Ensemble evaluation of hydrologically enhanced Noah-LSM: Partitioning of the water balance in high-resolution simulations over the little washita river experimental watershed

Journal of Hydrometeorology

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 45-64

  Rosero, Enrique ^a,e   Gulden, Lindsey E ^a,e   Yang, Zong Liang ^a   de Goncalves, Luis G ^b   Niu, Guo Yue ^c   Kaheil, Yasir H ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^d Earth Institute   (United States)

^e EXXONMOBIL UPSTREAM RESEARCH COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ensembles; Land surface models; North America; Water budget balance; Watersheds

Indexed keywords

ENSEMBLE FORECASTING; HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; RUNOFF; STREAMFLOW; WATER BUDGET; WATERSHED;

LITTLE WASHITA RIVER; OKLAHOMA [UNITED STATES]; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79955028959     PISSN: 1525755X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1175/2010JHM1228.1     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Allen, P. B., and J. W. Naney, 1991: Hydrology of the Little Washita River Watershed, Oklahoma: Data and analyses. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS-90, 74 pp.
2. Bai, Y., T. Wagener, and P. Reed, 2009:Atop-down framework for watershed model evaluation and selection under uncertainty. Environ. Model. Software, 24, 901-916, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft. 2008.12.012.
3. Bastidas, L. A., T. S. Hogue, S. Sorooshian, H. V. Gupta, and W. J. Shuttleworth, 2006: Parameter sensitivity analysis for different complexity land surface models using multicriteria methods. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D20101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006377.
4. Bates, B. C., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. P. Palutikof, 2008: Climate change and water. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Tech. Paper, 210 pp.
5. Beven, K. J., 1989: Changing ideas of hydrology: The case of physically based models. J. Hydrol., 105, 157-172.
6. Beven, K. J., 2001: How far can we go in distributed hydrological modelling? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 1-12.
7. Beven, K. J., 2002: Towards an alternative blueprint for a physically based digitally simulated hydrologic response modelling system. Hydrol. Processes, 16, 189-206.
8. Beven, K. J., and A. Binley, 1992: The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Processes, 6, 279-298.
9. Boone, A., and Coauthors, 2004: The Rhône-Aggregation Land Surface Scheme intercomparison project: An overview. J. Climate, 17, 187-208.
10. Box, G. E. P., and D. R. Cox, 1964: An analysis of transformations. J. Roy. Stat. Soc., 26, 211-252.
11. Chen, F., and J. Dudhia, 2001: Coupling an advanced land surface-hydrology model with the Penn State-NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: Model implementation and sensitivity. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129, 569-586.
12. Chen, F., and Coauthors, 1996: Modeling of land surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations. J. Geophys. Res., 101 (D3), 7251-7268.
13. Chen, J., and P. Kumar, 2001: Topographic influence on the seasonal and inter-annual variation of water and energy balance of basins in North America. J. Climate, 14, 1989-2014.
14. Chen, T. H., and Coauthors, 1997: Cabauw experimental results from the Project for Intercomparison of Land-Surface Parameterization Schemes. J. Climate, 10, 1194-1215.
15. Clapp, R. B., and G. M. Hornberger, 1978: Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties. Water Resour. Res., 14, 601-604.
16. Clark, M. P., A. G. Slater, D. E. Rupp, R. A. Woods, J. A. Vrugt, H. V. Gupta, T. Wagener, and L. E. Hay, 2008: Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models. Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, doi:10.1029/2007WR006735.
17. Cosgrove, B. A., and Coauthors, 2003: Real-time and retrospective forcing in the North American LandData Assimilation System (NLDAS) project. J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8842, doi:10.1029/2002JD003118.
18. Dai, Y., and Coauthors, 2003: The Common Land Model. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 1013-1023.
19. Dirmeyer, P. A., 2006: The hydrologic feedback pathway for land-climate coupling. J. Hydrometeor., 7, 857-867.
