On the Sensitivity of the Precipitation Partitioning Into Evapotranspiration and Runoff in Land Surface Parameterizations

The precipitation partitioning between evapotranspiration (ET) and runoff (R) at the land surface is controlled by atmospheric boundary layer and terrestrial hydrological processes. These processes in land surface models are manifested primarily as stomatal conductance, soil moisture limitation factor to transpiration (β‐factor), turbulence, and runoff generation. What are the sensitivities of precipitation partitioning to the parameterizations of these processes? To address this overarching question, the annual and seasonal means of ET and R over the conterminous United States were simulated using 48 configurations of the Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah‐MP). The Sobol' total sensitive index was used to quantify the sensitivity of ET and R to the parameterizations of the four processes mentioned above. Results show that the sensitivities of the annual means depend on climatic conditions and the interplay between ET and R plays an important role. In humid regions, precipitation is mostly partitioned into R, whereas the simulations can be more sensitive to ET's parameterizations. In arid regions, ET accounts for the major partition, whereas the simulations can be more sensitive to the runoff parameterization. Seasonal means exhibit different sensitivities from the annual means. The seasonal mean ET is more sensitive to ET's parameterizations, and R is more sensitive to the runoff parameterization. The β‐factor, which is neglectable for the annual means, is important for summer‐time ET. Mediated by the terrestrial water storage memories, ET interplays R across seasons. The winter‐time R is still sensitive to the stomatal conductance that only modulates growing‐season ET.

[1]  J. Famiglietti,et al.  Global Estimates of River Flow Wave Travel Times and Implications for Low‐Latency Satellite Data , 2018 .

[2]  R. Dewar,et al.  New insights into the covariation of stomatal, mesophyll and hydraulic conductances from optimization models incorporating nonstomatal limitations to photosynthesis. , 2018, The New phytologist.

[3]  Ning Ma,et al.  A Systematic Evaluation of Noah‐MP in Simulating Land‐Atmosphere Energy, Water, and Carbon Exchanges Over the Continental United States , 2017 .

[4]  Ming Ye,et al.  A new process sensitivity index to identify important system processes under process model and parametric uncertainty , 2017 .

[5]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Challenging terrestrial biosphere models with data from the long‐term multifactor Prairie Heating and CO2 Enrichment experiment , 2017, Global change biology.

[6]  Magnus Strand,et al.  COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS , 2017 .

[7]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Effects of soil‐type datasets on regional terrestrial water cycle simulations under different climatic regimes , 2016 .

[8]  M. Clark,et al.  Towards simplification of hydrologic modeling: identification of dominant processes , 2016 .

[9]  J. H. Cushman,et al.  Model Validation: Testing Models Using Data and Sensitivity Analysis , 2016 .

[10]  Sabine Attinger,et al.  The impact of standard and hard‐coded parameters on the hydrologic fluxes in the Noah‐MP land surface model , 2016 .

[11]  T. Hoar,et al.  Global Soil Moisture Estimation by Assimilating AMSR-E Brightness Temperatures in a Coupled CLM4-RTM-DART System , 2016 .

[12]  Fei Chen,et al.  Assessing uncertainties in the Noah‐MP ensemble simulations of a cropland site during the Tibet Joint International Cooperation program field campaign , 2016 .

[13]  R. Maxwell,et al.  Connections between groundwater flow and transpiration partitioning , 2016, Science.

[14]  Gil Bohrer,et al.  Tree level hydrodynamic approach for resolving aboveground water storage and stomatal conductance and modeling the effects of tree hydraulic strategy , 2016 .

[15]  Yuanchao Fan.  Modeling oil palm monoculture and its associated impacts on land-atmosphere carbon, water and energy fluxes in Indonesia , 2016 .

[16]  Lifeng Luo,et al.  Basin‐scale assessment of the land surface water budget in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational and research NLDAS‐2 systems , 2016 .

[17]  J. Freer,et al.  Improving the theoretical underpinnings of process‐based hydrologic models , 2016 .

[18]  Sujay V. Kumar,et al.  Basin‐scale assessment of the land surface energy budget in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational and research NLDAS‐2 systems , 2016 .

[19]  H. Gupta,et al.  A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 1. Theory , 2016 .

[20]  H. Gupta,et al.  A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 2. Application , 2016 .

[21]  G. Mirfenderesgi.  Tree-level hydrodynamic approach for modeling aboveground water storage and stomatal conductance illuminates the effects of tree hydraulic strategy , 2016 .

