the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessment of prediction skill of SEAS5 forecast using ERA5 soil moisture data and relation to crop production
Abstract. Soil moisture is a key component of the climate system and an important parameter of agricultural productivity, but its predictability varies strongly across regions and seasons. In this study, we assess the skill of the SEAS5 seasonal forecasting system in reconstructing soil moisture anomalies relative to ERA5 over 1981–2024. Later, we examine whether this prediction skill can be exploited to estimate seasonal winter wheat and maize yields. SEAS5 shows its strongest performance at short lead times (0–1 months), particularly in the upper soil layer, whereas the forecast skill of near-surface soil moisture decreases rapidly with increasing lead time. In contrast, deeper layers maintain substantially higher skill for several months, especially across central and northern Europe, reflecting the longer hydrological memory of deeper soil moisture, where precipitation and evapotranspiration signals are integrated over time. Projecting SEAS5 anomalies onto the leading ERA5 EOF patterns and reconstructing the first 10 principal components further enhances the agreement between SEAS5 and ERA5, indicating that SEAS5 captures the dominant large-scale, low-frequency modes of soil moisture variability. It was found that the first principal component of the deepest soil layer is contaminated by non-physical discontinuities associated the parallel production streams in ERA5 and the transition for hindcast to forecast in SEAS5. Reconstructing components 2–10 in both ERA5 and SEAS5 soil-moisture anomalies to remove this non-physical errors further improves the correlations. The SEAS5 prediction skill was found to be potentially relevant for agriculture. Winter wheat shows moderate correlation to soil moisture conditions during autumn establishment and spring regrowth, with pronounced relationships in the Balkans, Hungary, Romania, and central Europe. Maize exhibits an even stronger dependence on soil moisture throughout its growing season, especially in rain-fed regions where yield variability is primarily controlled by water availability. In the Balkan region, maize yields closely track soil moisture anomalies, demonstrating the potential for using SEAS5 as an early season predictor of crop outcomes. Overall, the principal component reconstruction of SEAS5 and ERA5 improves the correlation between the two datasets, demonstrating that SEAS5 prediction skill benefits from filtering out high-frequency noise. The refined signal provides meaningful soil-moisture predictability, which is particularly valuable for planning crops up to six–seven months ahead in rain-fed regions where yields are tightly linked to soil moisture variability. Integrating soil moisture forecasts with extended seasonal climate information can therefore strengthen drought preparedness and support climate-informed agricultural decision-making across Europe.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-894', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Apr 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Padmavathi Bevara, 22 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-894/egusphere-2026-894-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Padmavathi Bevara, 22 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-894', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 May 2026
Please find the comments in the attacched pdf.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Padmavathi Bevara, 22 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-894/egusphere-2026-894-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Padmavathi Bevara, 22 Jun 2026
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-894', Anonymous Referee #3, 27 May 2026
General Comments
This study presents a comprehensive assessment of the seasonal soil moisture prediction skill of the SEAS5 forecasting system, using ERA5 as the reference, and explores the agricultural relevance of these forecasts for winter wheat and maize across Europe and the Mediterranean. The work examines how the soil moisture anomalies relate to crop‑yield variability at country and regional scales.
However, a number of scientific and methodological issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. These relate to the benchmarking and validation framework, the statistical robustness of the crop‑yield analysis, and the transparency of the data reconstruction procedure etc. The paper also contains several technical and presentation issues that should be corrected.
The manuscript addresses an important topic and presents a creative methodological approach, but the issues noted above need to be resolved before publication. With careful revision, the paper will be a valuable contribution to the seasonal forecasting and agricultural hydrology literature.
Specific Comments
- The study uses ERA5 reanalysis as the sole reference for evaluating SEAS5 soil‑moisture anomalies. While ERA5 is a state‑of‑the‑art product, it is a model‑based reanalysis with its own uncertainties (e.g., parametrizations, forcing, data assimilation). The authors should acknowledge more explicitly that ERA5 is not a direct observation and that some of the differences between SEAS5 and ERA5 may reflect errors in ERA5 rather than in the forecast system. A brief discussion of how the main conclusions might be affected if a different reference (e.g., ERA5‑Land or in‑situ data) were used would strengthen the manuscript. And an acknowledgement of the possible influences on the conclusion if ERA5 is solely used is also recommended.