20. Ducharne, A., R. D. Koster, M. J. Suarez, M. Stieglitz, and P. Kumar, 2000: A catchment-based approach to modeling land surface processes in a general circulation model 2. Parameter estimation and model demonstration. J. Geophys. Res., 105 (D20), 24 823-24 838.
21. Ek, M. B., K. E. Mitchell, Y. Lin, E. Rogers, P. Grunmann, V. Koren, G. Gayno, and J. D. Tarpley, 2003: Implementation of Noah land surface model advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational mesoscale Eta model. J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8851, doi:10.1029/2002JD003296.
22. Famiglietti, J. S., E. F. Wood, M. Sivapalan, and D. J. Thongs, 1992: A catchment scale water balance model for FIFE. J. Geophys. Res., 97, 18 997-19 007.
23. Famiglietti, J. S., D. Ryu, A. A. Berg, M. Rodell, and T. J. Jackson, 2008: Field observations of soil moisture variability across scales. Water Resour. Res., 44, W01423, doi:10.1029/2006WR005804.
24. Fan, Y., G.Miguez-Macho, C. P. Weaver, R.Walko, and A. Robock, 2007: Incorporating water table dynamics in climate modeling: 1. Water table observations and the equilibrium water table. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D10125, doi:10.1029/2006JD008111.
25. Farmer, D., M. Sivapalan, and C. Jothityangkoon, 2003: Climate, soil, and vegetation controls upon the variability of water balance in temperate and semiarid landscapes: Downward approach to water balance analysis. Water Resour. Res., 39, 1035, doi:10.1029/2001WR000328.
26. Gulden, L. E., E. Rosero, Z.-L. Yang, M. Rodell, C. S. Jackson, G.-Y. Niu, P. J.-F. Yeh, and J. Famiglietti, 2007: Improving land-surface model hydrology: Is an explicit aquifer model better than a deeper soil profile? Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L09402, doi:10.1029/2007GL029804.
27. Gulden, L. E., E. Rosero, Z.-L. Yang, T. Wagener, and G.-Y. Niu, 2008: Model performance, model robustness, and model fitness scores: A new method for identifying good land-surface models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11404, doi:10.1029/2008GL033721.
28. Gutowski, W. J., Jr., C. J. Vörösmarty, M. Person, Z. Ötles, B. Fekete, and J. York, 2002: A Coupled Land-Atmosphere Simulation Program (CLASP): Calibration and validation. J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4283, doi:10.1029/2001JD000392.
29. Hansen, M. C., R. S. DeFries, J. R. G. Townshend, and R. Sohlberg, 2000: Global land cover classification at 1 km spatial resolution using a classification tree approach. Int. J. Remote Sens., 21 (6-7), 1389-1414.
30. Hogue, T. S., L. A. Bastidas, H. V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian, 2006: Evaluating model performance and parameter behavior for varying levels of land surface model complexity. Water Resour. Res., 42, W08430, doi:10.1029/2005WR004440.
31. Hornberger, G. M., and R. C. Spear, 1981: An approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems. J. Environ. Manage., 12, 7-18.
32. Jakeman, A. J., and G. M. Hornberger, 1993: How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model? Water Resour. Res., 29, 2637-2649.
33. Kirchner, J. W., 2006: Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resour. Res., 42, W03S04, doi:10.1029/2005WR004362.
34. Kollet, S. J., and R. M. Maxwell, 2008: Capturing the influence of groundwater dynamics on land surface processes using an integrated, distributed watershed model. Water Resour. Res., 44, W02402, doi:10.1029/2007WR006004.
35. Konikow, L. F., and J. D. Bredehoeft, 1992: Groundwater models cannot be validated. Adv. Water Resour., 15, 13-24.
36. Koster, R. D., and P. C. D. Milly, 1997: The interplay between transpiration and runoff formulations in land surface schemes used with atmospheric models. J. Climate, 10, 1578-1591.
37. Koster, R. D., M. J. Suarez, A. Ducharne, M. Stieglitz, and P. Kumar, 2000: A catchment-based approach to modeling land surface processes in a general circulation model 1. Model structure. J. Geophys. Res., 105 (D20), 24 809-24 822.
38. Li, H., A. Robock, and M. Wild, 2007: Evaluation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment soil moisture simulations for the second half of the twentieth century. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06106, doi:10.1029/2006JD007455.
39. Liang, X., E. F. Wood, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 1996: Surface soil moisture parameterization of the VIC-2L model: Evaluation and modification. Global Planet. Change, 13, 195-206.
