A critical assessment of Geological Weighing Lysimeters: Part 2 -
modelling field scale soil moisture storage and hydrological fluxes
- Morgan Braaten,
- Andrew Ireson,
- Martyn Clark
Morgan Braaten
University of Saskatchewan School of Environment and Sustainability
Corresponding Author:morgan.braaten@usask.ca
Author ProfileAndrew Ireson
University of Saskatchewan School of Environment and Sustainability
Author ProfileMartyn Clark
University of Calgary Department of Civil Engineering
Author ProfileAbstract
not-yet-known
not-yet-known
not-yet-known
unknown
Land surface models (LSMs) are used to simulate water and energy fluxes
between the land surface and atmosphere. These simulations are useful
for water resources management, drought and flood prediction, and
numerical climate/weather prediction. However, the usefulness of LSMs
are dependent by their ability to reproduce states and fluxes
realistically. Accurate measurements of water storage are useful to
calibrate and validate LSMs outputs. Geological Weighing Lysimeters
(GWLs) are instruments that can provide field-scale estimates of
integrated total water storage within a soil profile. We use field
estimates of total water storage and subsurface storage to critically
evaluate two different land surface models: the Modélisation
Environnementale communautaire - Surface Hydrology (MESH) which uses the
Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS), and the Structure for Unifying
Multiple Modeling Alternatives: (SUMMA). These models have differences
in how the processes and properties of the land surface are represented.
We attempted to parameterize each model in an equivalent manner, to
minimize model differences. Both models were able to reproduce
observations of total water storage and subsurface storage reasonably
well. However, there were inconsistencies in the simulated timing of
snowmelt; depth of soil freezing; total evapotranspiration; partitioning
of evaporation between soil evaporation and evaporation of intercepted
water; and soil drainage. No one model emerged as better overall, though
each model had specific strengths and weaknesses that we describe.
Insights from this study can be used to improve model physics and
performance.01 May 2024Submitted to Hydrological Processes 06 Jun 2024Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
15 Aug 20241st Revision Received
24 Aug 2024Submission Checks Completed
24 Aug 2024Assigned to Editor
24 Aug 2024Reviewer(s) Assigned
24 Aug 2024Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
24 Aug 2024Reviewer(s) Assigned
10 Sep 2024Editorial Decision: Accept