Articles | Volume 21, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5277-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5277-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
27 Nov 2024
Research article |
| 27 Nov 2024
| 27 Nov 2024
Does dynamically modeled leaf area improve predictions of land surface water and carbon fluxes? Insights into dynamic vegetation modules
Sven Armin Westermann
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Computational Hydrosystems, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Anke Hildebrandt
Computational Hydrosystems, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Institute for Geosciences, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany
Souhail Bousetta
Coupled Processes, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK
Stephan Thober
Computational Hydrosystems, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Related authors
No articles found.
Cinzia Mazzetti, Hannah Cloke, Dai Yamazaki, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Souhail Boussetta, Jasper Denissen, Michel Wortmann, Gabriele Arduini, Gurpreet Dass, Joe McNorton, Anna Agusti-Panareda, Maliko Tanguy, Ervin Zsoter, Margarita Choulga, Emanuel Dutra, Florian Pappenberger, Christoph Rüdiger, and Christel Prudhomme
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4305, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4305, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Rivers are an essential component of the water cycle, yet many Earth system and weather prediction models do not explicitly represent river flow. We integrated a global river model into ECMWF's forecasting system, enabling the simulation of river discharge, water levels, and flooding within a single operational framework. This development lays the foundation for future land–river–atmosphere interactions, paving the way for more complete Earth system models and improved predictions.
Niklas Bruns, Andreas Huth, Stephan Thober, and Samuel M. Fischer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4918, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4918, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Forests and water are tightly linked: trees shape how water moves through landscapes, while water availability controls forest growth. Models of forests and hydrology are typically developed separately. We coupled an individual-based forest model with a distributed hydrological model for a German catchment. Dynamic vegetation substantially altered water partitioning, shifting evapotranspiration towards transpiration, and river discharge was found to carry information about forest productivity.
Matthias Cuntz, Stephan Thober, Anne Verhoef, Yijian Zeng, Aaron Boone, Agnès Ducharne, Sujan Koirala, David M. Lawrence, Philipp de Vrese, Carsten Montzka, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Harry Vereecken, Dani Or, Salma Tafasca, Naoki Mizukami, Rich Ellis, Patrick C. McGuire, and Lukas Gudmundsson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4223, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4223, 2026
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface models (LSMs) are essential tools to analyze future climate change. Here we pushed state-of-the-art LSMs out of their comfort zone revealing hidden connections between processes encoded into the models. The LSMs reacted differently due to complex, sometimes counter-intuitive interactions of different water fluxes. We identified surface runoff and soil evaporation as the two main reasons behind model differences, which should be improved by using more mechanistic descriptions.
Xueyan Cheng, Chunhui Zhan, Martin G. De Kauwe, Anke Hildebrandt, and Rene Orth
Biogeosciences, 23, 5117–5131, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-5117-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-5117-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Using long-term satellite greenness data and a machine-learning attribution approach, we assessed vegetation responses to wet and dry soil moisture extremes and identified their dominant drivers. Dry extremes caused widespread negative greenness anomalies mainly controlled by pre-extreme conditions and seasonal timing, while wet extremes showed more heterogeneous responses additionally shaped by climate and topography, highlighting contrasting ecosystem sensitivity to hydrological extremes.
Nina Raoult, Ewan Pinnington, Mario Santa Cruz, Florian Pinault, Baudouin Raoult, Natalie Zelenka, Gabriele Arduini, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Souhail Boussetta, Matthew Chantry, Patricia de Rosnay, Peter Dueben, and Christoph Rüdiger
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3620, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3620, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The land surface shapes our weather and climate by controlling how heat and water move between the ground and the air, so the models representing it matter enormously. But they are costly to run and carry built-in errors. We built a faster artificial-intelligence version of one, then used real measurements from sites worldwide to correct some of these errors. The result stays reliable over years and better captures these heat and water exchanges—a quicker, more accurate tool for forecasting.
Tobias Spiegl, Norel Rimbu, Franziska Kappenberger, Xiaojie Hao, Wenjuan Huo, Stephan Thober, Ulrike Langematz, and Gerrit Lohmann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3630, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3630, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Natural solar signals are not fixed in time. During past centennial-scale solar minima, reduced solar activity promoted summer heavy precipitation through coupled changes in ozone, sea ice and storm tracks. In a warmer future climate, this pathway weakens, showing that anthropogenic warming can reshape how natural forcings translate into regional weather extremes.
Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Jenni Kontkanen, Irina Sandu, Mario Acosta, Mohammed Hussam Al Turjmam, Ivan Alsina-Ferrer, Miguel Andrés-Martínez, Costanza Anerdi, Leo Arriola, Marvin Axness, Marc Batlle Martín, Peter Bauer, Tobias Becker, Daniel Beltrán, Sebastian Beyer, Hendryk Bockelmann, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Sebastien Cabaniols, Silvia Caprioli, Miguel Castrillo, Aparna Chandrasekar, Suvarchal Cheedela, Victor Correal, Emanuele Danovaro, Paolo Davini, Jussi Enkovaara, Claudia Frauen, Barbara Früh, Aina Gaya Àvila, Paolo Ghinassi, Rohit Ghosh, Supriyo Ghosh, Iker González, Katherine Grayson, Matthew Griffith, Ioan Hadade, Christopher Haine, Carl Hartick, Utz-Uwe Haus, Shane Hearne, Heikki Järvinen, Bernat Jiménez, Amal John, Marlin Juchem, Thomas Jung, Jessica Kegel, Matthias Kelbling, Kai Keller, Bruno Kinoshita, Theresa Kiszler, Daniel Klocke, Lukas Kluft, Nikolay Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Joonas Kolstela, Luis Kornblueh, Sergey Kosukhin, Aleksander Lacima-Nadolnik, Jeisson Javier Leal Rojas, Jonni Lehtiranta, Tuomas Lunttila, Anna Luoma, Pekka Manninen, Alexey Medvedev, Sebastian Milinski, Ali Mohammed, Sebastian Müller, Devaraju Naryanappa, Natalia Nazarova, Sami Niemelä, Bimochan Niraula, Henrik Nortamo, Aleksi Nummelin, Matteo Nurisso, Pablo Ortega, Stella Paronuzzi, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Charles Pelletier, Carlos Peña, Suraj Polade, Himansu Kesari Pradhan, Rommel Quintanilla, Tiago Quintino, Thomas Rackow, Jouni Räisänen, Maqsood Mubarak Rajput, René Redler, Balthasar Reuter, Nuno Rocha Monteiro, Francesc Roura-Adserias, Silva Ruppert, Susan Sayed, Reiner Schnur, Tanvi Sharma, Dmitry Sidorenko, Outi Sievi-Korte, Albert Soret, Christian Steger, Bjorn Stevens, Jan Streffing, Jaleena Sunny, Luiggi Tenorio, Stephan Thober, Ulf Tigerstedt, Oriol Tinto, Juha Tonttila, Heikki Tuomenvirta, Lauri Tuppi, Ginka Van Thielen, Emanuele Vitali, Jost von Hardenberg, Ingo Wagner, Nils Wedi, Jan Wehner, Sven Willner, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, Florian Ziemen, and Janos Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 2821–2848, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2821-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2821-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The Climate Change Adaptation Digital Twin (Climate DT) pioneers the operationalisation of global climate projections. It produces global simulations with local granularity for adaptation decision-making. Applications are embedded to generate tailored indicators. A unified workflow orchestrates all components in several supercomputers. Data management ensures consistency and streaming enables real-time use. It is a complementary innovation to initiatives like CMIP, CORDEX, and climate services.
