Decomposing Non-Stationarity for Soil Moisture Prediction: A Hybrid Statistical-Deep Learning Framework Integrating Periodic, Trend, and Residual Components
Abstract. The non-stationarity of hydro-meteorological processes has intensified under climate change, posing substantial challenges for accurate soil moisture (SM) prediction. To address the difficulty in distinguishing different sources of non-stationarity in conventional models, this study proposed a non-stationary SM prediction framework that integrated statistical methods with deep learning (DL) models. The framework focused on separating three types of non-stationary components — periodic fluctuations, long-term trend variations, and residual disturbances — and evaluated their effects on predictive performance. Specifically, independent models were first developed for different months to explicitly characterize periodic features. Statistical methods were then used to construct marginal distributions of hydro-meteorological variables, with physical covariates incorporated into distribution parameters to represent time-varying trends. Furthermore, Natural Gradient Boosting (NGBoost) was employed to perform secondary fitting of prediction residuals, thereby correcting random fluctuations that were not fully captured in the one-stage prediction. A gated recurrent unit with an attention mechanism (GRU-Attention) was selected as the core DL model, and SM prediction experiments were conducted across China to systematically evaluate the two-stage prediction performance under six modeling scenarios. Results showed that: (1) seasonal periodicity was the most robust predictive structure, whereas trend-related non-stationarity provided conditional rather than universal gain and residual learning improved performance only when the first-stage errors retained learnable structure; (2) the prediction skill was strongly organized by aridity, with the most stable performance concentrated in arid and semi-arid regions, while representative-grid and temporal-stability analyses revealed important local departures from regional mean predictability; and (3) the SHAP attribution identified a coherent dry-to-wet transition in dominant controls, from evaporation in hyper-arid regions to antecedent soil-moisture memory in arid regions and precipitation dominance in wetter regions, with tree-based importance rankings supporting the robustness of this driver hierarchy. From the perspective of non-stationary component separation, this study provides a new hybrid modeling approach for SM prediction and offers methodological support for hydrological forecasting, agricultural drought monitoring, and regional water resources management under complex climate change conditions.
This manuscript presents a statistical–deep learning hybrid framework for non-stationary soil moisture (SM) prediction. It separates SM non-stationarity into periodic, trend-related, and residual components, and evaluates their predictive contributions using CCM-based predictor screening, GAMLSS marginal modeling, GRU-Attention one-stage prediction, and NGBoost residual correction. The framework is applied to monthly SM over mainland China (1950–2020) across 966 grid cells and five aridity zones. The main findings are that seasonal periodicity provides the most robust predictive gain, trend-related non-stationarity offers only conditional improvement, residual learning is beneficial only when first-stage residuals remain learnable, prediction skill is strongly stratified by aridity, and SHAP attribution reveals a dry-to-wet transition in dominant controls.
The topic is timely, the framework is well motivated, and the regional-scale evaluation is comprehensive. The manuscript is generally well structured and the conclusions are supported by the presented results. I recommend Minor Revision, with the following comments intended to improve clarity, transparency, and reproducibility.
Minor Comments:
The six configurations (M1–M6) are informative, but the distinction among periodic separation, marginal non-stationarity, and residual correction could be presented more explicitly. A summary table listing which component each configuration controls would help readers follow the logic.
It would strengthen the GAMLSS section to briefly report whether the probability-scale transformation reduces non-stationarity (e.g., ADF/KPSS or M-K results before and after transformation). A short summary is sufficient.
The statement that residual learning works only when residuals are learnable is reasonable, but the criterion could be stated more explicitly. A brief residual diagnostic (e.g., autocorrelation or Ljung–Box test) would make this point more convincing.
Please briefly report the embedding dimension, time delay, convergence criteria, and the proportion of grids using the Pearson fallback. These details would improve reproducibility.
The mismatch between regional mean KGE and representative-grid KGE in the A region is interesting. A short discussion of possible causes (e.g., local heterogeneity, soil texture, vegetation) would help interpret this result.
Since the analysis is based on ERA5-Land, a brief note on the potential influence of reanalysis smoothing on the periodic-separation results would be appropriate.