[22]  Sabine Attinger,et al.  Accelerating advances in continental domain hydrologic modeling , 2015 .

[23]  M. Ek,et al.  Comparison of NLDAS-2 Simulated and NASMD Observed Daily Soil Moisture. Part II: Impact of Soil Texture Classification and Vegetation Type Mismatches , 2015 .

[24]  Steven M. Quiring,et al.  Comparison of NLDAS-2 Simulated and NASMD Observed Daily Soil Moisture. Part I: Comparison and Analysis , 2015 .

[25]  Sabine Attinger,et al.  Computationally inexpensive identification of noninformative model parameters by sequential screening , 2015 .

[26]  D. Lawrence,et al.  Improving the representation of hydrologic processes in Earth System Models , 2015 .

[27]  G. Katul,et al.  Turbulent Energy Spectra and Cospectra of Momentum and Heat Fluxes in the Stable Atmospheric Surface Layer , 2015, Boundary-Layer Meteorology.

[28]  Gabriel G. Katul,et al.  Revisiting the Turbulent Prandtl Number in an Idealized Atmospheric Surface Layer , 2015 .

[29]  Saman Razavi,et al.  What do we mean by sensitivity analysis? The need for comprehensive characterization of “global” sensitivity in Earth and Environmental systems models , 2015 .

[30]  Francesca Pianosi,et al.  A simple and efficient method for global sensitivity analysis based on cumulative distribution functions , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[31]  R. Koster.  “Efficiency Space”: A Framework for Evaluating Joint Evaporation and Runoff Behavior* , 2015 .

[32]  M. Clark,et al.  Effects of Hydrologic Model Choice and Calibration on the Portrayal of Climate Change Impacts , 2015 .

[33]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  A unified approach for process‐based hydrologic modeling: 1. Modeling concept , 2015 .

[34]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  A unified approach for process‐based hydrologic modeling: 2. Model implementation and case studies , 2015 .

[35]  R. Maxwell,et al.  A high-resolution simulation of groundwater and surface water over most of the continental US with the integrated hydrologic model ParFlow v3 , 2015 .

[36]  Fei Chen,et al.  The effect of groundwater interaction in North American regional climate simulations with WRF/Noah-MP , 2015, Climatic Change.

[37]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Assessment of simulated water balance from Noah, Noah‐MP, CLM, and VIC over CONUS using the NLDAS test bed , 2014 .

[38]  R. Dickinson,et al.  Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  G. Senay,et al.  A comprehensive evaluation of two MODIS evapotranspiration products over the conterminous United States: Using point and gridded FLUXNET and water balance ET , 2013 .

[40]  M. Ek,et al.  Continental‐scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS‐2): 2. Validation of model‐simulated streamflow , 2012 .

[41]  K. Mo,et al.  Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 1. Intercomparison and application of model products , 2012 .

[42]  R. Dickinson,et al.  A review of global terrestrial evapotranspiration: Observation, modeling, climatology, and climatic variability , 2011 .

[43]  Jan Polcher,et al.  Acceleration of Land Surface Model Development over a Decade of Glass , 2011 .

[44]  Robert Leconte,et al.  Uncertainty of hydrological modelling in climate change impact studies in a Canadian, snow-dominated river basin , 2011 .

[45]  P. Dirmeyer.  A History and Review of the Global Soil Wetness Project (GSWP) , 2011 .

[46]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling , 2011 .

[47]  Kevin W. Manning,et al.  The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 1. Model description and evaluation with local-scale measurements , 2011 .

[48]  Kevin W. Manning,et al.  The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 2. Evaluation over global river basins , 2011 .

[49]  D. Shahsavani,et al.  Variance-based sensitivity analysis of model outputs using surrogate models , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[50]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Evaluation of global observations‐based evapotranspiration datasets and IPCC AR4 simulations , 2011 .

[51]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Global intercomparison of 12 land surface heat flux estimates , 2011 .

[52]  Dennis P. Lettenmaier,et al.  Skill in streamflow forecasts derived from large-scale estimates of soil moisture and snow , 2010 .

[53]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Quantifying parameter sensitivity, interaction, and transferability in hydrologically enhanced versions of the Noah land surface model over transition zones during the warm season , 2010 .

[54]  Paola Annoni,et al.  Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index , 2010, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[55]  A. Bondeau,et al.  Towards global empirical upscaling of FLUXNET eddy covariance observations: validation of a model tree ensemble approach using a biosphere model , 2009 .

[56]  Hubert H. G. Savenije,et al.  Analytical derivation of the Budyko curve based on rainfall characteristics and a simple evaporation model , 2009 .

