett, 24 Jun 2025
Dear Dr. Añel,
Thank you so much for your comments. We are working hard to publish the data sets to the ESS-DIVE repository links provided in the paper by the end of this week, June 27th, 2025. We have code repositories on DOE Code (https://www.osti.gov/doecode/), which we will refer to and we will update the data section to remove any reference to Github. I will provide the revised data section to you on June 27th, 2025 as well.
We apologize for these oversights and we will remediate them as fast as we possibly can.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Katrina Bennett on behalf of the author team
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-CC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on CC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 24 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
I would like to note that osti.gov is not a valid repository for scientific publication. Therefore, please, store your assets in one of the suitable repositories listed in our policy.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-CEC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on CC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 24 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
I would like to note that osti.gov is not a valid repository for scientific publication. Therefore, please, store your assets in one of the suitable repositories listed in our policy.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-CEC3 -
CC2: 'Reply on CEC3', Katrina Bennett, 28 Jun 2025
Hello,
As of today, June 27th 2025, both of the data repositories have been submitted for review to ESS-DIVE . EES-DIVE normally takes a few days to review them and make them public. We hope this will happen early next week (June 30-Jul 1st 2025).
Thank you.
Katrina Bennett
-
CEC4: 'Reply on CC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 28 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, we can not accept ESS-DIVE as a suitable repository for the archival of the assets of your manuscript. It is my understanding that ESS-DIVE allows authors to manage and even delete datasets after they are deposited. This is not according our policy, which requests that authors can not delete datasets after their deposit. Therefore, I strongly recommend you to deposit your assets in one of the repositories listed in our policy.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-CEC4 -
CC3: 'Reply on CEC4', Katrina Bennett, 01 Jul 2025
Hello,
We are working to move our repositories over to Pangea (https://www.pangaea.de/). We will send you an update as soon as those are available.
Our work is funded through the Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment Arctic project, and we are required to publish all of our data publicly. We now have approval to publish additionally in Pangea to meet your requirements.
Thank you very much.
Katrina Bennett, on behalf of coauthors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-CC3 -
CC4: 'Reply on CC3', Katrina Bennett, 04 Jul 2025
Hello,
All of our datasets and software codes have been posted to Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/). A new Code and data availability statement is attached that includes references and links to these new repositories.
See below for the citations and links:
Huang, X., Gao, B., Demir, C., Fiorella, R., Painter, S., & Bennett, K. E. (2025). Data Files for Runoff Evaluation in an Earth System Land Model for Permafrost Regions. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15809186.
Abolt, C., Bennett, K., Fiorella, R., Holm, J. A., Iversen, C., Koven, C., Lemieux, G., Ricciuto, D., Sulman, B., Tao, J., Thornton, P., & Yuan, F. (2025). NGEE Arctic versions of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) and the Offline Land Model Testbed (OLMT). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15793373.
Gao, B., & Painter, S. (2025). Runoff Evaluation in an Earth System Land Model for Permafrost Regions: Input, Output, and Source Code for Simulations Using the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15792721.
Thank you,
Katrina Bennett, on behalf of all coauthors
-
CEC5: 'Reply on CC4', Juan Antonio Añel, 09 Jul 2025
Dear authors,
Many thanks, we can consider now the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the Code and Data policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-CEC5
-
CEC5: 'Reply on CC4', Juan Antonio Añel, 09 Jul 2025
-
CC4: 'Reply on CC3', Katrina Bennett, 04 Jul 2025
-
CC3: 'Reply on CEC4', Katrina Bennett, 01 Jul 2025
-
CEC4: 'Reply on CC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 28 Jun 2025
-
CC2: 'Reply on CEC3', Katrina Bennett, 28 Jun 2025
-
CEC2: 'Reply on CC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 24 Jun 2025
-
CC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Katrina Bennett, 24 Jun 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1753', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jul 2025
The manuscript titled “Runoff Evaluation in an Earth System Land Model for Permafrost Regions” proposes a new framework using ATS simulations to optimize runoff coefficients, offering a more physically based alternative to traditional parameterizations in Earth system land models. Furthermore, the study explores the potential transferability of the optimized runoff coefficients across different Arctic watersheds. This work presents methodological innovations that are valuable for improving runoff simulation in permafrost-affected regions and holds implications for enhancing water resource management in high-latitude environments.
The manuscript is generally well-written, and contributes meaningfully to the field. However, there are several issues that should be addressed to improve the clarity and precision of the manuscript. I therefore recommend the manuscript a minor revision, by considering some comments and questions posed below.
- While the study proposes a broadly applicable framework, the current analysis is limited to only two watersheds in Alaska: the Sagavanirktok (Sag) River Basin and the Teller watershed. Given this limited spatial extent, the current title may overstate the geographic generalizability. A more precise title such as “Runoff evaluation of an Earth System land model in the permafrost region of Alaska” would better reflect the study’s current scope.
- Please correct the unit formatting on Line 316: “km2” should be changed to “km²” (with superscript).
- Figure 6 attempts to illustrate the effect of changes in soil physical properties and snow thermal conductivity on runoff simulations within the ELM model. However, the current visualization makes it difficult for readers to extract meaningful comparisons. Consider redesigning the figure to improve visual clarity. For example, using grouped bars or difference plots to highlight contrasts between scenarios.
