the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
High resolution monthly precipitation isotope estimates across Australia from machine learning
Abstract. The stable isotopic composition of precipitation (δ2HP, δ18OP; 'water isotopes') is a powerful tool for tracking water through the atmosphere, as well as fingerprinting land-surface water masses and identifying water cycle biases in isotope-enabled climate models. Water isotopes also underpin our understanding of multi-decadal to multi-centennial water cycle variability via their retrieval from palaeoclimate archives. Water isotopes thereby increase our understanding of past and present – and hence future – water cycle variability. Understanding the drivers of spatial and temporal water isotope variability is a critical first step in applying these tracers for a better understanding of the water cycle. However, water isotope observations are sparse in both space and time. Here we develop and apply a machine learning (random forest) approach to predict spatially continuous monthly δ2HP and δ18OP across the Australian continent at 0.25° resolution from 1962–2023. We train the random forest models on monthly δ2HP (n = 5199) and δ18OP (n = 5217) observations from 60 sites across Australia. We also predict the deuterium excess of precipitation (dxsP, defined as δ2HP − 8*δ18OP). Out-of-sample δ2HP and δ18OP prediction skill is high both geographically and temporally. Skill is slightly lower for the secondary parameter dxsP, likely reflecting the larger reliance of spatio-temporal dxsP variability on moisture source conditions. The random forest models accurately capture both the seasonal cycle of precipitation isotopic variability and long-term annual-mean precipitation isotopic variability across the continent, and outperform estimates from an isotope-enabled atmosphere general circulation model over an equivalent time period. We show that spatio-temporal variability in precipitation amount, precipitation intensity, and surface temperature are particularly important for monthly δ2HP and δ18OP variations across the continent, with local surface pressure also important for dxsP. Drivers of site-level δ2HP, δ18OP, and dxsP are more varied. Overall, the new random forest modelled dataset reveals clear spatial and temporal variability in δ2HP, δ18OP, and dxsP across the Australian continent over the past decades – providing a robust foundation for hydrology, ecology, and palaeoclimate research, as well as an accessible framework for predicting water isotope values in other locations.
- Preprint
(6615 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(11496 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Oct 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2458', Gabriel Bowen, 12 Aug 2025
reply
Falster et al. model a large precipitation isotope dataset from Australia using Random Forest, compare the results to those from two other methods, and present and interpret a set of historical monthly average precipitation isoscapes. This is an excellent study, and very well presented…in many ways it’s the precipitation ML isoscape study I’ve been hoping to see for several years now! It’s thorough, really uses the power of the method and an expanded suite of features to go well beyond what’s been done with other statistical methods and learn more from our isotope data. In so doing it represents one of the first successful attempts at a data-driven, time-explicit analysis of historical precipitation isotope patterns. Kudos to the authors, and I’m excited to see this published.
Below are a handful of comments and suggestions that I hope might be useful and help the authors tie up a few loose ends.
I have mixed feelings about the choice to model D-excess directly. I’ve done this, too, and am not fundamentally opposed to this approach. But it does lead to a fundamental inconsistency…because D-excess is not and independent parameter you have 3 independent models that are describing a system with only two degrees of freedom. In an ideal world, this would be modeled as a multivariate system, since H and O isotopes have a lot of shared information. A single self-consistent model could be fit to simultaneously predict δ2H, δ18O, and from them D-excess. Maybe a next step, but in the current manuscript it would at least be interesting to see how strongly the D-excess values implied by the separate δ2H and δ18O models deviate from the predictions of the D-excess model. Areas w/ large differences imply inconsistency in the models, which could be due to the influence of specific (poorly represented) forcing factors, incomplete or inconsistent data, or other factors that might motivate future work.
Methods: Did you make any attempt at feature selection? I realize this is less important for RF than for many other methods but can still be beneficial. The very smooth decline in feature importance in Fig. 7 is interesting to me and could reflect some influence of highly correlated features. I think it would be work checking/reporting on this, at least.
In several places you refer to D-excess as an ‘isotope system’ (e.g., line 349, 398, others)…which isn’t quite correct, it’s a derived parameter that integrates information from two isotope systems. I suggest adjusting your terminology for correctness. For example you could refer to ‘three isotopic metrics’ instead of ‘three isotope systems’.
L 350-354: this is an important point given RF’s inherent inability to meaningfully extrapolate beyond the training data’s feature space. Thank you for including this information.
L 428, also previously: The text implies that the term ‘isoscape’ refers specifically to climatology (long-term average models), which is not the case – the term has been applied to space- and/or time-explicit models of isotopic variation since its inception (e.g., Bowen, West, & Hoogewerff, 2009; Bowen, West, Vaughn, et al., 2009; West et al., 2010).
L 580-581: This line in the data availability statement is unclear – are the data themselves also available in the Zenodo archive referenced in the previous section? If so, please clarify, if not, please indicate where they are available.
Fig 5: Symbology could be adjusted to make it a little easier to distinguish the different series…the differences are quite subtle and hard to pick out on the small panels.
Bowen, G. J., West, J. B., & Hoogewerff, J. (2009). Isoscapes: Isotope mapping and its applications. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 102(3), v–vii. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2009.05.001Bowen, G. J., West, J. B., Vaughn, B. H., Dawson, T. E., Ehleringer, J. R., Fogel, M. L., Hobson, K. A., Hoogewerff, J., Kendall, C., Lai, C. T., Miller, C. C., Noone, D., Schwarcz, H. P., & Still, C. J. (2009). Isoscapes to address large-scale Earth science challenges. Eos, 90(13), 109–110.
West, J. B., Bowen, G. J., Dawson, T. E., & Tu, K. P. (Eds.). (2010). Isoscapes: Understanding Movement, Pattern, and Process on Earth Through Isotope Mapping. Springer.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2458-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
452 | 80 | 13 | 545 | 25 | 6 | 16 |
- HTML: 452
- PDF: 80
- XML: 13
- Total: 545
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1