the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
ADELM v1.0: a differentiable ecohydrological land model with learnable and diagnosable parameterization
Abstract. Land surface model (LSM) parameters translate vegetation, soil, snow, and hydrological properties into process controls on water, energy, and carbon exchange. Many of these parameters are not directly measurable at the grid scale, and their effective values depend on model structure, spatial aggregation, and observational constraints. Here we present the Adaptive Differentiable Ecohydrological Land Model (ADELM) v1.0, a fully differentiable LSM that combines process-based equations with machine learning, allowing each parameter to be prescribed or learned from observations and making parameterization itself a learnable and diagnosable part of the land model. ADELM couples canopy radiative transfer, soil hydraulics, photosynthesis, evapotranspiration, and snow and soil hydrology within a single automatic-differentiation graph, so that selected parameters can be learned directly from observed fluxes or states. Because a learned parameter can be expressed as a function of gridded environmental attributes, mappings trained at sparse sites can be applied across continuous spatial domains. We demonstrate ADELM in a European application using evapotranspiration and gross primary productivity constraints from eddy covariance sites. Mappings learned at the sites are evaluated across the 0.1° European grid, where observation-constrained learning improves evapotranspiration simulation and produces spatially coherent flux and parameter fields. Greater parameter flexibility can leave the learned parameters less identifiable, so learned parameterizations need to be judged by the stability and coherence of their parameter fields. Overall, ADELM provides a differentiable foundation for developing parameterizations that can be learned from observations, applied across space, and diagnosed for reliability.
- Preprint
(6599 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Sep 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3294', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Aug 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3294', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Aug 2026
reply
General Comments
This manuscript introduces the Adaptive Differentiable Ecohydrological Land Model (ADELM) v1.0, combining process-based land surface modeling with automatic differentiation to enable observation-constrained parameter learning. The application over the European domain demonstrates improved evapotranspiration simulations and highlights the importance of evaluating learned neural network parameterizations. Overall, the study presents a compelling and timely approach to physics-informed machine learning in Earth system modeling. However, several aspects of spatial extrapolation, data extraction methods, parameter definitions, and regional performance discrepancies require clarification before publication.
Major revisions
- Line 221: How do the authors ensure the learned parameterization mapping is applicable across all model grid cells? Are there embedded diagnostic tests in the model to evaluate spatial extrapolation reliability if the parameter is learned?
- Line 234: Please clarify the classifications in the central variable registry. Specifically, how are 'fluxes' distinguished from 'diagnostics' or 'states'? Why are ‘constants’ separated from 'parameters'? Are 'constants' treated as prescribed parameters? Additionally, please define 'balance errors' and state whether they are monitored as loss terms or diagnostic outputs.
- Line 251: Could the authors clarify how 'externally supplied parameters' used in the site simulation runner relate to those used in the grid simulation runner? Providing a concrete example of this workflow would help readers understand parameter transferability across execution entry points.
- Figure 5b–c: High visual overlap between the observed data and the four simulated runs. Please consider improving visual separation.
- Section 4.1: While the authors evaluate model performance at daily and monthly timescales, there is no evaluation of inter-annual variability or long-term trends. How well does ADELM capture multi-year trends and inter-annual anomalies in GPP and ET across the study sites?
- Line 402: The text states that 'ADELM captures the timing of the growing-season peak in all regions'. However, in the Pannonian and Steppic regions (Figs. 6k–l), the simulated peak timing visibly precedes the observations by one month. Please revise this statement to accurately reflect these regional discrepancies and briefly discuss why peak timing is premature in these regions.
- Line 417: The authors state that 'winter ET remains similar across experiments'. While absolute ET values (and thus absolute differences) are naturally small during winter, what are the relative (percentage) differences among the experiments? Evaluating relative variance would clarify whether winter ET sensitivities are truly negligible or just masked by low seasonal flux magnitudes.
- Line 423: Please specify how grid-to-point comparisons are performed. Are flux tower observations evaluated against the single intersecting 0.1° grid cell, or is spatial aggregation/interpolation applied across neighboring grid points?
- 10j, n: A single data point exhibits an extremely high SOC value (>100 g kg-1), pulling it far outside the range of the remaining data. Could the authors specify the origin of this data point and clarify if its presence disproportionately influences the fitted mapping?
- Line 469: Could the authors clarify what is meant by a 'more stable conductance field' in Exp. 1? The text notes that in Exp. 1 responds more strongly to environmental drivers (MAT, MAP, clay, and SOC) and yields higher conductance in wetter, more productive regions. A stronger sensitivity across gradients typically implies greater spatial variability rather than stability.
Minor revisions
- Line 136: The term “PAR” is not defined upon first use in the main text.
- Line 141: The term “APARleaf” is not defined upon first use in the main text.
- Line 149: While the five pathways are explained in the Appendix A4, please consider include a brief summary sentence describing them in the main text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3294-RC2
Model code and software
ADELM: a differentiable ecohydrological land model Shijie Jiang https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20574230
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 230 | 96 | 23 | 349 | 31 | 21 |
- HTML: 230
- PDF: 96
- XML: 23
- Total: 349
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript developed a differentiable ecohydrological land model and used it to explore the parameter regionalization and identifiability problems in GPP and ET simulation. The development and findings are valuable and the manuscript is very well-written. I only have minor comments
(1) lines 335-337: Could the author detail the range of the grid search and the method to create the representative training subset?
(2) Figure 6 and Figure 7 plot model performance by sub-regions, and the current metrics only include spatially aggregated absolute values and grid-wise relative temporal correlations. Could the authors add whole domain aggregate metrics and some metric on relative spatial pattern (e.g. Pearson correlation on grid-level annual means between model and gridded observations)? The additions will provide complementary information to the existing metrics and more clearly demonstrate the model skill.
(3) One of the compared regional product, FLUXCOM X-BASE, has partial overlapping training sources as ADLEM - e.g. eddy covariance sites, ERA5 meteorological forcing (which ERA5-Land forcing was downscaled from). This should be acknowledged.
Interestingly, FLUXCOM is more similar to the other strongly observation-constrained products (GOSIF, GLEAM) than ADLEM, especially the the baseline case. This suggests the original structural constraint is quite strong in ADLEM. As the spatial freedom in ADLEM parameters increase, the simulation results become more similar to the gridded observational products. Could the authors discuss whether such convergence is general to differentiable land surface models with distributed parameters, and how to value the trade-off between structural regularization and observational fit?
(3) Figure 10 shows the relationship between g_s and environmental covariates become weaker when more degrees of freedom is allowed. Can the authors add supplementary graphs to check whether this happened to the other vegetation and hydro parameters?
(4) The lines in Figures 5-7 are thick and overlap each other, making it hard to see some lines. Thinner lines will help.