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.
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.