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: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3294', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Aug 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shijie Jiang, 04 Oct 2026
We thank the referee for the constructive and encouraging review. We appreciate the referee's positive assessment of the model development and findings, and agree that the evaluation and interpretation of the results can be strengthened further.
We provide a response and preliminary revision plan in the attached PDF. These outline how we intend to address each comment in the revised manuscript. We will provide a complete point-by-point response to the implemented manuscript changes and finalized analyses with the revised manuscript during the revision stage.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shijie Jiang, 04 Oct 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3294', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Aug 2026
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 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shijie Jiang, 04 Oct 2026
We thank the referee for the constructive and encouraging review. We agree that several aspects of spatial extrapolation, model description, and evaluation require further clarification and analysis.
We provide a response and preliminary revision plan in the attached PDF. These outline how we intend to address each comment in the revised manuscript. We will provide a complete point-by-point response to the implemented manuscript changes and finalized analyses with the revised manuscript during the revision stage.
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3294', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 Sep 2026
Review of
ADELM v1.0: a differentiable ecohydrological land model with learnable and diagnosable parameterization.
by Jiang et al.
General comments:
This is a well written paper describing a new LSM hybrid approach. I only have few comments / questions.
Recommendation: minor revisions.
Particular comment:
- L. 90: The time step of the model must be clearly indicated in Section 2. Can the model represent the diurnal cycle? If not, what needs to be done to enable it to do so?
- L. 341 (“compared using NSE”): You don’t only use NSE, since Figure 8 also shows R² values, and the text includes other metrics. Also missing is a table gathering several metrics (NSE, R, SD and RMSD) for comparing the three experiments.
- L. 443-444 (“hydraulic scheme”): Could in situ observations of plant water content be used for training purposes instead of an 'explicit soil–plant hydraulics scheme'? Are such observations available from ICOS stations? More generally, could the ADELM approach be used to simulate new variables that cannot be simulated by classical LSMs, based on sparse in situ observations?
- L. 672: Why use Jarvis instead of taking a slightly more biophysical approach? Is it because you don't simulate leaf temperature throughout the diurnal cycle?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3294-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Shijie Jiang, 04 Oct 2026
We thank the referee for the constructive and encouraging review. We appreciate the referee's positive assessment of the manuscript, as well as the questions about the model's current scope and possible extensions.
We provide a response and preliminary revision plan in the attached PDF. These outline how we intend to address each comment in the revised manuscript. We will provide a complete point-by-point response to the implemented manuscript changes and finalized analyses with the revised manuscript during the revision stage.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Shijie Jiang, 04 Oct 2026
-
RC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3294', Anonymous Referee #4, 08 Oct 2026
In this paper, the authors present a unified platform for easily running many experiments to determine important parameters in the earth system and optimize such parameters in an easily configurable manner. Given the necessity of better constraining parameters in land modeling, such a platform is a genuinely important scientific advance that will allow the science of parameter optimization to continue to scale. This will allow differentiable parameter optimization to become more easily usable “out-of-the-box” by other groups and allow for quick and reproducible testing of different parameterization ideas.
The authors present a well-written paper, with great storytelling of the relevant literature in the introduction. My comments primarily involve further explaining their reasoning for certain high-level decisions, but this work will be a valuable addition to the literature in this area.
- Major comments
- Section 2 / 2.1: The individual modules of your model are very nicely documented and the reasoning for each well-cited. However, justification of the overall modules included and citations that you have included the modules necessary to accurate simulate ecohydrological processes are currently missing. For example, without justifying the level of complexity used across modules (e.g. by citing land surface models that were the inspiration for your scheme) one could easily ask why a more advanced plant hydraulics scheme was not incorporated. More discussion of the inspiration for your overall model theory (whether that be an LSM directly influencing your model development plans, or other inspiration for your choices) before diving into the details of each module would help convince potential users of your model that the overall theory is just.
- Lines 325-329: Please further justify your inclusion of the Lv,site term in your loss function, as I would consider this a non-standard term in such a loss function. Did using only Lv,sample lead to poor performance? I agree that getting yearly mean fluxes correct is important, but are you not risking over-smoothing your learned parameters with this term, therefore not capturing parameters that represent extreme days, which may be the most important for various applications? Additional justification of the necessity and impacts of this additional loss term would be appreciated.