Maria Staudinger, Anna Herzog, Ralf Loritz, Tobias Houska, Sandra Pool, Diana Spieler, Paul D. Wagner, Juliane Mai, Jens Kiesel, Stephan Thober, Björn Guse, and Uwe Ehret
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 5005–5029, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-5005-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-5005-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Three process-based and four data-driven hydrological models are compared using different training data. We found that process-based models perform better with small datasets but stop learning soon, while data-driven models learn longer. The study highlights the importance of memory in data and the impact of different data sampling methods on model performance. The direct comparison of these models is novel and provides a clear understanding of their performance under various data conditions.
Katherine Grayson, Stephan Thober, Aleksander Lacima-Nadolnik, Ivan Alsina-Ferrer, Llorenç Lledó, Ehsan Sharifi, and Francisco Doblas-Reyes
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5873–5890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5873-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5873-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present One_Pass (v0.8.0), a Python package enabling computation of statistics from streamed global climate model output using one-pass algorithms. Users often need statistics covering periods longer than the stream duration, requiring algorithms that do not store full time series. One-pass methods address this need while avoiding full data archiving, offering memory-efficient, accurate results for high-performance computing (HPC) workflows and downstream applications like bias adjustment.
Sebastian Müller, Martin Lange, Thomas Fischer, Sara König, Matthias Kelbling, Jeisson Javier Leal Rojas, and Stephan Thober
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4483–4498, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4483-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4483-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents FINAM (
FINAM is not a model), a new coupling framework written in Python to dynamically connect independently developed models. Python, as the ultimate glue language, enables the use of codes from nearly any programming language like Fortran, C++, Rust, and others. FINAM is designed to simplify the integration of various models with minimal effort, as demonstrated through various examples ranging from simple to complex systems.
Laura Nadolski, Tarek S. El-Madany, Jacob Nelson, Arnaud Carrara, Gerardo Moreno, Richard Nair, Yunpeng Luo, Anke Hildebrandt, Victor Rolo, Markus Reichstein, and Sung-Ching Lee
Biogeosciences, 22, 2935–2958, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2935-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2935-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Semi-arid ecosystems are crucial for Earth's carbon balance and are sensitive to changes in nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) levels. Their carbon dynamics are complex and not fully understood. We studied how long-term nutrient changes affect carbon exchange. In summer, the addition of N+P changed plant composition and productivity. In transitional seasons, carbon exchange was less weather-dependent with N. The addition of N and N+P increases carbon-exchange variability, driven by grass greenness.
Marieke Wesselkamp, Matthew Chantry, Ewan Pinnington, Margarita Choulga, Souhail Boussetta, Maria Kalweit, Joschka Bödecker, Carsten F. Dormann, Florian Pappenberger, and Gianpaolo Balsamo
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 921–937, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-921-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-921-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We compared spatiotemporal forecasts of three machine learning models that learned water and energy
states on the land surface from a physical model scheme. The forecasting models were developed with reanalysis data and simulations on a European scale and transferred to the globe. We found that all approaches deliver highly accurate approximations of the physical dynamic at long time horizons, implying their usefulness to advance land surface forecasting with synthetic data.
states on the land surface from a physical model scheme. The forecasting models were developed with reanalysis data and simulations on a European scale and transferred to the globe. We found that all approaches deliver highly accurate approximations of the physical dynamic at long time horizons, implying their usefulness to advance land surface forecasting with synthetic data.
Thomas Rackow, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Milinski, Irina Sandu, Razvan Aguridan, Peter Bechtold, Sebastian Beyer, Jean Bidlot, Souhail Boussetta, Willem Deconinck, Michail Diamantakis, Peter Dueben, Emanuel Dutra, Richard Forbes, Rohit Ghosh, Helge F. Goessling, Ioan Hadade, Jan Hegewald, Thomas Jung, Sarah Keeley, Lukas Kluft, Nikolay Koldunov, Aleksei Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Josh Kousal, Christian Kühnlein, Pedro Maciel, Kristian Mogensen, Tiago Quintino, Inna Polichtchouk, Balthasar Reuter, Domokos Sármány, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Jan Streffing, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Steffen Tietsche, Mirco Valentini, Benoît Vannière, Nils Wedi, Lorenzo Zampieri, and Florian Ziemen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 33–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Detailed global climate model simulations have been created based on a numerical weather prediction model, offering more accurate spatial detail down to the scale of individual cities ("kilometre-scale") and a better understanding of climate phenomena such as atmospheric storms, whirls in the ocean, and cracks in sea ice. The new model aims to provide globally consistent information on local climate change with greater precision, benefiting environmental planning and local impact modelling.
Gab Abramowitz, Anna Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Jon Cranko Page, Mathew Lipson, Martin G. De Kauwe, Samuel Green, Claire Brenner, Jonathan Frame, Grey Nearing, Martyn Clark, Martin Best, Peter Anthoni, Gabriele Arduini, Souhail Boussetta, Silvia Caldararu, Kyeungwoo Cho, Matthias Cuntz, David Fairbairn, Craig R. Ferguson, Hyungjun Kim, Yeonjoo Kim, Jürgen Knauer, David Lawrence, Xiangzhong Luo, Sergey Malyshev, Tomoko Nitta, Jerome Ogee, Keith Oleson, Catherine Ottlé, Phillipe Peylin, Patricia de Rosnay, Heather Rumbold, Bob Su, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Xiaoni Wang-Faivre, Yunfei Wang, and Yijian Zeng
Biogeosciences, 21, 5517–5538, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper evaluates land models – computer-based models that simulate ecosystem dynamics; land carbon, water, and energy cycles; and the role of land in the climate system. It uses machine learning and AI approaches to show that, despite the complexity of land models, they do not perform nearly as well as they could given the amount of information they are provided with about the prediction problem.
