loading page

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 Profile
Andrew Ireson
University of Saskatchewan School of Environment and Sustainability
Author Profile
Martyn Clark
University of Calgary Department of Civil Engineering
Author Profile

Abstract

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