[57]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Impacts of vegetation and groundwater dynamics on warm season precipitation over the Central United States , 2009 .

[58]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  The Partitioning of Evapotranspiration into Transpiration, Soil Evaporation, and Canopy Evaporation in a GCM: Impacts on Land–Atmosphere Interaction , 2007 .

[59]  Dagang Wang,et al.  Quantifying the Strength of Soil Moisture–Precipitation Coupling and Its Sensitivity to Changes in Surface Water Budget , 2007 .

[60]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Development of a simple groundwater model for use in climate models and evaluation with Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment data , 2007 .

[61]  Naota Hanasaki,et al.  GSWP-2 Multimodel Analysis and Implications for Our Perception of the Land Surface , 2006 .

[62]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  A simple TOPMODEL-based runoff parameterization (SIMTOP) for use in global climate models , 2005 .

[63]  Tod A. Laursen,et al.  Finite element tree crown hydrodynamics model (FETCH) using porous media flow within branching elements: A new representation of tree hydrodynamics , 2005 .

[64]  J. D. Tarpley,et al.  The multi‐institution North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS): Utilizing multiple GCIP products and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system , 2004 .

[65]  D. Mocko,et al.  Simulation of high-latitude hydrological processes in the Torne-Kalix basin: PILPS phase 2(e) - 1: Experiment description and summary intercomparisons , 2003 .

[66]  X. Zeng,et al.  How does the partitioning of evapotranspiration and runoff between different processes affect the variability and predictability of soil moisture and precipitation? , 2003 .

[67]  A. Pitman.  The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes designed for climate models , 2003 .

[68]  W. Oechel,et al.  FLUXNET: A New Tool to Study the Temporal and Spatial Variability of Ecosystem-Scale Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor, and Energy Flux Densities , 2001 .

[69]  J. Dudhia,et al.  Coupling an Advanced Land Surface–Hydrology Model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 Modeling System. Part I: Model Implementation and Sensitivity , 2001 .

[70]  K. Alapaty,et al.  Comparison of four different stomatal resistance schemes using FIFE data. Part II: Analysis of terrestrial biospheric-atmospheric interactions , 1998 .

[71]  K. Mitchell,et al.  Impact of Atmospheric Surface-layer Parameterizations in the new Land-surface Scheme of the NCEP Mesoscale Eta Model , 1997 .

[72]  Keith Beven,et al.  Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in land surface‐atmosphere flux predictions , 1997 .

[73]  Sethu Raman,et al.  Comparison of Four Different Stomatal Resistance Schemes Using FIFE Observations , 1997 .

[74]  Randal D. Koster,et al.  The Interplay between Transpiration and Runoff Formulations in Land Surface Schemes Used with Atmospheric Models , 1997 .

[75]  H. Mooney,et al.  Modeling the Exchanges of Energy, Water, and Carbon Between Continents and the Atmosphere , 1997, Science.

[76]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Description of the Biosphere-Atmosphere Transfer Scheme (BATS) for the Soil Moisture Workshop and evaluation of its performance , 1996 .

[77]  K. Mitchell,et al.  Simple water balance model for estimating runoff at different spatial and temporal scales , 1996 .

[78]  Y. Xue,et al.  Modeling of land surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations , 1996 .

[79]  Andrew J. Pitman,et al.  Assessing the Sensitivity of a Land-Surface Scheme to the Parameter Values Using a Single Column Model , 1994 .

[80]  R. Dickinson,et al.  The Project for Intercomparison of Land Surface Parameterization Schemes (PILPS): Phases 2 and 3 , 1993 .

[81]  Ann Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Biosphere-atmosphere transfer scheme(BATS) version 1e as coupled to the NCAR community climate model , 1993 .

[82]  G. Collatz,et al.  Coupled Photosynthesis-Stomatal Conductance Model for Leaves of C4 Plants , 1992 .

[83]  G. Collatz,et al.  Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer , 1991 .

[84]  Piers J. Sellers,et al.  A Simplified Biosphere Model for Global Climate Studies , 1991 .

[85]  I. E. Woodrow,et al.  A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions , 1987 .

[86]  W. Brutsaert.  Evaporation into the atmosphere , 1982 .

[87]  P. Jarvis.  The Interpretation of the Variations in Leaf Water Potential and Stomatal Conductance Found in Canopies in the Field , 1976 .

[88]  Fan Yuanchao.  Modeling oil palm monoculture and its associated impacts on land-atmosphere carbon, water and energy fluxes in Indonesia , 2022 .