Sandra Raab, Karel Castro-Morales, Anke Hildebrandt, Martin Heimann, Jorien Elisabeth Vonk, Nikita Zimov, and Mathias Goeckede
Biogeosciences, 21, 2571–2597, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2571-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2571-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Water status is an important control factor on sustainability of Arctic permafrost soils, including production and transport of carbon. We compared a drained permafrost ecosystem with a natural control area, investigating water levels, thaw depths, and lateral water flows. We found that shifts in water levels following drainage affected soil water availability and that lateral transport patterns were of major relevance. Understanding these shifts is crucial for future carbon budget studies.
Sinikka J. Paulus, Rene Orth, Sung-Ching Lee, Anke Hildebrandt, Martin Jung, Jacob A. Nelson, Tarek Sebastian El-Madany, Arnaud Carrara, Gerardo Moreno, Matthias Mauder, Jannis Groh, Alexander Graf, Markus Reichstein, and Mirco Migliavacca
Biogeosciences, 21, 2051–2085, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2051-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2051-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Porous materials are known to reversibly trap water from the air, even at low humidity. However, this behavior is poorly understood for soils. In this analysis, we test whether eddy covariance is able to measure the so-called adsorption of atmospheric water vapor by soils. We find that this flux occurs frequently during dry nights in a Mediterranean ecosystem, while EC detects downwardly directed vapor fluxes. These results can help to map moisture uptake globally.
Gökben Demir, Andrew J. Guswa, Janett Filipzik, Johanna Clara Metzger, Christine Römermann, and Anke Hildebrandt
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1441–1461, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1441-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1441-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Experimental evidence is scarce to understand how the spatial variation in below-canopy precipitation affects root water uptake patterns. Here, we conducted field measurements to investigate drivers of root water uptake patterns while accounting for canopy induced heterogeneity in water input. We found that tree species interactions and soil moisture variability, rather than below-canopy precipitation patterns, control root water uptake patterns in a mixed unmanaged forest.
Tom Kimpson, Margarita Choulga, Matthew Chantry, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Souhail Boussetta, Peter Dueben, and Tim Palmer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 4661–4685, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-4661-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-4661-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Lakes play an important role when we try to explain and predict the weather. More accurate and up-to-date description of lakes all around the world for numerical models is a continuous task. However, it is difficult to assess the impact of updated lake description within a weather prediction system. In this work, we develop a method to quickly and automatically define how, where, and when updated lake description affects weather prediction.
Gregory Duveiller, Mark Pickering, Joaquin Muñoz-Sabater, Luca Caporaso, Souhail Boussetta, Gianpaolo Balsamo, and Alessandro Cescatti
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7357–7373, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7357-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7357-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Some of our best tools to describe the state of the land system, including the intensity of heat waves, have a problem. The model currently assumes that the number of leaves in ecosystems always follows the same cycle. By using satellite observations of when leaves are present, we show that capturing the yearly changes in this cycle is important to avoid errors in estimating surface temperature. We show that this has strong implications for our capacity to describe heat waves across Europe.
Fransje van Oorschot, Ruud J. van der Ent, Markus Hrachowitz, Emanuele Di Carlo, Franco Catalano, Souhail Boussetta, Gianpaolo Balsamo, and Andrea Alessandri
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1239–1259, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1239-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1239-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Vegetation largely controls land hydrology by transporting water from the subsurface to the atmosphere through roots and is highly variable in space and time. However, current land surface models have limitations in capturing this variability at a global scale, limiting accurate modeling of land hydrology. We found that satellite-based vegetation variability considerably improved modeled land hydrology and therefore has potential to improve climate predictions of, for example, droughts.
Christine Fischer-Bedtke, Johanna Clara Metzger, Gökben Demir, Thomas Wutzler, and Anke Hildebrandt
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2899–2918, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2899-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2899-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Canopies change how rain reaches the soil: some spots receive more and others less water. It has long been debated whether this also leads to locally wetter and drier soil. We checked this using measurements of canopy drip and soil moisture. We found that the increase in soil water content after rain was aligned with canopy drip. Independently, the soil storage reaction was dampened in locations prone to drainage, like hig-macroporosity areas, suggesting that canopy drip enhances bypass flow.
Anna Agustí-Panareda, Jérôme Barré, Sébastien Massart, Antje Inness, Ilse Aben, Melanie Ades, Bianca C. Baier, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Tobias Borsdorff, Nicolas Bousserez, Souhail Boussetta, Michael Buchwitz, Luca Cantarello, Cyril Crevoisier, Richard Engelen, Henk Eskes, Johannes Flemming, Sébastien Garrigues, Otto Hasekamp, Vincent Huijnen, Luke Jones, Zak Kipling, Bavo Langerock, Joe McNorton, Nicolas Meilhac, Stefan Noël, Mark Parrington, Vincent-Henri Peuch, Michel Ramonet, Miha Razinger, Maximilian Reuter, Roberto Ribas, Martin Suttie, Colm Sweeney, Jérôme Tarniewicz, and Lianghai Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3829–3859, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a global dataset of atmospheric CO2 and CH4, the two most important human-made greenhouse gases, which covers almost 2 decades (2003–2020). It is produced by combining satellite data of CO2 and CH4 with a weather and air composition prediction model, and it has been carefully evaluated against independent observations to ensure validity and point out deficiencies to the user. This dataset can be used for scientific studies in the field of climate change and the global carbon cycle.
Sinikka Jasmin Paulus, Tarek Sebastian El-Madany, René Orth, Anke Hildebrandt, Thomas Wutzler, Arnaud Carrara, Gerardo Moreno, Oscar Perez-Priego, Olaf Kolle, Markus Reichstein, and Mirco Migliavacca
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 6263–6287, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6263-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6263-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we analyze small inputs of water to ecosystems such as fog, dew, and adsorption of vapor. To measure them, we use a scaling system and later test our attribution of different water fluxes to weight changes. We found that they occur frequently during 1 year in a dry summer ecosystem. In each season, a different flux seems dominant, but they all mainly occur during the night. Therefore, they could be important for the biosphere because rain is unevenly distributed over the year.
Friedrich Boeing, Oldrich Rakovec, Rohini Kumar, Luis Samaniego, Martin Schrön, Anke Hildebrandt, Corinna Rebmann, Stephan Thober, Sebastian Müller, Steffen Zacharias, Heye Bogena, Katrin Schneider, Ralf Kiese, Sabine Attinger, and Andreas Marx
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5137–5161, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5137-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5137-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we deliver an evaluation of the second generation operational German drought monitor (https://www.ufz.de/duerremonitor) with a state-of-the-art compilation of observed soil moisture data from 40 locations and four different measurement methods in Germany. We show that the expressed stakeholder needs for higher resolution drought information at the one-kilometer scale can be met and that the agreement of simulated and observed soil moisture dynamics can be moderately improved.
