skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Comparison and Assessment of Three Advanced Land Surface Models in Simulating Terrestrial Water Storage Components over the United States

Abstract

In preparation for next generation North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS), 3 three advanced land surface models (CLM4.0, Noah-MP, and CLSM-F2.5) were run from 1979 4 to 2014 within the NLDAS-based framework. Monthly total water storage anomaly (TWSA) and 5 its individual water storage components were evaluated against satellite-based and in situ 6 observations, and reference reanalysis products at basin-wide and statewide scales. In general, all 7 three models are able to reasonably capture the monthly and interannual variability and 8 magnitudes for TWSA. However, contributions of the anomalies of individual water 9 components to TWSA are very dependent on the model and basin. A major contributor to the 10 TWSA is the anomaly of total column soil moisture content (SMCA) for CLM4.0 and Noah-MP 11 or groundwater storage anomaly (GWSA) for CLSM-F2.5 although other components such as 12 the anomaly of snow water equivalent (SWEA) also play some role. For each individual water 13 storage component, the models are able to capture broad features such as monthly and 14 interannual variability. However, there are large inter-model differences and quantitative 15 uncertainties in this study. Therefore, it should be thought of as a preliminary synthesis and 16 analysis.

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [2];  [5];  [6];  [7]
  1. I. M. Systems Group at NOAA/NCEP/Environmental Modeling Center, College Park, Maryland
  2. Hydrological Science Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
  3. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington
  4. Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland
  5. Prescient Weather Ltd., State College, Pennsylvania
  6. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
  7. NOAA/NCEP/Environmental Modeling Center, College Park, Maryland
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1378038
Report Number(s):
PNNL-SA-118565
Journal ID: ISSN 1525-755X; KP1702030
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Journal of Hydrometeorology; Journal Volume: 18; Journal Issue: 3
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES

Citation Formats

Xia, Youlong, Mocko, David, Huang, Maoyi, Li, Bailing, Rodell, Matthew, Mitchell, Kenneth E., Cai, Xitian, and Ek, Michael B. Comparison and Assessment of Three Advanced Land Surface Models in Simulating Terrestrial Water Storage Components over the United States. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-16-0112.1.
Xia, Youlong, Mocko, David, Huang, Maoyi, Li, Bailing, Rodell, Matthew, Mitchell, Kenneth E., Cai, Xitian, & Ek, Michael B. Comparison and Assessment of Three Advanced Land Surface Models in Simulating Terrestrial Water Storage Components over the United States. United States. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-16-0112.1.
Xia, Youlong, Mocko, David, Huang, Maoyi, Li, Bailing, Rodell, Matthew, Mitchell, Kenneth E., Cai, Xitian, and Ek, Michael B. Wed . "Comparison and Assessment of Three Advanced Land Surface Models in Simulating Terrestrial Water Storage Components over the United States". United States. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-16-0112.1.
@article{osti_1378038,
title = {Comparison and Assessment of Three Advanced Land Surface Models in Simulating Terrestrial Water Storage Components over the United States},
author = {Xia, Youlong and Mocko, David and Huang, Maoyi and Li, Bailing and Rodell, Matthew and Mitchell, Kenneth E. and Cai, Xitian and Ek, Michael B.},
abstractNote = {In preparation for next generation North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS), 3 three advanced land surface models (CLM4.0, Noah-MP, and CLSM-F2.5) were run from 1979 4 to 2014 within the NLDAS-based framework. Monthly total water storage anomaly (TWSA) and 5 its individual water storage components were evaluated against satellite-based and in situ 6 observations, and reference reanalysis products at basin-wide and statewide scales. In general, all 7 three models are able to reasonably capture the monthly and interannual variability and 8 magnitudes for TWSA. However, contributions of the anomalies of individual water 9 components to TWSA are very dependent on the model and basin. A major contributor to the 10 TWSA is the anomaly of total column soil moisture content (SMCA) for CLM4.0 and Noah-MP 11 or groundwater storage anomaly (GWSA) for CLSM-F2.5 although other components such as 12 the anomaly of snow water equivalent (SWEA) also play some role. For each individual water 13 storage component, the models are able to capture broad features such as monthly and 14 interannual variability. However, there are large inter-model differences and quantitative 15 uncertainties in this study. Therefore, it should be thought of as a preliminary synthesis and 16 analysis.},
doi = {10.1175/JHM-D-16-0112.1},
journal = {Journal of Hydrometeorology},
number = 3,
volume = 18,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2017},
month = {Wed Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2017}
}
  • Cited by 4
  • Previous studies on irrigation impacts on land surface fluxes/states were mainly conducted as sensitivity experiments, with limited analysis of uncertainties from the input data and model irrigation schemes used. In this study, we calibrated and evaluated the performance of irrigation water use simulated by the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4) against observations from agriculture census. We investigated the impacts of irrigation on land surface fluxes and states over the conterminous United States (CONUS) and explored possible directions of improvement. Specifically, we found large uncertainty in the irrigation area data from two widely used sources and CLM4 tended to producemore » unrealistically large temporal variations of irrigation demand for applications at the water resources region scale over CONUS. At seasonal to interannual time scales, the effects of irrigation on surface energy partitioning appeared to be large and persistent, and more pronounced in dry than wet years. Even with model calibration to yield overall good agreement with the irrigation amounts from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), differences between the two irrigation area datasets still dominate the differences in the interannual variability of land surface response to irrigation. Our results suggest that irrigation amount simulated by CLM4 can be improved by (1) calibrating model parameter values to account for regional differences in irrigation demand and (2) accurate representation of the spatial distribution and intensity of irrigated areas.« less
  • Here, this study compares six evapotranspiration ET products for Canada's landmass, namely, eddy covariance EC measurements; surface water budget ET; remote sensing ET from MODIS; and land surface model (LSM) ET from the Community Land Model (CLM), the Ecological Assimilation of Land and Climate Observations (EALCO) model, and the Variable Infiltration Capacity model (VIC). The ET climatology over the Canadian landmass is characterized and the advantages and limitations of the datasets are discussed. The EC measurements have limited spatial coverage, making it difficult for model validations at the national scale. Water budget ET has the largest uncertainty because of datamore » quality issues with precipitation in mountainous regions and in the north. MODIS ET shows relatively large uncertainty in cold seasons and sparsely vegetated regions. The LSM products cover the entire landmass and exhibit small differences in ET among them. Annual ET from the LSMs ranges from small negative values to over 600 mm across the landmass, with a countrywide average of 256 ± 15 mm. Seasonally, the countrywide average monthly ET varies from a low of about 3 mm in four winter months (November-February) to 67 ± 7 mm in July. The ET uncertainty is scale dependent. Larger regions tend to have smaller uncertainties because of the offset of positive and negative biases within the region. More observation networks and better quality controls are critical to improving ET estimates. Future techniques should also consider a hybrid approach that integrates strengths of the various ET products to help reduce uncertainties in ET estimation.« less
  • Monthly mean atmospheric precipitable water data for eighty-two sites in th continental US and Alaska have been analyzed to develop methods for accurately estimating precipitable water at sites where it has not been measured. Monthly mean precipitable water can be estimated with an rms error of about 12%, using the monthly mean surface temperature and relative humidity. This rms error can be reduced to about 7%, if the properties of the average atmospheric and surface conditions in the region surrounding the site are used. The amount of sunlight scattered by the atmosphere is a function of the amount of precipitablemore » water and other quantities.« less
  • Representing agricultural systems explicitly in Earth system models is important for understanding the water-energy-food nexus under climate change. In this study, we applied Version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM) at a 0.125 degree resolution to provide the first county-scale validation of the model in simulating crop yields over the Conterminous United States (CONUS). We focused on corn and soybean that are both important grain crops and biofuel feedstocks (corn for bioethanol; soybean for biodiesel). We find that the default model substantially under- or over-estimate yields of corn and soybean as compared to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)more » census data, with corresponding county-level root-mean square error (RMSE) of 45.3 Bu/acre and 12.9 Bu/acre, or 42% and 38% of the US mean yields for these crops, respectively. Based on the numerical experiments, the lack of proper representation of agricultural management practices, such as irrigation and fertilization, was identified as a major cause for the model's poor performance. After implementing an irrigation management scheme calibrated against county-level US Geological Survey (USGS) census data, the county-level RMSE for corn yields reduced to 42.6 Bu/acre. We then incorporated an optimized fertilizer scheme in rate and timing, which is achieved by the constraining annual total fertilizer amount against the USDA data, considering the dynamics between fertilizer demand and supply and adopting a calibrated fertilizer scheduling map. The proposed approach is shown to be effective in increasing the fertilizer use efficiency for corn yields, with county-level RMSE reduced to 23.8 Bu/acre (or 22% of the US mean yield). In regions with similar annual fertilizer applied as in the default, the improvements in corn yield simulations are mainly attributed to application of longer fertilization periods and consideration of the dynamics between fertilizer demand and supply. For soybean which is capable of fixing nitrogen to meet nitrogen demand, the reduced positive bias to 6.9 Bu/acre (or 21% of the country mean) was mainly attributed to consideration of the dynamic interactions between fertilizer demand and supply. Although large bias remains in terms of the spatial pattern (i.e. high county-level RMSE), mainly due to limited performance over the Western US, our results show that optimizing irrigation and fertilization can lead to promising improvement in crop and soybean yield simulations in terms of the mean and variability especially over the Mid-west corn belt, and subsequent evapotranspiration (ET) estimates. Finally, this study demonstrates the CLM4.5 capability for predicting crop yields and their interactions with climate, and highlights the value of continued model improvements and development to understand biogeophysical and biogeochemical impacts of land use and land cover change using an Earth system modeling framework.« less