40. Liang, X., and Coauthors, 1998: The Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes (PILPS) phase 2(c) Red-Arkansas River basin experiment: 2. Spatial and temporal analysis of energy fluxes. Global Planet. Change, 19, 137-159.
41. Liang, X., Z. Xie, and M. Huang, 2003: A new parameterization for surface and groundwater interactions and its impact on water budgets with the variable infiltration capacity (VIC) land surfacemodel. J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8613, doi:10.1029/2002JD003090.
42. Lo, M. H., P. J. F. Yeh, and J. S. Famiglietti, 2008: Constraining water table depth simulations in a land surface model using estimated baseflow. Adv. Water Resour., 31, 1552-1564.
43. Lohmann, D., and Coauthors, 1998: The Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes (PILPS) phase 2(c) Red-Arkansas River basin experiment: 3. Spatial and temporal analysis of water fluxes. Global Planet. Change, 19, 161-179.
44. Maxwell, R. M., and N. L. Miller, 2005: Development of a coupled land surface and ground water model. J. Hydrometeor., 6, 233-247.
45. McKay, M., R. Beckman, and W. Conover, 1979: A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 21, 239-245.
46. 2 fluxes over rangeland for well watered and drought conditions. Agric. For. Meteor., 106, 205-214.
47. Mitchell, K. E., and Coauthors, 2004: The multi-institution North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS): Utilizing multiple GCIP products and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D07S90, doi:10.1029/2003JD003823.
48. Nasonova, O. N., Y. M. Gusev, and Y. E. Kovalev, 2009: Investigating the ability of a land surface model to simulate streamflow with the accuracy of hydrological models: A case study usingMOPEXmaterials. J. Hydrometeor., 10, 1128-1150.
49. Nijseen, B., and L. A. Bastidas, 2005: Land-atmosphere models for water and energy cycle studies. Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, M. G. Anderson, Ed., Vol. 5, John Wiley, 3089-3102.
50. Niu,G.-Y., and Z.-L. Yang, 2003: The versatile integrator of surface and atmosphere processes (VISA). Part II: Evaluation of three topography-based runoff schemes. Global Planet. Change, 38, 191-208.
51. Niu,G.-Y., Z.-L. Yang, R. E. Dickinson, and L. E. Gulden, 2005: A simple TOPMODEL-based runoff parameterization (SIMTOP) for use in GCMs. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D21106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006111.
52. Niu,G.-Y., Z.-L. Yang, R. E. Dickinson, L. E. Gulden, and H. Su, 2007: Development of a simple groundwater model for use in climate models and evaluation with Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment data. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D07103, doi:10.1029/2006JD007522.
53. Oki, T., T. Nishimura, and P. Dirmeyer, 1999: Assessment of land surface models by runoff in major river basins of the globe using Total Runoff Integrating Pathways (TRIP). J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 77, 235-255.
54. Overgaard, J., D. Rosbjerg, and M. B. Butts, 2006: Land-surface modelling in hydrological perspective-Areview. Biogeosciences, 3, 229-241.
55. Pitman, A. J., 2003: Review: The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes designed for climate models. Int. J. Climatol., 23, 479-510, doi:10.1002/joc.893.
56. Pitman, A. J., and Coauthors, 1999: Key results and implications from Phase 1(c) of the Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes. Climate Dyn., 15, 673-684.
57. Ratto, M., P. C. Young, R. Romanowicz, F. Pappenberger, A. Saltelli, and A. Pagano, 2007: Uncertainty, sensitivity analysis and the role of data based mechanistic modeling in hydrology. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1249-1266.
58. Refsgaard, J. C., 1997: Parameterization, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models. J. Hydrol., 198, 69-97.
59. Refsgaard, J. C., and H. J. Henriksen, 2004: Modelling guidelines terminology and guiding principles. Adv. Water Resour., 27, 71-82.
60. Reichle, R. H., and R. D. Koster, 2005: Global assimilation of satellite surface soil moisture retrievals into the NASA Catchment land surface model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L02404, doi:10.1029/2004GL021700.
61. Rosero, E., Z.-L. Yang, L. E. Gulden, G.-Y. Niu, and D. J. Gochis, 2009: Evaluating enhanced hydrological representations in Noah LSM over transition zones: Implications for model development. J. Hydrometeor., 10, 600-622.
62. Rosero, E., Z.-L. Yang, T. Wagener, L. E. Gulden, S. Yatheendradas, and G.-Y. Niu, 2010:Quantifying parameter sensitivity, interaction and transferability in hydrologically enhanced versions of Noah-LSM over transition zones. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D03106, doi:10.1029/2009JD012035.
63. Saltelli, A., 2002: Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Comput. Phys. Commun., 145, 280-297.
64. Saltelli, A., A. Tarantola, F. Campolongo, and M. Ratto, 2004: Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models. John Wiley and Sons, 232 pp.
65. Schaake, J. C., V. I. Koren, Q.-Y. Duan, K. Mitchell, and F. Chen, 1996: Simple water balance model for estimating runoff at different spatial and temporal scales. J. Geophys. Res., 101 (D3), 7461-7475.
66. Schultz, K., and K. Beven, 2003: Data-supported robust parameterizations in land surface-atmosphere flux predictions: Toward a top-down approach. Hydrol. Processes, 17, 2259-2277.
67. Sivapalan, M., K. Beven, and E. F. Wood, 1987: On hydrologic similarity: 2.Ascaled model of storm runoff production. Water Resour. Res., 23, 2266-2278.
68. Sivapalan, M., G. Blöschl, L. Zhang, and R. Vertessy, 2003: Downward approach to hydrological prediction. Hydrol. Processes, 17, 2101-2111, doi:10.1002/hyp.1425.
69. Smakhtin, U., 2001: Low flow hydrology:A review. J. Hydrol., 240, 147-186.
70. Sobol', I. M., 1993: Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models. Math. Models Comput. Exp., 1, 407-414.
71. Sobol', I. M., 2001: Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math. Comput. Simul., 55, 271-280, doi:10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6.
72. Soil Survey Staff, cited 2009: U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2) for Oklahoma. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. [Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov.].
73. Sorooshian, S., and J. A. Dracup, 1980: Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for hydrologic rainfall-runoff models: Correlated and heteroscedastic error cases. Water Resour. Res., 16, 430-442.
74. Stieglitz, M., D. Rind, J. Famiglietti, and C. Rosenzweig, 1997: An efficient approach to modeling the topographic control of surface hydrology for regional and global modeling. J. Climate, 10, 118-137.
75. Stöckli, R., P. L. Vidale, A. Boone, and C. Schär, 2007: Impact of scale and aggregation on the terrestrial water exchange: Integrating land surface models and Rhône catchment observations. J. Hydrometeor., 8, 1002-1015.
76. Stöckli, R., and Coauthors, 2008: Use of FLUXNET in the Community Land Model development. J. Geophys. Res., 113, G01025, doi:10.1029/2007JG000562.
77. van Werkhoven, K., T. Wagener, P. Reed, and Y. Tang, 2008: Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient. Water Resour. Res., 44, W01429, doi:10.1029/2007WR006271.
78. Viterbo, P., 2002: A review of parametrization schemes for land surface processes. Meteorological Training Course Lecture Series, ECMWF, Shinfield Park, Reading, United Kingdom, 1-49.
79. Vogel, R. M., and N. M. Fennessey, 1994: Flow duration curves. I. A new interpretation and confidence intervals. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 120, 485-504.
80. Wagener, T., M. Sivapalan, P. Troch, and R. Woods, 2007: Catchment classification and hydrologic similarity. Geogr. Compass, 1, 901-931, doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00039.x.
81. Wetzel, P., and Coauthors, 1996: Modeling vadose zone liquid water fluxes: Infiltration, runoff, drainage, interflow. Global Planet. Change, 13, 57-71.
82. Wood, E. F., D. P. Lettenmaier, and V. G. Zartarian, 1992: Alandsurface hydrology parameterization with subgrid variability for general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res., 97 (D3), 2717-2728.
83. Wood, E. F., and Coauthors, 1998: The Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes (PILPS) phase 2(c) Red-Arkansas River basin experiment: 1. Experiment description and summary intercomparisons. Global Planet. Change, 19, 115-135.
84. Yeh, P. J.-F., and E. A. B. Eltahir, 2005: Representation of water table dynamics in a land-surface scheme. Part I: Model development. J. Climate, 18, 1861-1880.
85. Yilmaz, K. K., H. V. Gupta, and T. Wagener, 2008: A processbased diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model. Water Resour. Res., 44, W09417, doi:10.1029/2007WR006716.