4.7 Article

Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements

Journal

GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 3269-3294

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) LBA investigation CD-32, NASA LBA-DMIP project [NNX09AL52G]
  2. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  3. EPSRC Living with Environmental Change Fellowship [EP/N030141/1]
  4. Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (HCCP) by BEIS
  5. Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (HCCP) by Defra
  6. Natural Environment Research Council's project: IMPETUS [NE/L010488/1]
  7. Natural Environment Research Council's project: Newton/NERC/FAPESP Nordeste [NE/N012488/1]
  8. Newton Fund through the Met Office Climate Science for Service Partnership Brazil (CSSP Brazil)
  9. Research Endowment Trust Fund of the University of Reading
  10. Province of South Tyrol Cycling of carbon and water in mountain ecosystems under changing climate and land use (CYCLAMEN)
  11. European Commision Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [774124, 787203]
  12. SNF project M4P [40FA40_154245]
  13. European project Quantification, understanding and prediction of carbon cycle, and other GHG gases, in Sub-Saharan Africa (CarboAfrica) [STREP-CT037132]
  14. Investissement d'Avenir grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche [CEBA: ANR-10LABX-0025, ARBRE: ANR-11-LABX-0002-01]
  15. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  16. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science (CFCAS)
  17. EPSRC [EP/N030141/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  18. NERC [NE/N012488/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  19. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [774124] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme
  20. NASA [NNX09AL52G, 113489] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research has shown that three alternative approaches to calculating soil moisture stress produce more realistic results for most biomes and climates compared to the default parameterization. Increasing the number of soil layers and depth, using soil matric potential instead of volumetric water content, and allowing plants to access moisture in deeper soil layers all improve the simulation outcomes.
Drought is predicted to increase in the future due to climate change, bringing with it myriad impacts on ecosystems. Plants respond to drier soils by reducing stomatal conductance in order to conserve water and avoid hydraulic damage. Despite the importance of plant drought responses for the global carbon cycle and local and regional climate feedbacks, land surface models are unable to capture observed plant responses to soil moisture stress. We assessed the impact of soil moisture stress on simulated gross primary productivity (GPP) and latent energy flux (LE) in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) vn4.9 on seasonal and annual timescales and evaluated 10 different representations of soil moisture stress in the model. For the default configuration, GPP was more realistic in temperate biome sites than in the tropics or high-latitude (cold-region) sites, while LE was best simulated in temperate and high-latitude (cold) sites. Errors that were not due to soil moisture stress, possibly linked to phenology, contributed to model biases for GPP in tropical savanna and deciduous forest sites. We found that three alternative approaches to calculating soil moisture stress produced more realistic results than the default parameterization for most biomes and climates. All of these involved increasing the number of soil layers from 4 to 14 and the soil depth from 3.0 to 10.8 m. In addition, we found improvements when soil matric potential replaced volumetric water content in the stress equation (the soill4_psi experiments), when the critical threshold value for inducing soil moisture stress was reduced (soil14_p0), and when plants were able to access soil moisture in deeper soil layers (soil14_dr*2). For LE, the biases were highest in the default configuration in temperate mixed forests, with overestimation occurring during most of the year. At these sites, reducing soil moisture stress (with the new parameterizations mentioned above) increased LE and increased model biases but improved the simulated seasonal cycle and brought the monthly variance closer to the measured variance of LE. Further evaluation of the reason for the high bias in LE at many of the sites would enable improvements in both carbon and energy fluxes with new parameterizations for soil moisture stress. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES or as a general way to improve land surface carbon and water fluxes in other models. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include plant functional type-specific parameters to further improve modeled fluxes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available