the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Implementation of a dry surface layer soil resistance in two contrasting semi-arid sites with SURFEX-ISBA V9.0
Abstract. The estimation of latent heat fluxes in semi-arid regions faces several challenges, such as human intervention in the water cycle through irrigation, sudden changes in vegetation state due to crop harvesting, the still evolving knowledge of the physical processes governing plant transpiration and soil evaporation, and the lack of measurements to develop and test models. Representing the wide range of evapotranspiration values presents difficulties for both simulations and measurements, owing to strong soil/plant spatial heterogeneity at relatively small (e.g. hectometric) scales. The ability to accurately predict the partition of evapotranspiration into evaporation and transpiration from observation is still very limited, but improved estimates are required so that better water use decisions can be made. Land surface models (LSMs) can be used as a tool in this regard, when their validation is possible, simulations tend to overestimate soil evaporation in most models.
The simulations in this study make use of the LSM ISBA, which represents the land component within the surface coupling platform SURFEX. They include two field sites with contrasting soil moisture and vegetation characteristics during the summer of the Land surface interactions with the atmosphere over the Iberian semi-arid environment (LIAISE) campaign. The first site corresponds to a full cutting and growing cycle of one month in a flood irrigated alfalfa field. A detailed examination of the parametrization suggests that several parameters determine the amount and tendency of transpiration change. In particular, a higher quantum efficiency and maximum assimilation are marked as the driving model parameters together with a mesophylic conductance value closer to C4 behavior. The second site is an uncultivated rain-fed area of natural grass close to senescence. As the parametrization of the vegetation proved to be insufficient to characterize the evapotranspiration, for this study the implementation of a dry surface layer (DSL) resistance within the LSM ISBA was developed. The consideration of this process characterizes the transfer of vapor in a physical way that has proved successful in improving the partitioning of evapotranspiration in other models. The implementation of a DSL resistance led to an improvement in the simulated latent heat flux by reducing bare soil evaporation compared to simulations without a soil resistance. This approach resulted in a reduction in daily latent heat flux RMSE of 29 % and 32 % for the alfalfa and natural grass site respectively, while increasing slightly the correlation by 0.02 and 0.01 at both sites. Sensible heat flux and net radiation are improved on the order of 10 W m-2 whereas the ground heat flux is deteriorated within the same order. The resulting DSL simulations reduced the overall global error compared to a simulation without a DSL resistance. Sensitivity tests of the parameters that drive a DSL resistance in ISBA further improve the simulations, reducing excessive damping after rain events. The new DSL parameterization helps overcome current problems of ET modelling by reducing bare soil evaporation within LSMs.
- Preprint
(10301 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1783', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jul 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Belén Martí, 13 Sep 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1783', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1783/egusphere-2025-1783-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Belén Martí, 13 Sep 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1783', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Jul 2025
General comments
Accurate estimation and partitioning of evapotranspiration (ET) are critical for understanding land–atmosphere interactions, yet current land surface models (LSMs) still exhibit notable deficiencies in representing transpiration and evaporation, particularly soil evaporation. In this study, the authors introduce a dry surface layer (DSL) resistance parameterization into the ISBA model and conduct simulations and evaluations at two contrasting semi-arid sites, leveraging comprehensive observational data from the LIAISE campaign. Their results demonstrate that the new DSL parameterization effectively reduces bare soil evaporation and helps address existing shortcomings in ET modeling, offering valuable insights for improving LSM performance in estimating evapotranspiration.
The manuscript is well-organized, with a robust methodological approach and substantial supporting data. The logical structure and discussion are also appropriate. However, the text is somewhat lengthy, and there is room for improvement in both language clarity and figure presentation. Revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
The estimation of soil evaporation and DSL resistance is influenced by soil state variables such as soil moisture and soil temperature. However, the simulation results of these variables presented in this study (Figures 10 and 11) appear to be unsatisfactory, which raises concerns about the reliability of subsequent model evaluation outcomes.
It is recommended to reorganize the introduction and Sect. 2.3.1 for improved clarity. Currently, the Introduction does not provide sufficient explanation of specialized terms such as soil resistance, particularly dry surface layer (DSL) resistance. As these concepts may not be familiar to the broader readership of GMD, it would be beneficial to consider moving part of the description of soil resistance from Sect. 2.3.1 into the Introduction.
Sect. 5.4 presents the results of the sensitivity analysis. However, it would be helpful to briefly introduce the concept of sensitivity analysis and the specific method adopted in this study in the earlier methodological sections. This would provide clearer context and improve the continuity of the manuscript.
Specific comments
Line 1: Latent heat flux (LE) and evapotranspiration are closely related but conceptually distinct terms, with different physical meanings and units. The manuscript should carefully review its use of both terms to avoid confusion. In particular, Figure 8 incorrectly labels the unit of LE as “mm,” which is not appropriate.
Line 61-64: It is recommended to number the four drying stages to make it easier for the reader to understand.
Line 83: The term “surface energy budget (SEB)” appears for the first time here, rather than at line 257.
Line 131: I don’t quite understand what N and X represent in this context.
Line 216: Please revise the citation “(Iden et al. 2021)” to “Iden et al., (2021)” to match the correct citation style. Similar formatting inconsistencies may exist elsewhere and should be reviewed.
Line 308: For La Cendrosa, irrigation was treated as rainfall by adding 30 mm of water between 00:00 and 02:00 UTC.
Line 323-324: While the alfalfa field is clearly identified as a C3 crop, the grass type used for Els Plans is not specified as either C3 or C4. Given that this distinction may affect model performance, the authors should clarify which type was used. Additionally, in Table 1, the crop is classified under the “C4 crop” category. Please check if this classification is correct.
Line 330-331: It would be helpful if the manuscript could briefly clarify what the “AST option” within SURFEX refers to.
Line 347: “is” to “in”.
Line 353: “one” to “1”.
Table 1: It is recommended to unify the formatting of the table and add border lines to both the top and bottom.
Figure 9: It is necessary to provide a clear explanation of the meaning of the error bars and the orange horizontal lines shown in the figure.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1783-RC3 - AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Belén Martí, 13 Sep 2025
Data sets
Dry Surface Layer SURFEX simulations and necessary code (Versión 1) B. Martí and A. Boone https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15205476
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,040 | 88 | 25 | 2,153 | 27 | 43 |
- HTML: 2,040
- PDF: 88
- XML: 25
- Total: 2,153
- BibTeX: 27
- EndNote: 43
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please refer to attached comments.