- In Figure 7a, the legend partially obstructs key elements of the plot. Since subplots 7a and 7b share the same legend, a common external legend (e.g., placed to the right of the panel or beneath both subplots) would declutter the figures and enhance readability.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-RC1 - CC5: 'Reply for Review #1', Katrina Bennett, 14 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1753', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Aug 2025
This study evaluates hydrological runoff in two permafrost-affected Arctic watersheds, Teller and Sag River, using two different models: the high-resolution, physics-based 3D permafrost hydrological model ATS and the coarse-resolution 1D Earth system model E3SM-ELM.
The authors simulate 22 representative watersheds in the Sag River basin with the ATS model. The runoff calculated by ATS is then used to calibrate linear parameters of the ELM model. These parameters are calibrated both annually and seasonally. The results show that by weighting four discharge components that contribute to total runoff in ELM, the modeled runoff aligns more closely with ATS results. The main conclusion is that the linear parameters (c1, c2, c3, c4) derived for Sag River can be applied to Teller, suggesting potential scalability to other sites.
The transferability of these linear parameters across Arctic watersheds depends on which of the four discharge components dominate at different times of the year. Seasonal variability plays a key role: snow is a major factor during winter and spring, while rainfall becomes more important in summer. At Teller, a deeper active layer and talik development may enhance year-round subsurface hydrology. This suggests that parameter transferability may work reasonably well for colder Arctic regions but may be less applicable to sub-Arctic environments.
Instead of only focusing on parameter transferability, it would be valuable to compare this approach with the hillslope model approximation proposed by the CLM group (described in Swenson et al., 2019 and latest results presented by David Lawrence at AGU 2024). How similar or different is the method presented here compared to the CLM approach? This discussion would strengthen the study.
Overall, this is an interesting and relevant study addressing the critical issue of scaling hydrological processes from local high-resolution models to Earth system models. The calibration and parameter transferability approach is promising but needs a stronger discussion of its limitations, particularly in regions with different seasonal dynamics. Adding detailed model setup descriptions, more figures illustrating profiles and seasonal variations, and a clearer comparison with alternative modeling approaches (e.g., CLM hillslope parameterization) will significantly strengthen the paper.Swenson, S. C., Clark, M., Fan, Y., Lawrence, D. M., & Perket, J.(2019). Representing intra-hillslope lateral subsurface flow in the community land model. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11, 4044–4065. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001833
H13R-03 Improving terrestrial hydrologic process representation in Earth System Models: Accounting for slope, aspect, and lateral water transfer through representative hillslopes, AGU 2024
Schädel, C., Rogers, B.M., Lawrence, D.M. et al. Earth system models must include permafrost carbon processes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 114–116 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01909-9
Editorial & Content Suggestions
- L18: Replace physics-rich with physics-based or high-fidelity physics.
- L50: Use Schaedel et al., 2024 as a better reference.
- Introduction:
- Conclude by emphasizing the scaling challenge: ATS operates at meter-scale resolution, whereas ELM works at ~150 km scale.
- Discuss how this study attempts to bridge this scale gap, either through parameterization improvement in global-scale models or by showing how local-scale models inform global simulations.
- The latter angle may be a safer framing.
Model Description Section
- Provide more details on the model setups for ATS and ELM:
- Initial and boundary conditions
- Number of soil layers
- Differences in thermal, hydrological, and surface/subsurface properties
- Include a figure comparing these configurations.
Ground Conditions
- The WT was initialized at 8.8 m. Show the initial profiles of:
- Liquid pressure vs. depth
- Liquid and ice saturation vs. depth
- Temperature vs. depth
- Add figures for seasonal profiles of ground temperature and liquid/ice saturation for both Sag River and Teller.
Meteorological Data
- Clarify the type of meteorological forcing used (e.g., daily vs. smoothed data).
Validation
- Were the models validated using measured temperature, runoff, streamflow, or discharge data? This should be clearly stated.
Figure-Specific Comments
- Figure 1:
- L174: refers to Fig. 1b
- L186: refers to Fig. 1a
- Mark the locations on the Teller map where streamflows were measured.
- ATS Model: Clarify whether it was a 2D or full 3D hillslope simulation. If 3D, specify whether runoff refers to streamflow over the entire hillslope.
- Figure 2b: Indicate whether discharges are distributed over the hillslope or limited to streamflow.
- Figure 3:
- Add titles for each subplot column (e.g., Base Case, Adjusted, Seasonally Adjusted).
- Include “Teller” and “Sag” in the caption.
- Figure 4:
- Avoid plotting ATS discharge as dots; use a continuous line.
- Consider plotting the difference (ATS – ELM) to highlight which seasons match better or worse.
- Use mL instead of 10^-5 units for easier interpretation.
Discussion Suggestions
- Explicitly use notation such as y^{ATS}_{runoff} and y^{ELM}_{runoff} for clarity.
- Discuss why RMSE, MAE, and NSE metrics were chosen and what different insights they provide.
- L269: Does the ground refreeze at the Teller site? If not, this may lead to increased water storage and higher subsurface discharge during summer.
- Consider mentioning that Teller’s topography, shrub cover, and snow-shrub interception promote warmer soils and influence hydrology.
- L270: Clarify whether the symbol used is a diamond or a triangle.
- Lines 290–295: Include a discussion comparing this study’s approach with the CLM group’s hillslope paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1753-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
659 | 69 | 35 | 763 | 17 | 33 |
- HTML: 659
- PDF: 69
- XML: 35
- Total: 763
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1