- The authors identify non‑physical discontinuities in PC1 of the deepest soil layer (swvl4). They then remove PC1 entirely from the reconstruction and base their main correlation improvements on PCs 2‑10. This is a pragmatic solution, but the manuscript lacks a clear justification for why PC1 is discarded, a discussion of what effects of doing this, and a discussion of why the discontinuities happen. The authors should provide a more detailed analysis of the discontinuity. For instance, regarding the discussion of what effects of doing this, does excluding PC1 substantially alter the spatial patterns of forecast skill or crop-yield correlations? A brief sensitivity analysis could reinforce the robustness of the PC2–PC10 reconstruction approach.
- The crop‑yield analysis (Section 4.3 and Tables 4‑5) reports correlation values but does not provide confidence intervals or significance tests for the reported coefficients. Many of the country‑level correlations in Tables 4‑5 are described as “positive” or “negative” without numerical values, and the significance is not assessed. The authors should include numerical correlation coefficients (and, where appropriate, p‑values) for the country‑level statistics. This is particularly important for readers to interpret why some countries’ relationships appear relatively weak (e.g., France, Italy).
- Where raw or reconstructed ERA5 soil moisture is used should be clearly specified. In most of the places the reconstructed ERA5 soil moisture is used, in this way, in the title or captions of the table and figures, and also in the main text, the “reconstructed” (if so) should be stated clearly.
- The paper does not include any independent validation of whether the filtered SEAS5 fields are actually more accurate than the raw fields in predicting future soil moisture. The authors should comment on this limitation and, ideally, add a small cross‑validation experiment.
- The manuscript reports negative correlations between soil moisture and winter wheat yields in several regions (e.g., Italy, parts of France). These are interpreted as reflecting energy limitation (e.g., radiation deficits) or irrigation effects. While plausible, the interpretation remains speculative without additional supporting analyses (e.g., correlation with temperature or radiation, or a breakdown of areas with different irrigation levels. The discussion would be strengthened by a more explicit analysis of energy balance and a distinction between areas with different irrigation levels using dataset such as irrigation maps.
- A brief introduction for calculating anomalies of soil moisture or crop-yield data should be added.
- The novelty of this paper should be more clearly articulated in relation to recent studies that have also evaluated SEAS5 soil moisture over the Mediterranean, such as Silvestri et al. (2025, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences). The authors should explicitly discuss how their work goes beyond these previous assessments.
- The 25‑member ensemble used in the analysis is not described fully, for example, are the anomalies based on the ensemble mean, median, or each member separately?
- “All datasets were regridded to a common spatial resolution," but the target resolution and interpolation method (e.g., bilinear, conservative) are not specified.
- Figure 7: The caption is incomplete (“Which shows a significant difference” is not a proper caption).
Technical Corrections
Line 59: shouldn’t the bracket contain anything?
Line 207: “More complex modes, however, vary widely, either due to structural”, this sentence is incomplete.
Reference list: Several cited references are incomplete or have minor formatting issues (e.g., missing page ranges, inconsistent use of DOI formatting). Please check carefully against the HESS reference style.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-894-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Padmavathi Bevara, 22 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-894/egusphere-2026-894-AC3-supplement.pdf
Data sets
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts reanalysis archive European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts reanalysis archive https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/datasets/reanalysis-era5-single-levels
Global gridded annual crop yield data for major crops (1981–2016). Toshichika Iizumi and Toru Sakai https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0433-7
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 252 | 0 | 3 | 255 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 252
- PDF: 0
- XML: 3
- Total: 255
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript evaluates the performance of SEAS5 soil-moisture forecasts against the ERA5 product across four soil layers. The topic is relevant to HESS, and the finding that deeper soil layers retain longer memory is physically plausible. However, the manuscript currently overstates the improvement in forecast skill because the evaluation framework is not sufficiently independent, and the EOF reconstruction step appears to enhance agreement largely by construction. Overall, the performance of SEAS5 is not interpreted with sufficient depth.