Ralf Loritz, Maoya Bassiouni, Anke Hildebrandt, Sibylle K. Hassler, and Erwin Zehe
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4757–4771, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4757-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4757-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we combine a deep-learning approach that predicts sap flow with a hydrological model to improve soil moisture and transpiration estimates at the catchment scale. Our results highlight that hybrid-model approaches, combining machine learning with physically based models, are a promising way to improve our ability to make hydrological predictions.
Bahar Bahrami, Anke Hildebrandt, Stephan Thober, Corinna Rebmann, Rico Fischer, Luis Samaniego, Oldrich Rakovec, and Rohini Kumar
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6957–6984, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6957-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6957-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Leaf area index (LAI) and gross primary productivity (GPP) are crucial components to carbon cycle, and are closely linked to water cycle in many ways. We develop a Parsimonious Canopy Model (PCM) to simulate GPP and LAI at stand scale, and show its applicability over a diverse range of deciduous broad-leaved forest biomes. With its modular structure, the PCM is able to adapt with existing data requirements, and run in either a stand-alone mode or as an interface linked to hydrologic models.
Ralf Döscher, Mario Acosta, Andrea Alessandri, Peter Anthoni, Thomas Arsouze, Tommi Bergman, Raffaele Bernardello, Souhail Boussetta, Louis-Philippe Caron, Glenn Carver, Miguel Castrillo, Franco Catalano, Ivana Cvijanovic, Paolo Davini, Evelien Dekker, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, David Docquier, Pablo Echevarria, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Matthias Gröger, Jost v. Hardenberg, Jenny Hieronymus, M. Pasha Karami, Jukka-Pekka Keskinen, Torben Koenigk, Risto Makkonen, François Massonnet, Martin Ménégoz, Paul A. Miller, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Lars Nieradzik, Twan van Noije, Paul Nolan, Declan O'Donnell, Pirkka Ollinaho, Gijs van den Oord, Pablo Ortega, Oriol Tintó Prims, Arthur Ramos, Thomas Reerink, Clement Rousset, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Philippe Le Sager, Torben Schmith, Roland Schrödner, Federico Serva, Valentina Sicardi, Marianne Sloth Madsen, Benjamin Smith, Tian Tian, Etienne Tourigny, Petteri Uotila, Martin Vancoppenolle, Shiyu Wang, David Wårlind, Ulrika Willén, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, and Qiong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system model EC-Earth3 is documented here. Key performance metrics show physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new ESM components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.
Swamini Khurana, Falk Heße, Anke Hildebrandt, and Martin Thullner
Biogeosciences, 19, 665–688, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-665-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-665-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we concluded that the residence times of solutes and the Damköhler number (Da) of the biogeochemical reactions in the domain are governing factors for evaluating the impact of spatial heterogeneity of the domain on chemical (such as carbon and nitrogen compounds) removal. We thus proposed a relationship to scale this impact governed by Da. This relationship may be applied in larger domains, thereby resulting in more accurate modelling outcomes of nutrient removal in groundwater.
Robert Schweppe, Stephan Thober, Sebastian Müller, Matthias Kelbling, Rohini Kumar, Sabine Attinger, and Luis Samaniego
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 859–882, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-859-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-859-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The recently released multiscale parameter regionalization (MPR) tool enables
environmental modelers to efficiently use extensive datasets for model setups.
It flexibly ingests the datasets using user-defined data–parameter relationships
and rescales parameter fields to given model resolutions. Modern
land surface models especially benefit from MPR through increased transparency and
flexibility in modeling decisions. Thus, MPR empowers more sound and robust
simulations of the Earth system.
Josephin Kroll, Jasper M. C. Denissen, Mirco Migliavacca, Wantong Li, Anke Hildebrandt, and Rene Orth
Biogeosciences, 19, 477–489, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-477-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-477-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Plant growth relies on having access to energy (solar radiation) and water (soil moisture). This energy and water availability is impacted by weather extremes, like heat waves and droughts, which will occur more frequently in response to climate change. In this context, we analysed global satellite data to detect in which regions extreme plant growth is controlled by energy or water. We find that extreme plant growth is associated with temperature- or soil-moisture-related extremes.
Michael Peichl, Stephan Thober, Luis Samaniego, Bernd Hansjürgens, and Andreas Marx
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 6523–6545, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-6523-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-6523-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Using a statistical model that can also take complex systems into account, the most important factors affecting wheat yield in Germany are determined. Different spatial damage potentials are taken into account. In many parts of Germany, yield losses are caused by too much soil water in spring. Negative heat effects as well as damaging soil drought are identified especially for north-eastern Germany. The model is able to explain years with exceptionally high yields (2014) and losses (2003, 2018).
Cited articles
Arsenault, K. R., Nearing, G. S., Wang, S., Yatheendradas, S., and Peters-Lidard, C. D.: Parameter Sensitivity of the Noah-MP Land Surface Model with Dynamic Vegetation, J. Hydrometeorol., 19, 815 –830, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-17-0205.1, 2018. a
Ashaolu, E. D. and Iroye, K. A.: Rainfall and potential evapotranspiration patterns and their effects on climatic water balance in the Western Lithoral Hydrological Zone of Nigeria, Ruhuna Journal of Science, 9, https://doi.org/10.4038/rjs.v9i2.45, 2018. a
Ball, J. T., Woodrow, I. E., and Berry, J. A.: A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 221–224, ISBN 978-94-017-0519-6, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0519-6_48, 1987. a, b
Balsamo, G., Viterbo, P., Beljaars, A., van den Hurk, B., Hirschi, M., Betts, A. K., and Scipal, K.: A Revised Hydrology for the ECMWF Model: Verification from Field Site to Terrestrial Water Storage and Impact in the Integrated Forecast System, J. Hydrometeorol., 10, 623–643, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jhm1068.1, 2009. a, b, c
