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: final response (author comments only)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-713', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Mar 2025
Dear authors,Â
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
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 SilwimbaÂ
Boise State UniversityÂCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Kachinga Silwimba, 07 Apr 2025
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
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
Dear Dr. Juan Añel, Â
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. Â
Sincerely, Â
Kachinga Silwimba Â
Boise State UniversityCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Kachinga Silwimba, 07 Apr 2025
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Apr 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Kachinga Silwimba, 31 Mar 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-713', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Apr 2025
Silwimba et al. investigate the impact of different soil hydraulic parameter sets—derived from various approaches—on soil moisture variability across the contiguous United States (CONUS), using the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5). The study employs Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis to extract dominant spatiotemporal patterns in soil moisture and assesses how variability in soil hydraulic parameters influences hydrological processes.
The manuscript is generally well-written, with clearly articulated objectives and a methodologically sound design. The topic is timely and of interest to the hydrology and land surface modeling communities. The authors have presented the results in a clear and coherent manner. However, I have a few concerns and suggestions that, if addressed, could improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript.
Major and Minor Comments
- Experimental Design Clarity:
The description of the experimental setup, particularly EXP1, EXP3, and EXP4a–4d, requires further clarification:
- For EXP1, how exactly does the use of uniform SHPs demonstrate a reduction in inter-model variability? A more detailed explanation of the hypothesis and expected behavior would be helpful.
- For EXP3, it is not entirely clear how this experiment isolates the intrinsic inter-model variability. Please elaborate.
- For EXP4a–4d, I find it difficult to understand how four different soil categories are implemented in the model. Do you run the model separately for each soil category? Are these scenarios simulated using four distinct parameter sets applied uniformly across the domain, or are they spatially varying? Clarifying how these simulations were configured in CLM5 is essential.
- Model–Observation Comparison:
Have the authors considered validating the model outputs against observational soil moisture datasets? Including such comparisons would strengthen the findings and contextualize model performance.- Figure Reference – Line 328:
The text refers to Figure 6, but the description seems to match the content of Figure 8. Please verify and correct this reference.- Regional Subdivisions of CONUS:
While the manuscript defines subregions within CONUS, the analysis appears to be conducted solely at the national scale. What is the purpose of introducing these subdivisions if no region-specific results are discussed?- Motivation for EOF Analysis:
The rationale for employing EOF analysis to study soil moisture variability is not clearly justified. What specific insight does EOF provide in this context that other metrics might not? Please expand on the scientific motivation for this methodological choice.- Conclusion Structure:
The manuscript introduces two central research questions related to the influence of Soil hydraulic parameters on spatial soil moisture patterns and their temporal evolution during climate extremes. However, the conclusion section does not clearly revisit or synthesize findings in response to these questions. I recommend revising the conclusion to directly address the key research objectives and summarize how the results support them.- Sensitivity of Hydraulic Parameters:
It would be valuable for the reader to understand which specific Soil hydraulic parameters (e.g., saturated hydraulic conductivity, porosity, van Genuchten parameters) are most influential in controlling soil moisture dynamics across the simulations. A sensitivity analysis or discussion on this point would enhance the study’s relevance for land model parameterization efforts.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-RC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Kachinga Silwimba, 18 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement:
-
AC7: 'Reply on AC4', Kachinga Silwimba, 18 Jun 2025
We sincerely thank our anonymous Reviewer #1 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. A detailed response to the comments is provided in the attached document.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-AC7
-
AC7: 'Reply on AC4', Kachinga Silwimba, 18 Jun 2025
- Experimental Design Clarity:
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-713', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2025
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Kachinga Silwimba, 18 Jun 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement:
-
AC8: 'Reply on AC5', Kachinga Silwimba, 18 Jun 2025
We sincerely thank our anonymous Reviewer #2 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. A detailed response to the comments is provided in the attached document from the previous reply.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-713-AC8
-
AC8: 'Reply on AC5', Kachinga Silwimba, 18 Jun 2025
- AC6: 'Reply on RC2', Kachinga Silwimba, 18 Jun 2025
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Kachinga Silwimba, 18 Jun 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
398 | 125 | 34 | 557 | 9 | 17 |
- HTML: 398
- PDF: 125
- XML: 34
- Total: 557
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1