the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Spatial and temporal features of snow water equivalent across a headwater catchment in the Sierra Nevada, USA
Abstract. Advancements in remote sensing of snow (e.g., lidar) have allowed for the characterization of mountain snowpacks at higher spatial resolutions (< 10 m) and higher vertical accuracy (< 20 cm) than previously available, which can cover entire catchments repeatedly throughout the snow season. Here, we use distributed snow water equivalent (SWE) over the Tuolumne River Basin in California, USA, from lidar snow depths combined with energy/mass balance modeling of the Airborne Snow Observatory (ASO) program for the period 2013–2017 (48 flight-dates, 50-m resolution) to characterize the spatial and temporal variations in SWE distribution in this headwater catchment. Peak basin snow volume storage ranged from 142 M m3 (i.e., 106 m3) in 2015 to 1467 M m3 in 2017, covering one of the widest ranges in recorded history. Basin SWE empirical distributions vary between unimodal and bimodal distributions earlier in the season to decaying distributions later in the ablation season. Snow storage peaks at mid-elevations between 2750–3250 m, which is a consequence of increases in SWE with elevation and basin hypsometry. The date of peak SWE varies by several weeks across the watershed and between years, according to the combination of accumulation and melt patterns partially explained by elevation and aspect. This variation in peak SWE timing leads to underestimations if a single date is used to uniformly characterize the basin's peak SWE. These results illustrate how understanding SWE spatiotemporal dynamics can improve the understanding of where the snow is and when it melts, support satellite mission planning, and enhance ground survey design and planning.
- Preprint
(7892 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1347 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Nov 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3736', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Sep 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3736', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Oct 2025
reply
Review: Spatial and temporal features of snow water equivalent across headwater catchment in the Sierra Nevada, USA [egusphere-2025-3736]
This paper characterizes SWE in the Tuolumne River Basin, California, for WY 2013-2017 using ASO data (lidar + snow model). The analysis is somewhat new and is a small contribution to advancing current understanding. The analysis highlights the types of new knowledge that can be gained from spatially continuous SWE information.
The paper is well written. The results could be better synthesized to provide the reader with key takeaways and how they relate to paper aims and scope (see major comment 2), especially when the analysis is presented separately for each individual water year. I have three major comments that I’d like the authors to address before considering the paper for publication.
Major comments
- The paper would be strengthened by adding some precipitation data to support the SWE discussion, if possible. This analysis does not need to be exhaustive as the focus of the paper is to characterize the basin’s SWE. However, many of the explanations for the differing SWE distributions from year to year come down to precipitation, yet no direct evidence is given to support the claims.
- Provide statement(s) on the importance or value of the various analyses. In many instances I was looking for the ‘so what’ related to a specific result or analysis. For example, what is the value of knowing the empirical probability distribution in the context of water resources. What does a specific distribution mean and what are the implications of the distributions you discovered?
- Acknowledge the recent paper by Raleigh et al. (2025) on snow monitoring via strategic locations (as opposed to basin averaged SWE) and discuss to what extent your findings align or contradict their conclusions. Both works seem to suggest that a single basin-averaged survey is insufficient. Your work points to the need for multiple surveys whereas Raleigh et al. (2025) advocate for adding point measurements at ‘hot spots’.
Raleigh, M.S., Small, E.E., Bair, E.H. et al. Snow monitoring at strategic locations improves water supply forecasting more than basin-wide mapping. Commun Earth Environ 6, 665 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02660-z
Minor comments
L128-192: Please provide reference some ‘previous studies’ alluded to here.
Figure 2: Is it possible to add some sort of hypsometry of the part of the basin used for the 250m elevation bins and for those exact bins?
L229-230: (ii) This method could use a bit more explanation. i.e. is it a histogram of grid-averaged SWE for all grids in the basin as a function of total basin area? Also, were 6 dates selected because it corresponds to the minimum number of flights in a WY (2013)?
L250-254: (v) Unclear here and in the Results (Sect. 3.5) how ‘SWE at the timing of basin peak SWE’ is defined. Is it SWE from the survey closest to 1 April or the date with the highest basin-averaged SWE? Your text (Sect. 3.5) gives underestimation values for both. Which of these is shown in Figures 12-14?
L493-500: Are these two WYS ‘normal’ snow years and if so, how do their distributions compare to 2016?
Caption Figures 4 – 6: suggest ‘Histogram of SWE as a function of basin area for six flights dates in ... Total basin SWE storage and snow covered area noted in upper right’.
Sect 3.2: Suggest adding a sentence in the first paragraph similar to Sect. 3.3 that elaborates on what the SWE EPD shows and how that information is useful in the context of water resources.
Sect. 3.3 paragraph 1: Please provide references.
L318: suggest ‘total SWE storage’
Figures 7 & 8: Is there a way to show the hypsometry for the area between 2250 and 3500m? This would help the reader interpret the total snow mass in particular. Total basin hypsometry shown in Figure 1 but for different bin sizes than analysed here and I found it challenging to use that information to interpret the analysis in Sect. 3.3.
L354-255: This alludes to the strengths and weaknesses of the two types of data/measurements. See major comment #3.
Figures 9 through 14. Elevation distribution subplot – is the y-axis % the percentage of the basin area? Please clarify.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3736-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,092 | 69 | 12 | 2,173 | 18 | 14 | 15 |
- HTML: 2,092
- PDF: 69
- XML: 12
- Total: 2,173
- Supplement: 18
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See attachment.