Evaluation and improvement of the default soil hydraulic parameters for the Noah Land Surface Model

被引:40
|
作者
Kishne, Andrea Sz. [1 ]
Yimam, Yohannes Tadesse [1 ]
Morgan, Cristine L. S. [1 ]
Dornblaser, Bright C. [2 ]
机构
[1] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Soil & Crop Sci, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
[2] Texas Commiss Environm Qual, Air Qual Div, Austin, TX 78711 USA
关键词
Noah land surface model; Soil hydraulic parameter; Pedotransfer function; Soil moisture; WATER-FLOW; MOISTURE; SENSITIVITY; SIMULATION; IMPLEMENTATION; CONDUCTIVITY; FLUXES; MM5;
D O I
10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.09.022
中图分类号
S15 [土壤学];
学科分类号
0903 ; 090301 ;
摘要
Soil hydraulic parameters used in estimating soil water and energy fluxes are included in a lookup table in the Noah Land Surface Model (ISM). The purpose of the study was to examine the Noah default soil hydraulic parameters and compare them to soil measurements across Texas, USA. These default soil parameters were compared to measured soil properties from a soil database including 6749 soil samples located within and around Texas. Mean differences between measured and default soil parameters were tested using a t-test (alpha = 0.05). To assess the proposed changes to default soil parameters, water retention curves were created using updated parameters and compared to measured soil moisture content at field capacity (theta(fc)) and permanent wilting point (theta(wp)). Spatial trends across major land resource areas in Texas were also demonstrated for water retention parameters. Our findings indicate that 95% of the default soil parameters were significantly different from the region-specific measured values. Measured soil water content at air-dry, theta(wp), and theta(fc) are better replacements than default values. Consequent changes in theta(wp) and theta(fc) yielded a 35 to 76% decrease in plant available water compared to default Updated water retention curves showed improved agreement between estimated soil water and measured values in 95% of cases. For three texture classes, the standard deviations of parameters for water retention parameters ranged 30% for the slope of the water retention curve and 65% for saturated hydraulic conductivity. These results indicate the importance of accounting for spatial variability of soil parameters rather than combining these parameters into texture classes alone. The revised parameter table improves modeling of soil hydraulic properties. Ultimately spatially distributed databases of hydraulic soil parameters will better capture variability and spatial structure of soil processes modeled by Noah LSM. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:247 / 259
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation and transferability of the Noah land surface model in semiarid environments
    Hogue, TS
    Bastidas, L
    Gupta, H
    Sorooshian, S
    Mitchell, K
    Emmerich, W
    JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY, 2005, 6 (01) : 68 - 84
  • [2] Improvement of the Noah land surface model for warm season processes: evaluation of water and energy flux simulation
    Wei, Helin
    Xia, Youlong
    Mitchell, Kenneth E.
    Ek, Michael B.
    HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2013, 27 (02) : 297 - 303
  • [3] Integration of a Groundwater Model to the Noah Land Surface Model for Aquifer-Soil Interaction
    Samuel, Jerry B. B.
    Chakraborty, Arindam
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN MODELING EARTH SYSTEMS, 2023, 15 (07)
  • [4] Controls on surface soil drying rates observed by SMAP and simulated by the Noah land surface model
    Shellito, Peter J.
    Small, Eric E.
    Livneh, Ben
    HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2018, 22 (03) : 1649 - 1663
  • [5] Improvement and Impacts of Forest Canopy Parameters on Noah-MP Land Surface Model from UAV-Based Photogrammetry
    Chang, Ming
    Zhu, Shengjie
    Cao, Jiachen
    Chen, Bingyin
    Zhang, Qi
    Chen, Weihua
    Jia, Shiguo
    Krishnan, Padmaja
    Wang, Xuemei
    REMOTE SENSING, 2020, 12 (24) : 1 - 19
  • [6] Calibration of Noah Soil Hydraulic Property Parameters Using Surface Soil Moisture from SMOS and Basinwide In Situ Observations
    Shellito, Peter J.
    Small, Eric E.
    Cosh, Michael H.
    JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY, 2016, 17 (08) : 2275 - 2292
  • [7] Are the Noah and Noah-MP land surface models accurate for frozen soil conditions?
    Letcher, Theodore
    Eylander, John
    Shoop, Sally
    Frankenstein, Susan
    COLD REGIONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2024, 220
  • [8] Updated global soil map for the Weather Research and Forecasting model and soil moisture initialization for the Noah land surface model
    Dy, C. Y.
    Fung, J. C. H.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2016, 121 (15) : 8777 - 8800
  • [9] Enhancing Model Skill by Assimilating SMOPS Blended Soil Moisture Product into Noah Land Surface Model
    Yin, Jifu
    Zhan, Xiwu
    Zheng, Youfei
    Liu, Jicheng
    Fang, Li
    Hain, Christopher R.
    JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY, 2015, 16 (02) : 917 - 931
  • [10] Performance evaluation of WRF-Noah Land surface model estimated soil moisture for hydrological application: Synergistic evaluation using SMOS retrieved soil moisture
    Srivastava, Prashant K.
    Han, Dawei
    Rico-Ramirez, Miguel A.
    O'Neill, Peggy
    Islam, Tanvir
    Gupta, Manika
    Dai, Qiang
    JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2015, 529 : 200 - 212