Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements
Abstract. 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 t...
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Copernicus GmbH
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129375 |
| _version_ | 1855527044478140416 |
|---|---|
| author | Harper, Anna B. Williams, Karina E. McGuire, Patrick C. Duran Rojas, Maria Carolina Hemming, Debbie Verhoef, Anne Huntingford, Chris Rowland, Lucy Marthews, Toby Breder Eller, Cleiton Mathison, Camilla Nobrega, Rodolfo L.B. Gedney, Nicola Vidale, Pier Luigi Otu-Larbi, Fred Pandey, Divya Garrigues, Sebastien Wright, Azin Slevin, Darren Kauwe, Martin G. de Blyth, Eleanor Ardö, Jonas Black, Andrew Bonal, Damien Buchmann, Nina Burban, Benoit Fuchs, Kathrin Grandcourt, Agnès de Mammarella, Ivan Merbold, Lutz Montagnani, Leonardo Nouvellon, Yann Restrepo Coupe, Natalia Wohlfahrt, Georg |
| author_browse | Ardö, Jonas Black, Andrew Blyth, Eleanor Bonal, Damien Breder Eller, Cleiton Buchmann, Nina Burban, Benoit Duran Rojas, Maria Carolina Fuchs, Kathrin Garrigues, Sebastien Gedney, Nicola Grandcourt, Agnès de Harper, Anna B. Hemming, Debbie Huntingford, Chris Kauwe, Martin G. de Mammarella, Ivan Marthews, Toby Mathison, Camilla McGuire, Patrick C. Merbold, Lutz Montagnani, Leonardo Nobrega, Rodolfo L.B. Nouvellon, Yann Otu-Larbi, Fred Pandey, Divya Restrepo Coupe, Natalia Rowland, Lucy Slevin, Darren Verhoef, Anne Vidale, Pier Luigi Williams, Karina E. Wohlfahrt, Georg Wright, Azin |
| author_facet | Harper, Anna B. Williams, Karina E. McGuire, Patrick C. Duran Rojas, Maria Carolina Hemming, Debbie Verhoef, Anne Huntingford, Chris Rowland, Lucy Marthews, Toby Breder Eller, Cleiton Mathison, Camilla Nobrega, Rodolfo L.B. Gedney, Nicola Vidale, Pier Luigi Otu-Larbi, Fred Pandey, Divya Garrigues, Sebastien Wright, Azin Slevin, Darren Kauwe, Martin G. de Blyth, Eleanor Ardö, Jonas Black, Andrew Bonal, Damien Buchmann, Nina Burban, Benoit Fuchs, Kathrin Grandcourt, Agnès de Mammarella, Ivan Merbold, Lutz Montagnani, Leonardo Nouvellon, Yann Restrepo Coupe, Natalia Wohlfahrt, Georg |
| author_sort | Harper, Anna B. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | Abstract. 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 “soil14_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. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace129375 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publishDateRange | 2021 |
| publishDateSort | 2021 |
| publisher | Copernicus GmbH |
| publisherStr | Copernicus GmbH |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace1293752025-12-08T10:11:39Z Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements Harper, Anna B. Williams, Karina E. McGuire, Patrick C. Duran Rojas, Maria Carolina Hemming, Debbie Verhoef, Anne Huntingford, Chris Rowland, Lucy Marthews, Toby Breder Eller, Cleiton Mathison, Camilla Nobrega, Rodolfo L.B. Gedney, Nicola Vidale, Pier Luigi Otu-Larbi, Fred Pandey, Divya Garrigues, Sebastien Wright, Azin Slevin, Darren Kauwe, Martin G. de Blyth, Eleanor Ardö, Jonas Black, Andrew Bonal, Damien Buchmann, Nina Burban, Benoit Fuchs, Kathrin Grandcourt, Agnès de Mammarella, Ivan Merbold, Lutz Montagnani, Leonardo Nouvellon, Yann Restrepo Coupe, Natalia Wohlfahrt, Georg evaluation soil soil moisture improvement plant Abstract. 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 “soil14_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. 2021-06-03 2023-03-10T14:33:59Z 2023-03-10T14:33:59Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129375 en Open Access Copernicus GmbH Harper, Anna B.; Williams, Karina E.; McGuire, Patrick C.; Duran Rojas, Maria Carolina; Hemming, Debbie; Verhoef, Anne; Huntingford, Chris; Rowland, Lucy; Marthews, Toby; Breder Eller, Cleiton; Mathison, Camilla; Nobrega, Rodolfo L.B.; Gedney, Nicola; Vidale, Pier Luigi; Otu-Larbi, Fred; Pandey, Divya; Garrigues, Sebastien; Wright, Azin; Slevin, Darren; Kauwe, Martin G. de; Blyth, Eleanor; Ardö, Jonas; Black, Andrew; Bonal, Damien; Buchmann, Nina; Burban, Benoit; Fuchs, Kathrin; Grandcourt, Agnès de; Mammarella, Ivan; Merbold, Lutz; Montagnani, Leonardo; Nouvellon, Yann; Restrepo-Coupe, Natalia; Wohlfahrt, Georg. 2021. Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements. Geoscientific Model Development 14: 3269-3294 |
| spellingShingle | evaluation soil soil moisture improvement plant Harper, Anna B. Williams, Karina E. McGuire, Patrick C. Duran Rojas, Maria Carolina Hemming, Debbie Verhoef, Anne Huntingford, Chris Rowland, Lucy Marthews, Toby Breder Eller, Cleiton Mathison, Camilla Nobrega, Rodolfo L.B. Gedney, Nicola Vidale, Pier Luigi Otu-Larbi, Fred Pandey, Divya Garrigues, Sebastien Wright, Azin Slevin, Darren Kauwe, Martin G. de Blyth, Eleanor Ardö, Jonas Black, Andrew Bonal, Damien Buchmann, Nina Burban, Benoit Fuchs, Kathrin Grandcourt, Agnès de Mammarella, Ivan Merbold, Lutz Montagnani, Leonardo Nouvellon, Yann Restrepo Coupe, Natalia Wohlfahrt, Georg Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements |
| title | Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements |
| title_full | Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements |
| title_fullStr | Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements |
| title_full_unstemmed | Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements |
| title_short | Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements |
| title_sort | improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in julesvn4 9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements |
| topic | evaluation soil soil moisture improvement plant |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129375 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT harperannab improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT williamskarinae improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT mcguirepatrickc improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT duranrojasmariacarolina improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT hemmingdebbie improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT verhoefanne improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT huntingfordchris improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT rowlandlucy improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT marthewstoby improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT brederellercleiton improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT mathisoncamilla improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT nobregarodolfolb improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT gedneynicola improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT vidalepierluigi improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT otularbifred improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT pandeydivya improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT garriguessebastien improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT wrightazin improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT slevindarren improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT kauwemartingde improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT blytheleanor improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT ardojonas improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT blackandrew improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT bonaldamien improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT buchmannnina improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT burbanbenoit improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT fuchskathrin improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT grandcourtagnesde improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT mammarellaivan improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT merboldlutz improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT montagnanileonardo improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT nouvellonyann improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT restrepocoupenatalia improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements AT wohlfahrtgeorg improvementofmodelingplantresponsestolowsoilmoistureinjulesvn49andevaluationagainstfluxtowermeasurements |