- Lines 392-423: This part of the results deals primarily in qualitative differences between the experiments, which is important, but neglects to discuss in detail the performance differences between the experiments. Across all of Europe, did you parameterization schemes improve model performance? In any individual region, did you parameterization schemes increase performance? Furthermore, as mentioned below, the y-axis range on Figures 6c, 6d, 7c, and 7d make it very hard to glean this information from the figure. A deeper discussion of quantitative performance differences—both overall and in individual regions—across your experiments, along with changes to figures that makes experiment-to-experiment difference more easy to decipher, would substantially improve my understanding of the impact of your parameterization schemes on model performance.
- Discussion section: I appreciate your in-depth discussion of the various ways that your model—both the structure and the way that parameters are retrieved—is not perfect. However, I think that your discussion still could use more specific connection to your results. For example, is there a reason why any of the limitations you mention would mean that your parameter retrieval process really helps ET prediction while being negligible for GPP prediction at the site scale, which I found surprising? Or could any of these limitations specifically explain why there are many regions where experiment 2 harms model performance compared to the baseline for predicting regional GPP? While I appreciate the in-depth analysis of the limitations, there is a need to directly connect these limitations to some of the more surprising results that were found in your experiments.
- Minor comments
- Introduction, lines 66-77: This is key in introducing what is different about your model compared to other differentiable frameworks, but this is still a bit opaque / confusing here. The key sentence seems to be lines 69-71, “Errors in simulated fluxes or states 70 (compared with observations) therefore constrain selected parameters through the same coupled pathways that generate the model outputs.” Could you be more specific here to help readers? Does the model get to choose which parameters to learn, as opposed to the user? Or is the advance that parameters are easily turned “on / off” to be learned? I assume that this will become clear later in the paper, but being more specific here I believe will clarify the novelty of your advance.
- Line 191-194: Just to clarify, my read here is that all learned spatially variable parameters a) are predicted only via MLPs, not more advanced architectures, and b) must share MLPs of the same dimensions. Is this correct? The writing in these lines could be clarified and made more concise to make this point (or the contrary point, if I am incorrect) more clearly. Furthermore, is this true across any setup, or just for the setup you chose for your experiments? I think the answer is in this text, but it’s a bit convoluted and confusing as written.
- Lines 217-218: Here you describe what you chose to do in Section 3, but it would be helpful to know (and this applies to similar descriptions throughout this section) the degree to which this can be configured for a potential user. That is, is your adaptive framework for these learning hyperparameters easily flexible beyond what was chosen for your European experiment?
- Line 254-256: Just want to call out that it is awesome that such thought has been given to defining different cross-validation techniques by default! Bravo!
- Line 275: Cycled how many times? Justification and/or evidence that this was sufficient to reach some sort of equilibrium?
- Line 285: What does “when the quality-control fraction is at least 0.7” mean intuitively, for those not familiar with the specific FluxnetLSM package?
- Line 286: Line 275 says you use daily timestep; was ERA-5 Land therefore averaged to the daily timestep? Please describe the processing done here.
- Line 289: Can you be more specific about what exactly a “mean-standard-deviation bias correction towards site observations” means? What changes to the data did you perform, exactly, for your site simulations?
- Line 343: What is the “site-month metric”? The loss function defines a site-year metric, if I am not mistaken, but I don’t believe this site-month metric has been defined at this point? If it has been, can you cite where it has been defined here?
- Figure 5a and related description in the text: statistical comparisons of these distributions (e.g. significance tests) could be helpful in the discussion of how model performance changes across the experiments.
- Figure 6c, 6d, 7c, 7d and related discussion: Again could be helpful to have some statistical significance comparisons between the distributions represented by the box plots. Also, please justify why correlation (r) is a better metric in this figure than coefficient of determination, since this is testing the ability of a model to reproduce truth, not the association between two random variables. Finally, the axes on these sub-panels make it extremely difficult to tell differences between your experiments in locations where the model generally performs well, which is a very interesting part of this figure.
- I really appreciate Section 4.3!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3294-RC4 - Major comments
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 450 | 216 | 54 | 720 | 46 | 38 |
- HTML: 450
- PDF: 216
- XML: 54
- Total: 720
- BibTeX: 46
- EndNote: 38
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.