the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Soil Parameterization in Land Surface Models Drives Large Discrepancies in Soil Moisture Predictions Across Hydrologically Complex regions of the Contiguous United States
Abstract. Land surface models (LSMs) are critical components of Earth system models (ESMs), enabling simulations of energy and water fluxes essential for understanding climate systems. Soil hydraulic parameters, derived using pedotransfer functions (PTFs), are key to modeling soil-plant-water interactions but introduce uncertainties in soil moisture predictions. However, a key knowledge gap exists in understanding how specific soil hydraulic properties contribute to these uncertainties and in identifying the regions most affected by them. This study assesses the influence of soil parameter settings on soil moisture variability in the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5) over the contiguous United States (CONUS) using Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis. EOF analysis identified dominant spatial and temporal soil moisture patterns across multiple experimental configurations and highlighted the impact of soil parameter variability on hydrological processes. The results revealed significant discrepancies in soil moisture simulations, particularly in the central Great Plains, potentially due to the combination of arid climate conditions and limitations in modeling saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil water retention curves. Seasonal soil moisture dynamics aligned broadly with observed patterns but showed biases in magnitude and phase, emphasizing the need for refined parameterization, such as improving the representation of infiltration and drainage processes. Comparisons with ERA5-Land reanalysis data revealed improved alignment in regions with consistent climatic gradients but persistent model deficiencies in hydrologically complex areas, particularly under more arid climates such as the Great Plains where hydrological processes are notoriously harder to reproduce. This research highlights the necessity of refining soil parameter representations, utilizing high-resolution datasets, and considering climatic variability to boost the performance of LSMs. Importantly, these findings also open the door to future efforts that incorporate dynamic soil properties into LSMs. Much of this work demonstrates the dynamism of soil properties, and while this study advances modeling by revealing the importance of their inclusion, the next crucial step will be developing approaches that allow these properties to be dynamic within LSMs. This paper serves as a foundational step toward that goal, paving the way for more complex and integrated modeling frameworks that better capture soil-hydrology-climate interactions.
- Preprint
(16081 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Apr 2025)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-713', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Mar 2025
reply
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 the Code and Data Availability section of your manuscript you point out to a server hosted by the ETH. It is not clear if the FTP that you provide hosts only the requested data, but although it contained only the data relevant for the work you present, the ETH server does not comply with the requirements to be valid as a repository. Therefore, please, move the data to a valid repository, reply to this comment with its link and DOI, and include such information in any potentially reviewed version of your manuscript.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Kachinga Silwimba, 31 Mar 2025
reply
Dear Dr. Añel,
Thank you for your email and for bringing this to our attention. We are currently addressing the Code and Data Policy. We have subsetted the variables used in the manuscript from the larger CLM simulation. Additionally, we are still waiting to hear from the team responsible for simulating the dataset to ensure that all necessary attributions are made appropriately.
We will provide an update as soon as we have resolved the issue and have a valid repository link and DOI. Please let us know if there are any further clarification required in the meantime.
Best regards,
Kachinga Silwimba
Boise State UniversityCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Kachinga Silwimba, 07 Apr 2025
reply
Dear Dr. Juan Añel,
Thank you for your patience. We have now addressed the issue and moved the data to a valid repository. The dataset used in our manuscript is available on Zenodo at the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15078448.
Please let us know if any further information or clarification is needed.
Best regards,
Kachinga Silwimba
Boise State UniversityCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-AC2 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Apr 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Many thanks for addressing this issue. I have checked the new repository that you provide, and we can consider now the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the data policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-CEC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Kachinga Silwimba, 07 Apr 2025
reply
Dear Dr. Juan Añel,
Thank you for reviewing the updated repository and confirming our manuscript's compliance with the journal’s data policy. We appreciate your guidance throughout this process.
Sincerely,
Kachinga Silwimba
Boise State UniversityCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Kachinga Silwimba, 07 Apr 2025
reply
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Apr 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Kachinga Silwimba, 31 Mar 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
241 | 52 | 6 | 299 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 241
- PDF: 52
- XML: 6
- Total: 299
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 165 | 48 |
China | 2 | 35 | 10 |
Germany | 3 | 15 | 4 |
United Kingdom | 4 | 11 | 3 |
Italy | 5 | 11 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 165