Beck, H. E., Pan, M., Miralles, D. G., Reichle, R. H., Dorigo, W. A., Hahn, S., Sheffield, J., Karthikeyan, L., Balsamo, G., Parinussa, R. M., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Du, J., Kimball, J. S., Vergopolan, N., and Wood, E. F.: Evaluation of 18 satellite- and model-based soil moisture products using in situ measurements from 826 sensors, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 17–40, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-17-2021, 2021. a
Benesty, J., Chen, J., Huang, Y., and Cohen, I.: Pearson correlation coefficient, in: Noise reduction in speech processing, 37–40, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00296-0_5, 2009. a
Best, M. J., Abramowitz, G., Johnson, H. R., Pitman, A. J., Balsamo, G., Boone, A., Cuntz, M., Decharme, B., Dirmeyer, P. A., Dong, J., Ek, M., Guo, Z., Haverd, V., van den Hurk, B. J. J., Nearing, G. S., Pak, B., Peters-Lidard, C., Santanello, J. A., Stevens, L., and Vuichard, N.: The Plumbing of Land Surface Models: Benchmarking Model Performance, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 1425–1442, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-14-0158.1, 2015. a, b, c
Blyth, E. M., Arora, V. K., Clark, D. B., Dadson, S. J., De Kauwe, M. G., Lawrence, D. M., Melton, J. R., Pongratz, J., Turton, R. H., Yoshimura, K., and Yuan, H.: Advances in Land Surface Modelling, Current Climate Change Reports, 7, 45–71, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00171-5, 2021. a
Bohm, K., Ingwersen, J., Milovac, J., and Streck, T.: Distinguishing between early- and late-covering crops in the land surface model Noah-MP: impact on simulated surface energy fluxes and temperature, Biogeosciences, 17, 2791–2805, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2791-2020, 2020. a
Bonan, G. B.: Land surface model (LSM version 1.0) for ecological, hydrological, and atmospheric studies: Technical description and user's guide, Technical Note PB-97-131494/XAB; NCAR/TN-417-STR; TRN: 70341497, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/442360 (last access: 24 May 2024), 1996. a, b, c
Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., Beljaars, A., Panareda, A.-A., Calvet, J.-C., Jacobs, C., van den Hurk, B., Viterbo, P., Lafont, S., Dutra, E., Jarlan, L., Balzarolo, M., Papale, D., and van der Werf, G.: Natural land carbon dioxide exchanges in the ECMWF integrated forecasting system: Implementation and offline validation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 5923–5946, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50488, 2013. a, b, c, d, e, f
Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., Dutra, E., Beljaars, A., and Albergel, C.: Assimilation of surface albedo and vegetation states from satellite observations and their impact on numerical weather prediction, Remote Sens. Environ., 163, 111–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.03.009, 2015. a
Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., Arduini, G., Dutra, E., McNorton, J., Choulga, M., Agustí-Panareda, A., Beljaars, A., Wedi, N., Munõz-Sabater, J., de Rosnay, P., Sandu, I., Hadade, I., Carver, G., Mazzetti, C., Prudhomme, C., Yamazaki, D., and Zsoter, E.: ECLand: The ECMWF Land Surface Modelling System, Atmosphere, 12, 723, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12060723, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k
Budyko, M. I.: Climate and Life, English Ed., edited by: Miller, D. H., Academic Press, New York, https://doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(67)90014-2, 1974. a
Cai, X., Yang, Z.-L., Xia, Y., Huang, M., Wei, H., Leung, L. R., and Ek, M. B.: Assessment of simulated water balance from Noah, Noah-MP, CLM, and VIC over CONUS using the NLDAS test bed, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 13751–13770, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jd022113, 2014. a, b
Calvet, J. C. and Soussana, J. F.: Modelling CO2-enrichment effects using an interactive vegetation SVAT scheme, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 108, 129–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(01)00235-0, 2001. a
Calvet, J. C., Noilhan, J., Roujean, J. L., Bessemoulin, P., Cabelguenne, M., Olioso, A., and Wigneron, J. P.: An interactive vegetation SVAT model tested against data from six contrasting sites, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 92, 73–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(98)00091-4, 1998. a
Chen, F. and Dudhia, J.: Coupling an advanced land surface-hydrology model with the Penn State-NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: Model implementation and sensitivity, Mon. Weather Rev., 129, 569–585, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<0569:Caalsh>2.0.Co;2, 2001. a, b
Collatz, G. J., Ribas-Carbo, M., and Berry, J. A.: Coupled Photosynthesis-Stomatal Conductance Model for Leaves of C4 Plants, Funct. Plant Biol., 19, 1445–4408, https://doi.org/10.1071/pp9920519, 1992. a, b
Copin, Y.: Taylor diagram for python/matplotlib, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5548061, 2021. a
De Kauwe, M. G., Zhou, S.-X., Medlyn, B. E., Pitman, A. J., Wang, Y.-P., Duursma, R. A., and Prentice, I. C.: Do land surface models need to include differential plant species responses to drought? Examining model predictions across a mesic-xeric gradient in Europe, Biogeosciences, 12, 7503–7518, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-7503-2015, 2015. a
Dickinson, R. E., Shaikh, M., Bryant, R., and Graumlich, L.: Interactive canopies for a climate model, J. Climate, 11, 2823–2836, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<2823:Icfacm>2.0.Co;2, 1998. a, b
Dirmeyer, P. A., Chen, L., Wu, J., Shin, C. S., Huang, B., Cash, B. A., Bosilovich, M. G., Mahanama, S., Koster, R. D., Santanello, J. A., Ek, M. B., Balsamo, G., Dutra, E., and Lawrence, D. M.: Verification of land-atmosphere coupling in forecast models, reanalyses and land surface models using flux site observations, J. Hydrometeorol., 19, 375–392, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0152.1, 2018. a
Dirmeyer, P. A., Balsamo, G., Blyth, E. M., Morrison, R., and Cooper, H. M.: Land‐Atmosphere Interactions Exacerbated the Drought and Heatwave Over Northern Europe During Summer 2018, AGU Advances, 2, 2, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020av000283, 2021. a
Dutra, E., Balsamo, G., Viterbo, P., Miranda, P. M. A., Beljaars, A., Schär, C., and Elder, K.: An Improved Snow Scheme for the ECMWF Land Surface Model: Description and Offline Validation, J. Hydrometeorol., 11, 899–916, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010jhm1249.1, 2010. a, b
Ek, M. B., Mitchell, K. E., Lin, Y., Rogers, E., Grunmann, P., Koren, V., Gayno, G., and Tarpley, J. D.: Implementation of Noah land surface model advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational mesoscale Eta model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8851, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003296, 2003. a, b
Fang, H., Wei, S., and Liang, S.: Validation of MODIS and CYCLOPES LAI products using global field measurement data, Remote Sens. Environ., 119, 43–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.12.006, 2012. a
Fisher, J. B., Huntzinger, D. N., Schwalm, C. R., and Sitch, S.: Modeling the Terrestrial Biosphere, Annu. Rev. Env. Resour., 39, 91–123, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012913-093456, 2014. a
Forzieri, G., Miralles, D. G., Ciais, P., Alkama, R., Ryu, Y., Duveiller, G., Zhang, K., Robertson, E., Kautz, M., Martens, B., Jiang, C. Y., Arneth, A., Georgievski, G., Li, W., Ceccherini, G., Anthoni, P., Lawrence, P., Wiltshire, A., Pongratz, J., Piao, S. L., Sitch, S., Goll, D. S., Arora, V. K., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Kato, E., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Tian, H. Q., Friedlingstein, P., and Cescatti, A.: Increased control of vegetation on global terrestrial energy fluxes, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 356–362, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0717-0, 2020. a
Garrigues, S., Lacaze, R., Baret, F., Morisette, J. T., Weiss, M., Nickeson, J. E., Fernandes, R., Plummer, S., Shabanov, N. V., Myneni, R. B., Knyazikhin, Y., and Yang, W.: Validation and intercomparison of global Leaf Area Index products derived from remote sensing data, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 113, G02028, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jg000635, 2008. a
Garrigues, S., Verhoef, A., Blyth, E., Wright, A., Balan-Sarojini, B., Robinson, E. L., Dadson, S., Boone, A., Boussetta, S., and Balsamo, G.: Capability of the variogram to quantify the spatial patterns of surface fluxes and soil moisture simulated by land surface models, Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 45, 279–293, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133320986147, 2021. a
Harrigan, S., Zsoter, E., Cloke, H., Salamon, P., and Prudhomme, C.: Daily ensemble river discharge reforecasts and real-time forecasts from the operational Global Flood Awareness System, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1-2023, 2023. a
Haughton, N., Abramowitz, G., Pitman, A. J., Or, D., Best, M. J., Johnson, H. R., Balsamo, G., Boone, A., Cuntz, M., Decharme, B., Dirmeyer, P. A., Dong, J., Ek, M., Guo, Z., Haverd, V., van den Hurk, B. J. J., Nearing, G. S., Pak, B., Santanello, J. A., J., Stevens, L. E., and Vuichard, N.: The plumbing of land surface models: is poor performance a result of methodology or data quality?, J. Hydrometeorol., 17, 1705–1723, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0171.1, 2016. a, b
Haughton, N., Abramowitz, G., De Kauwe, M. G., and Pitman, A. J.: Does predictability of fluxes vary between FLUXNET sites?, Biogeosciences, 15, 4495–4513, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4495-2018, 2018a. a, b
Haughton, N., Abramowitz, G., and Pitman, A. J.: On the predictability of land surface fluxes from meteorological variables, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 195–212, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-195-2018, 2018b. a
Haverd, V., Smith, B., Nieradzik, L., Briggs, P. R., Woodgate, W., Trudinger, C. M., Canadell, J. G., and Cuntz, M.: A new version of the CABLE land surface model (Subversion revision r4601) incorporating land use and land cover change, woody vegetation demography, and a novel optimisation-based approach to plant coordination of photosynthesis, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2995–3026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2995-2018, 2018. a
Hengl, T., de Jesus, J. M., MacMillan, R. A., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G. B., Ribeiro, E., Samuel-Rosa, A., Kempen, B., Leenaars, J. G., Walsh, M. G., and Gonzalez, M. R.: SoilGrids1km–global soil information based on automated mapping, PLoS One, 9, e105992, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105992, 2014. a, b
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a, b, c
Hu, Z., Piao, S., Knapp, A. K., Wang, X., Peng, S., Yuan, W., Running, S., Mao, J., Shi, X., Ciais, P., Huntzinger, D. N., Yang, J., and Yu, G.: Decoupling of greenness and gross primary productivity as aridity decreases, Remote Sens. Environ., 279, 113120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2022.113120, 2022. a
Huang, A., Shen, R., Di, W., and Han, H.: A methodology to reconstruct LAI time series data based on generative adversarial network and improved Savitzky-Golay filter, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs., 105, 102633, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2021.102633, 2021. a
Huang, A., Shen, R., Shi, C., and Sun, S.: Effects of satellite LAI data on modelling land surface temperature and related energy budget in the Noah-MP land surface model, J. Hydrol., 613, 128351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128351, 2022. a
Jarlan, L., Balsamo, G., Lafont, S., Beljaars, A., Calvet, J. C., and Mougin, E.: Analysis of leaf area index in the ECMWF land surface model and impact on latent heat and carbon fluxes: Application to West Africa, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D24117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jd009370, 2008. a
Jung, M., Koirala, S., Weber, U., Ichii, K., Gans, F., Camps-Valls, G., Papale, D., Schwalm, C., Tramontana, G., and Reichstein, M.: The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes, Sci. Data, 6, 74, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8, 2019. a
Krinner, G., Derksen, C., Essery, R., Flanner, M., Hagemann, S., Clark, M., Hall, A., Rott, H., Brutel-Vuilmet, C., Kim, H., Ménard, C. B., Mudryk, L., Thackeray, C., Wang, L., Arduini, G., Balsamo, G., Bartlett, P., Boike, J., Boone, A., Chéruy, F., Colin, J., Cuntz, M., Dai, Y., Decharme, B., Derry, J., Ducharne, A., Dutra, E., Fang, X., Fierz, C., Ghattas, J., Gusev, Y., Haverd, V., Kontu, A., Lafaysse, M., Law, R., Lawrence, D., Li, W., Marke, T., Marks, D., Ménégoz, M., Nasonova, O., Nitta, T., Niwano, M., Pomeroy, J., Raleigh, M. S., Schaedler, G., Semenov, V., Smirnova, T. G., Stacke, T., Strasser, U., Svenson, S., Turkov, D., Wang, T., Wever, N., Yuan, H., Zhou, W., and Zhu, D.: ESM-SnowMIP: assessing snow models and quantifying snow-related climate feedbacks, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 5027–5049, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-5027-2018, 2018. a
Kumar, S. V., M. Mocko, D., Wang, S., Peters-Lidard, C. D., and Borak, J.: Assimilation of Remotely Sensed Leaf Area Index into the Noah-MP Land Surface Model: Impacts on Water and Carbon Fluxes and States over the Continental United States, J. Hydrometeorol., 20, 1359–1377, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-18-0237.1, 2019. a
Lawrence, D. M., Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Oleson, K. W., Swenson, S. C., Bonan, G., Collier, N., Ghimire, B., van Kampenhout, L., Kennedy, D., Kluzek, E., Lawrence, P. J., Li, F., Li, H., Lombardozzi, D., Riley, W. J., Sacks, W. J., Shi, M., Vertenstein, M., Wieder, W. R., Xu, C., Ali, A. A., Badger, A. M., Bisht, G., van den Broeke, M., Brunke, M. A., Burns, S. P., Buzan, J., Clark, M., Craig, A., Dahlin, K., Drewniak, B., Fisher, J. B., Flanner, M., Fox, A. M., Gentine, P., Hoffman, F., Keppel-Aleks, G., Knox, R., Kumar, S., Lenaerts, J., Leung, L. R., Lipscomb, W. H., Lu, Y., Pandey, A., Pelletier, J. D., Perket, J., Randerson, J. T., Ricciuto, D. M., Sanderson, B. M., Slater, A., Subin, Z. M., Tang, J., Thomas, R. Q., Val Martin, M., and Zeng, X.: The Community Land Model Version 5: Description of New Features, Benchmarking, and Impact of Forcing Uncertainty, J. Adv. Modeli. Earth Sy., 11, 4245–4287, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001583, 2019. a, b
Lawrence, P. J., Lawrence, D. M., and Hurtt, G. C.: Attributing the Carbon Cycle Impacts of CMIP5 Historical and Future Land Use and Land Cover Change in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1), J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 123, 1732–1755, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017jg004348, 2018. a
Li, J., Zhang, G., Chen, F., Peng, X., and Gan, Y.: Evaluation of Land Surface Subprocesses and Their Impacts on Model Performance With Global Flux Data, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 1329–1348, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001606, 2019. a
Li, J., Chen, F., Lu, X., Gong, W., Zhang, G., and Gan, Y.: Quantifying Contributions of Uncertainties in Physical Parameterization Schemes and Model Parameters to Overall Errors in Noah‐MP Dynamic Vegetation Modeling, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, 7, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001914, 2020. a, b, c
Li, L., Yang, Z., Matheny, A. M., Zheng, H., Swenson, S. C., Lawrence, D. M., Barlage, M., Yan, B., McDowell, N. G., and Leung, L. R.: Representation of Plant Hydraulics in the Noah-MP Land Surface Model: Model Development and Multiscale Evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, 4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ms002214, 2021. a, b
Liang, J., Yang, Z., and Lin, P.: Systematic Hydrological Evaluation of the Noah-MP Land Surface Model over China, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 36, 1171–1187, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-9016-y, 2019. a
Liu, X., Chen, F., Barlage, M., Zhou, G., and Niyogi, D.: Noah-MP-Crop: Introducing dynamic crop growth in the Noah-MP land surface model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 13,953–13,972, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025597, 2016. a, b, c, d
Luo, J., Ying, K., and Bai, J.: Savitzky-Golay smoothing and differentiation filter for even number data, Signal Process., 85, 1429–1434, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2005.02.002, 2005. a
Ma, N., Niu, G.-Y., Xia, Y., Cai, X., Zhang, Y., Ma, Y., and Fang, Y.: A Systematic Evaluation of Noah-MP in Simulating Land-Atmosphere Energy, Water, and Carbon Exchanges Over the Continental United States, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12,245–12,268, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd027597, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n
Menard, C. B., Essery, R., Krinner, G., Arduini, G., Bartlett, P., Boone, A., Brutel-Vuilmet, C., Burke, E., Cuntz, M., Dai, Y., Decharme, B., Dutra, E., Fang, X., Fierz, C., Gusev, Y., Hagemann, S., Haverd, V., Kim, H., Lafaysse, M., Marke, T., Nasonova, O., Nitta, T., Niwano, M., Pomeroy, J., Schädler, G., Semenov, V. A., Smirnova, T., Strasser, U., Swenson, S., Turkov, D., Wever, N., and Yuan, H.: Scientific and Human Erros in a Snow Model Intercomparison, E61–E79, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0329.1, 2021. a
Muñoz Sabater, J.: ERA5-Land hourly data from 1950 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.e2161bac, 2019. a, b
Myneni, R., Knyazikhin, Y., and Park, T.: MOD15A2H MODIS/Terra Leaf Area Index/FPAR 8-Day L4 Global 500m SIN Grid V006, NASA EOSDIS Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD15A2H.006, 2015. a, b
Niu, G.-Y., Yang, Z.-L., Dickinson, R. E., Gulden, L. E., and Su, H.: Development of a simple groundwater model for use in climate models and evaluation with Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment data, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D07103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jd007522, 2007. a, b, c
Niu, G.-Y., Yang, Z.-L., Mitchell, K. E., Chen, F., Ek, M. B., Barlage, M., Kumar, A., Manning, K., Niyogi, D., Rosero, E., Tewari, M., and Xia, Y.: The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 1. Model description and evaluation with local-scale measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D12109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jd015139, 2011. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Nogueira, M., Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., Albergel, C., Trigo, I. F., Johannsen, F., Miralles, D. G., and Dutra, E.: Upgrading Land-Cover and Vegetation Seasonality in the ECMWF Coupled System: Verification With FLUXNET Sites, METEOSAT Satellite Land Surface Temperatures, and ERA5 Atmospheric Reanalysis, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD034163, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034163, 2021. a
Oleson, Keith W. and Lawrence, David M. and Bonan, Gordon B. and Flanner, Mark G. and Kluzek, Erik and Lawrence, Peter J. and Levis, Samuel and Swenson, Sean C. and Thornton, Peter E.: Technical Description of version 4.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM), NCAR Technical Note, ISSN 2153-2400, 2010. a
Pastorello, G., Trotta, C., Canfora, E., Chu, H., Christianson, D., Cheah, Y. W., Poindexter, C., Chen, J., Elbashandy, A., Humphrey, M., Isaac, P., Polidori, D., Reichstein, M., Ribeca, A., van Ingen, C., Vuichard, N., Zhang, L., Amiro, B., Ammann, C., Arain, M. A., Ardo, J., Arkebauer, T., Arndt, S. K., Arriga, N., Aubinet, M., Aurela, M., Baldocchi, D., Barr, A., Beamesderfer, E., Marchesini, L. B., Bergeron, O., Beringer, J., Bernhofer, C., Berveiller, D., Billesbach, D., Black, T. A., Blanken, P. D., Bohrer, G., Boike, J., Bolstad, P. V., Bonal, D., Bonnefond, J. M., Bowling, D. R., Bracho, R., Brodeur, J., Brummer, C., Buchmann, N., Burban, B., Burns, S. P., Buysse, P., Cale, P., Cavagna, M., Cellier, P., Chen, S., Chini, I., Christensen, T. R., Cleverly, J., Collalti, A., Consalvo, C., Cook, B. D., Cook, D., Coursolle, C., Cremonese, E., Curtis, P. S., D'Andrea, E., da Rocha, H., Dai, X., Davis, K. J., Cinti, B., Grandcourt, A., Ligne, A., De Oliveira, R. C., Delpierre, N., Desai, A. R., Di Bella, C. M., Tommasi, P. D., Dolman, H., Domingo, F., Dong, G., Dore, S., Duce, P., Dufrene, E., Dunn, A., Dusek, J., Eamus, D., Eichelmann, U., ElKhidir, H. A. M., Eugster, W., Ewenz, C. M., Ewers, B., Famulari, D., Fares, S., Feigenwinter, I., Feitz, A., Fensholt, R., Filippa, G., Fischer, M., Frank, J., Galvagno, M., Gharun, M., et al.: The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data, Sci. Data, 7, 225, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0534-3, 2020. a, b
Piayda, A., Dubbert, M., Werner, C., Vaz Correia, A., Pereira, J. S., and Cuntz, M.: Influence of woody tissue and leaf clumping on vertically resolved leaf area index and angular gap probability estimates, Forest Ecol. Manage., 340, 103–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.12.026, 2015. a
Pilotto, I. L., Rodríguez, D. A., Tomasella, J., Sampaio, G., and Chou, S. C.: Comparisons of the Noah-MP land surface model simulations with measurements of forest and crop sites in Amazonia, Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 127, 711–723, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-015-0399-8, 2015. a, b, c
Poggio, L., de Sousa, L. M., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Kempen, B., Ribeiro, E., and Rossiter, D.: SoilGrids 2.0: producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty, Soil, 7, 217–240, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7-217-2021, 2021. a
Rebmann, C. and Pohl, F.: Carbon, water and energy fluxes at the TERENO/ICOS ecosystem station Hohes Holz in Central Germany since 2015, PANGAEA [data set], https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.940760, 2023. a, b, c
Ruiz-Vásquez, M., O, S., Arduini, G., Boussetta, S., Brenning, A., Bastos, A., Koirala, S., Balsamo, G., Reichstein, M., and Orth, R.: Impact of Updating Vegetation Information on Land Surface Model Performance, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 128, 21, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jd039076, 2023. a
Sakaguchi, K. and Zeng, X.: Effects of soil wetness, plant litter, and under‐canopy atmospheric stability on ground evaporation in the Community Land Model (CLM3.5), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D01107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jd010834, 2009. a
Savitzky, A. and Golay, M. J. E.: Smoothing + Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures, Anal. Chem., 36, 1627–1639, https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60214a047, 1964. a
Sayed, A. H.: Fundamentals of adaptive filtering, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-471-46126-5, 2003. a
Schweppe, R., Thober, S., Müller, S., Kelbling, M., Kumar, R., Attinger, S., and Samaniego, L.: MPR 1.0: a stand-alone multiscale parameter regionalization tool for improved parameter estimation of land surface models, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 859–882, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-859-2022, 2022. a
Stevens, D., Miranda, P. M. A., Orth, R., Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., and Dutra, E.: Sensitivity of Surface Fluxes in the ECMWF Land Surface Model to the Remotely Sensed Leaf Area Index and Root Distribution: Evaluation with Tower Flux Data, Atmosphere, 11, 1362, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121362, 2020. a, b, c, d
Trabucco, A. and Zomer, R. J.: Global Aridity Index and Potential Evapo-Transpiration (ET0) Climate Database v2, CGIAR-CSI GeoPortal, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7504448.v3, 2018. a, b
Ukkola, A. M., De Kauwe, M. G., Pitman, A. J., Best, M. J., Abramowitz, G., Haverd, V., Decker, M., and Haughton, N.: Land surface models systematically overestimate the intensity, duration and magnitude of seasonal-scale evaporative droughts, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 104012, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104012, 2016. a, b
van den Hurk, B. J. J. M., Viterbo, P., and Los, S. O.: Impact of leaf area index seasonality on the annual land surface evaporation in a global circulation model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4191, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002846, 2003. a
van Genuchten, M. T.: A Closed‐form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44, 892–898, https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x, 1980. a
Weiss, M., Baret, F., Garrigues, S., and Lacaze, R.: LAI and fAPAR CYCLOPES global products derived from VEGETATION. Part 2: validation and comparison with MODIS collection 4 products, Remote Sens. Environ., 110, 317–331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.03.001, 2007. a
Wollschläger, U., Attinger, S., Borchardt, D., Brauns, M., Cuntz, M., Dietrich, P., Fleckenstein, J. H., Friese, K., Friesen, J., Harpke, A., Hildebrandt, A., Jäckel, G., Kamjunke, N., Knöller, K., Kögler, S., Kolditz, O., Krieg, R., Kumar, R., Lausch, A., Liess, M., Marx, A., Merz, R., Mueller, C., Musolff, A., Norf, H., Oswald, S. E., Rebmann, C., Reinstorf, F., Rode, M., Rink, K., Rinke, K., Samaniego, L., Vieweg, M., Vogel, H.-J., Weitere, M., Werban, U., Zink, M., and Zacharias, S.: The Bode hydrological observatory: a platform for integrated, interdisciplinary hydro-ecological research within the TERENO Harz/Central German Lowland Observatory, Environ. Earth Sci., 76, 29, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6327-5, 2016. a
Xiao, Z., Liang, S., Wang, J., Jiang, B., and Li, X.: Real-time retrieval of Leaf Area Index from MODIS time series data, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 97–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.08.009, 2011. a
Xiao, Z., Liang, S., Wang, J., Xiang, Y., Zhao, X., and Song, J.: Long-Time-Series Global Land Surface Satellite Leaf Area Index Product Derived From MODIS and AVHRR Surface Reflectance, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 54, 5301–5318, https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2016.2560522, 2016. a
Yang, F., Dan, L., Peng, J., Yang, X., Li, Y., and Gao, D.: Subdaily to Seasonal Change of Surface Energy and Water Flux of the Haihe River Basin in China: Noah and Noah-MP Assessment, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 36, 79–92, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-018-8035-4, 2018. a
Yang, Q., Dan, L., Lv, M., Wu, J., Li, W., and Dong, W.: Quantitative assessment of the parameterization sensitivity of the Noah-MP land surface model with dynamic vegetation using ChinaFLUX data, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 307, 108542, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108542, 2021. a, b
Yang, Z.-L. and Niu, G.-Y.: Effects of Frozen Soil on Snowmelt Runoff and Soil Water Storage at a Continental Scale, J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 937–952, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm538.1, 2006. a
Yang, Z.-L., Niu, G.-Y., Mitchell, K. E., Chen, F., Ek, M. B., Barlage, M., Longuevergne, L., Manning, K., Niyogi, D., Tewari, M., and Xia, Y.: The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 2. Evaluation over global river basins, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D12110, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jd015140, 2011. a, b
Zhang, G., Chen, F., and Gan, Y.: Assessing uncertainties in the Noah‐MP ensemble simulations of a cropland site during the Tibet Joint International Cooperation program field campaign, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 9576–9596, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd024928, 2016. a, b
Zhang, X., Yan, K., Liu, J., Yang, K., Pu, J., Yan, G., Heiskanen, J., Zhu, P., Knyazikhin, Y., and Myneni, R. B.: An Insight Into the Internal Consistency of MODIS Global Leaf Area Index Products, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 62, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2024.3434366, 2024. a
Zhang, Z., Xin, Q., and Li, W.: Machine Learning-Based Modeling of Vegetation Leaf Area Index and Gross Primary Productivity Across North America and Comparison With a Process-Based Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002802, 2021. a
Short summary
Plants at the land surface mediate between soil and the atmosphere regarding water and carbon transport. Since plant growth is a dynamic process, models need to consider these dynamics. Two models that predict water and carbon fluxes by considering plant temporal evolution were tested against observational data. Currently, dynamizing plants in these models did not enhance their representativeness, which is caused by a mismatch between implemented physical relations and observable connections.
Plants at the land surface mediate between soil and the atmosphere regarding water and carbon...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint