the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Surface runoff and soil evaporation dominate the sensitivity of land surface models to soil parameters
Abstract. Land surface models (LSMs) are simulating land–atmosphere exchanges and are widely used in hydrology, operational weather prediction, research meteorology, and to assess land surface responses to future climate change. LSMs exhibit distinct differences in simulated water fluxes due to varying physical process representations and input land characteristics. We challenged seven state-of-the-art LSMs by altering soil hydraulic parameters from representing sand or silt to disentangle the responses of the water fluxes. The LSMs reacted differently due to complex, sometimes counter-intuitive interactions of infiltration, soil evaporation, and plant transpiration. We identified the representations of surface runoff and soil evaporation as the two main reasons behind model differences. We show how subgrid parameterization of a saturated fraction led to diverging sensitivities of runoff to soil parameters. Soil evaporation was the largest and most sensitive share of evapotranspiration in almost all models. Process parameterizations at the soil surface are identified as critical and should be improved to lead to more consistent flux partitioning. We demonstrate here that it is possible and worthwhile in model intercomparison studies to relate model results to specific process descriptions, helping users to understand model results of LSMs and helping modelling groups to identify weaknesses and move forward.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Geoscientific Model Development.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(12799 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4223 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 08 Aug 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1 to the Executive Editor Juan A. Añel', Matthias Cuntz, 10 Aug 2026
Dear Mr Añel,
We have checked beforehand the Code and Data Policy of GMD. In our opinion, we fit perfectly well into the policy for model intercomparison papers given on the page of the special issue about “Evaluation of Model Intercomparison Projects”: https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1067.html
- All model outputs and observational data used in the evaluation are publicly archived on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21469535 and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21473084).
- The exact version of the analysis code used to conduct the evaluation is publicly archived on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21473084).
- All models participating in SP-MIP have published model description papers, and subsequent updates. Also, most of the models have repositories where the code and manuals can be obtained, either on public or institutional repositories, or via Wikis hosted on institutional domains that can be accessed by the public once an account and password have been obtained.
Our manuscript is part of the soil parameter model intercomparison project (SP-MIP), which is endorsed by the GLASS panel of GEWEX, a core project of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Eight land surface models, which are either part of CMIP6 Earth System Models or are part of NOAA’s National Water Model, participated in SP-MIP.
Therefore, we would kindly ask you to consider publication of the manuscript in GMD. If, after reading this, you still find our submission problematic, can you please remove the preprint entirely? Such a decision should have been made before publication of the preprint. We do not want the manuscript to be penalized by editors of other journals upon resubmission, because it has already been made publicly available.
Yours sincerely,
Matthias Cuntz on behalf of all co-authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4223-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Aug 2026
Dear authors,
It is my understanding after reading your manuscript, that you have run the mentioned models to produce the results presented in it. If we are wrong regarding this, let us know. However, if my interpretation is correct, you must include in the Code and Data Availability section the repositories for all the models that you have used, otherwise, we can con consider it for publication in Geoscientific Model Development. We can only accept references to published papers if they cite the necessary repositories that comply with the policy of Geoscientific Model Development.
Also, it is not possible to remove preprints. What you can do, if you feel that you are not in a position to comply with the policy of the journal or for any reason you prefer to submit it elsewhere, is to withdraw the manuscript, what will make that it is not longer considered for publication.
I understand that this problems due to lack of compliance can result frustrating sometimes; however, we can not consider for peer review or publication manuscripts that do not strictly comply with the code and data policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4223-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Matthias Cuntz, 11 Aug 2026
Dear Mr Añel,
Lukas Gudmundsson and I, Matthias Cuntz, have designed SP-MIP with inputs from Dani Or, Harry Vereecken, Anne Verhoef, and Sonia Seneviratne. We did not run the land surface models ourselves. The two leads on the data analysis were Stephan Thober and me; Stephan Thober did run the simulations for NOAH-MP.
Reproducibility is central to our approach: the whole analysis is easily reproducible with our published data and code, as was exactly the case in earlier GMD model intercomparison papers such as HighResMIP (e.g. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022) and OMIP-2 (e.g. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3643-2020). Beyond this, we dived deep into the model codes and equations themselves to understand, not merely present, model differences. We therefore discussed our analysis with the modelling groups, all of whom provided extensive feedback; given this work and involvement, the modelling groups are logically part of the authorship. It is, however, clear that not all large modelling centers make their code publicly available.
If you think that GMD policy has changed and you do not want to publish anymore results from Model Intercomparison Projects (MIP) then we would indeed withdraw the manuscript.
Regards,
Matthias Cuntz for the authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4223-AC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 11 Aug 2026
Dear authors,
Thanks for your reply. What you state in reply to my previous comment is different of what is stated in the submitted manuscript regarding running the models, and the information that you have provided now should be made clear in the text in any future version to provide accurate details of the work performed.
If as you state for the presented work you have taken data from elsewhere (this means that the the simulations have been run by a third-party not involved in the work presented here), then you need to make it clear in the text of the manuscript, and in such a way the Zenodo repository that you already provide in your manuscript containing the datasets that you have used, would be enough for compliance purposes. We accept that if the authors are not the ones responsible for the development of the models or running the simulations and simply access to the data published openly, and the work presented is data analysis and informed evaluation of the results, then it is not necessary to provide the code of the models analysed. However, from your reply, and for the purpose of the presented work, it is not clear that this is the case. At least, it is clear that at least you have run the NOAH-MP model, so in the case of this model you must provide a repository with the code of the version of the model used.
Regarding comparison with previously published papers, we understand that other papers published in the journal are used as a parallel on how to best comply with the policy, but it must be understood that they can not be used as the basis for the application of the policy of the journal. Each manuscript is evaluated individually, and different considerations can apply to each one, always inside the rules in the policy of the journal.
Therefore, please, address the outstanding issues regarding the compliance with code and data availability. We are happy to consider your submission, but it must adhere to the policies of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4223-CEC3
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 11 Aug 2026
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Matthias Cuntz, 11 Aug 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1 to the Executive Editor Juan A. Añel', Matthias Cuntz, 10 Aug 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 192 | 71 | 28 | 291 | 15 | 16 |
- HTML: 192
- PDF: 71
- XML: 28
- Total: 291
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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.html
in the Code and Data Availability section of your manuscript you do not provide a repository for the code of the LSMs used in your work. We can not accept this, and your manuscript should not be in Discussions due to it. The policy of the journal states that all the code and data necessary to replicate a manuscript must be published openly and freely before submission in a suitable repository, and correctly cited in the mentioned section.
The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Please, therefore, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy.
Later, if the Topical Editor decides to continue with the review or publication process of your manuscript and you are requested to upload a new version of it, then The 'Code and Data Availability’ section of your manuscript must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor