the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modelling of temporal and spatial trends in soil conditions in Finland using HydroBlocks model
Abstract. The changing Arctic climate alters the dynamics of melting and freezing in the ground. An increasing number of frost quakes have been reported in boreal regions such as Finland and Canada, which can cause damage to infrastructure by fracturing roads and built structures. A methodology has been developed to assess frost quakes by estimating thermal stresses in the soil in Oulu, Finland. Information on temporally and spatially varying soil properties, such as soil temperature and soil ice content, is required to calculate thermal stress. Further developing this methodology on a larger scale, over Finland, is challenging due to a lack of in-situ measurements of these parameters with high spatial and temporal coverage. However, they can be simulated using land surface models, one of which is HydroBlocks. Previously, HydroBlocks has been applied in the contiguous United States. The goal of this paper was to configure the model in subarctic and arctic Finland. HydroBlocks' ability to produce accurate snow accumulation and melt approximations, as well as estimate soil temperature and soil water content at different depths in Finland, has not been evaluated before. In addition, maps and time series of soil ice content in Finland at different depths were produced. The snow model (snow water equivalent) and the modeled soil temperatures and soil water contents were compared with the observational data to evaluate the model performance. From the calibrated model, for six observational SWE stations, the average RMSE and KGE were 43 mm and 0.07, respectively. The worst KGE was -0.88, and the best was 0.78. From the calibrated model, for the three observational soil stations, the soil temperature had an average RMSE and KGE of 2.2 °C and 0.66, respectively. The worst KGE was 0.41, and the best was 0.89. For the soil water content, the average RMSE and KGE were first, 0.15 volvol and -4.88, and after calibration, they were reduced to 0.07 volvol and -0.75, respectively. For the calibrated model, the worst KGE was -2.2, and the best was 0.08. The modelling results emphasize the importance of calibrating the model with local soil hydraulic parameters. The modeling results indicate that outputs from HydroBlocks can generally predict soil conditions in Finland. Furthermore, the obtained soil temperature and soil ice content can be used to calculate thermal stresses in soils and identify frost quake-prone areas regionally across Finland over recent decades, ultimately estimating the risk caused by frost quakes.
- Preprint
(43059 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4024', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Dec 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Emma-Riikka Kokko, 14 Jan 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4024/egusphere-2025-4024-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Emma-Riikka Kokko, 14 Jan 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4024', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Dec 2025
The paper “Modelling of temporal and spatial trends in soil conditions in Finland using HydroBlocks model” uses outputs from a land surface model to estimate thermal stress in frozen soil to analyze the co-occurrence with frost quakes in Finland. The analysis includes comparing model outputs of snow water equivalence, soil water content, soil temperature and soil ice content between the model and observations for several sites in Finland. The paper is well written and has a logical organization that makes it very comprehensible. The subject matter is interesting and provides a unique application for land surface model outputs. The paper can be approved by addressing inconsistency in terminology, revising several plots, and strengthening the conclusions. Specific comments for revisions are given below.
Revisions:
Line 48: There is a lot of text devoted to the description of the thermal stress and even including an equation for thermal stress. This made me think that the analysis would be analyzing thermal stress in the soils. However, this paper is really about validating a land surface model for the potential use of estimating thermal stress. It could be helpful to cut back some of the text describing the thermal stress and focus more on how land surface models estimate the key inputs needed for thermal stress.
Line 67 – Here you first introduce soil moisture content (SMC) and soil water content (SWC). It is not clear what the difference is here and is likely a model specific designation and sometimes the two are used interchangeably in broader hydrology. The readability of the paper would improve if you define specifically what you mean by SMC and SWC and how the two are fundamentally different. Also, from later analysis it is clear that what you really want is soil ice content, so it may make sense to start with that and describe that first.
Line 72: The word paring “multiple different” is redundant and should be changed to either “multiple” or “different”.
Line 78: “soil water equivalent” should be “snow water equivalent”.
Line 105: It is unclear what the sentence that starts with “The boundaries of the subdomains” is trying to communicate. It would be helpful if this was revised.
Line 276: Figure 7 adds very little information that cannot be assessed from Table 3. In particular, the scale of the x-axis is such so that it extremely difficult to see differences between the models and the observations. One way to improve this is to show a short time period for the gauge that does the best (Vaala) and the gauge that does the worst (Konnevesi). This will give the reader more insight as to why the model performs well at one location and not so well at another.
Line 322: To help avoid confusion, make the column headers Table 4 consistent with how they are described in the paper and the caption (i.e. SWC-5cm, not W5cm). Same for Table 5 and 6.
Line 326: As mentioned above, the description of SMC, SWC, and SIC is very confusing. This seems to be more of nuance from the specific modeling framework. It would be clearer if in the methods section you say that you use SMC and SWC from the model to get SIC. Then just treat SIC as another model output. Given that most of the analysis is focused on SWC, then you can remove SMC from the paper entirely. This could help clean up the terminology and make the analysis clearer.
Line 392: Conclusion 5 is not really a conclusion. It just uses two outputs from the model to create an output that the model doesn’t current output.
Line 394: Conclusion 6 is too broad for what is analyzed in this paper as there was no analysis of thermal stress or predictability and risk of frost quakes. This paper did validate the inputs need to calculate the thermal stress and demonstrates that there could be potential for calculating thermal stress and frost quakes, but it does not actually validating the model against observed thermal stress and predicting frost quakes. Rewording this to focus on what was shown in the results would be beneficial.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4024-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Emma-Riikka Kokko, 14 Jan 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4024/egusphere-2025-4024-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Emma-Riikka Kokko, 14 Jan 2026
Data sets
Supporting Dataset Modelling of temporal and spatial trends in soil conditions in Finland using HydroBlocks model Emma-Riikka Kokko and Nathaniel Chaney https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16601663
Model code and software
Supporting Dataset Modelling of temporal and spatial trends in soil conditions in Finland using HydroBlocks model Emma-Riikka Kokko and Nathaniel Chaney https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16601663
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 201 | 100 | 31 | 332 | 18 | 19 |
- HTML: 201
- PDF: 100
- XML: 31
- Total: 332
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The study applies the HydroBlocks model to simulate soil conditions in Finland, and the technical implementation appears thorough. However, I have significant concerns regarding the scientific novelty, methodological clarity, and overall focus of the paper. In its current form, the manuscript does not meet the standards for publication in this journal.
Below are my specific comments: