• Abramopoulos, F., C. Rosenzweig, and B. Choudhury, 1988: Improved ground hydrology calculations for global climate models (GCMs): Soil water movement and evapotranspiration. J. Climate,1, 921–941.

  • Budyko, M. I., 1974: Climate and Life. Academic Press, 508 pp.

  • Chen, T. H., and Coauthors, 1997: Cabauw experimental results from the Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes (PILPS). J. Climate,10, 1194–1215.

  • Cuenca, R. H., M. Ek, and L. Mahrt, 1996: Impact of soil water property parameterization on atmospheric boundary layer simulation. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 7269–7277.

  • Desborough, C. E., 1997: The impact of root-weighting on the response of transpiration to moisture stress in land surface schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 1920–1930.

  • ——, A. J. Pitman, and P. J. Irannejad, 1996: Analysis of the relationship between bare soil evaporation and soil moisture simulated by 13 land surface schemes for a simple non-vegetated site. Global Planet. Change,13, 47–56.

  • Dickinson, R. E., A. Henderson-Sellers, and P. J. Kennedy, 1993: Biosphere–Atmosphere Transfer Scheme (BATS) Version 1e as coupled to the NCAR community climate model. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-387+STR, 72 pp. [Available from National Center for Atmospheric Research, P. O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • Ducoudre, N. I., K. Laval, and A. Perrier, 1993: SECHIBA, a new set of parameterizations of the hydrologic exchanges at the land/atmosphere interface within the LMD atmospheric general circulation model. J. Climate,6, 248–273.

  • Gedney, N., 1996: Development of a Land Surface Scheme and its Application to the Sahel. University of Reading, 200 pp.

  • Gregory, D., and R. N. B. Smith, 1994: Canopy, surface and soil hydrology. Unified Model Documentation Paper 25, 19 pp. [Available from U.K. Meterological Office, London Road, Bracknell RG12 2SZ, England.].

  • Henderson-Sellers, A., Z.-L. Yang, and R. E. Dickinson, 1993: The Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,74, 1335–1349.

  • Koster, R. D., and M. J. Suarez, 1996: Energy and water balance calculations in the Mosaic LSM. NASA Tech. Memo. 104606, Vol. 9, 59 pp. [Available from NASA/Center for Aerospace Information, 800 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum Heights, MD 21090.].

  • Kowalczyk, E. A., J. R. Garratt, and P. B. Krummel, 1991: A soil-canopy scheme for use in a numerical model of the atmosphere—1D stand-alone model. CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research Technical Paper 23, 56 pp. [Available from CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia.].

  • Liang, X., D. P. Lettenmaier, E. F. Wood, and S. J. Burges, 1994: A simple hydrologically-based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res.,99, 14 415–14 428.

  • ——, E. F. Wood, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 1996: Surface soil moisture parameterization of the VIC-2L model: Evaluation and modifications. Global Planet. Change,13, 195–206.

  • Milly, P. C. D., 1992: Potential evaporation and soil moisture in general circulation models. J. Climate,5, 209–226.

  • Noilhan, J., and S. Planton, 1989: A simple parameterization of land surface processes for meteorological models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117, 536–549.

  • Pitman, A., and Coauthors, 1993: Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes, Results from offline control simulations (Phase 1a). International GEWEX Project Office Publication Series No. 7, GEWEX/WCRP, 47 pp. [Available from International GEWEX Project Office, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1210, Silver Spring, MD 20910.].

  • Polcher, J., K. Laval, L. Dumenil, J. Lean, and P. R. Rowntree, 1996: Comparing three land surface schemes used in general circulation models. J. Hydrol.,180, 373–394.

  • Robock, A., K. Ya. Vinnikov, C. A. Schlosser, N. A. Speranskaya, and Y. K. Xue, 1995: Use of midlatitude soil moisture and meteorological observations to validate soil moisture simulations with biosphere and bucket models. J. Climate,8, 15–35.

  • Shmakin, A. B., A. Yu. Mikhailov, and S. A. Bulanov, 1993: Parameterization scheme of the land hydrology considering the orography at different spatial scales. Exchange Processes at the Land Surface for a Range of Space and Time Scales, H.-J. Bolle, R. A. Feddes, and J. D. Kalma, Eds., IAHS, 569–575.

  • ——, O. N. Nasonova, and Y. M. Gusev, 1996: Relative importance of some processes description in the soil-vegetation-atmosphere transfer modeling (results of PILPS-type experiments). Preprints, Second Int. Scientific Conf. on the Global Energy and Water Cycle, Washington, DC, GEWEX-WCRP, 168–169.

  • Sud, Y. C., and M. J. Fennessy, 1982: An observational-data based evapotranspiration function for general circulation models. Atmos.–Ocean,20, 301–316.

  • Verseghy, D. L., N. A. McFarlane, and M. Lazare, 1993: CLASS—A Canadian land surface scheme for GCMs, II. Vegetation model and coupled runs. Int. J. Climatol.,13, 347–370.

  • Wetzel, P. J., and A. Boone, 1995: A parameterization for land–atmosphere–cloud exchange (PLACE): Documentation and testing of a detailed process model of the partly cloudy boundary layer over heterogeneous land. J. Climate,8, 1810–1837.

  • ——, X. Liang, P. Irannejad, A. Boone, J. Noilhan, Y. Shao, C. Skelly, Y. Xue, and Z. L. Yang, 1996: Modeling vadose zone liquid water fluxes: Infiltration, runoff, drainage, interflow. Global Planet. Change,13, 57–71.

  • Xue, Y., P. J. Sellers, J. L. Kinter, and J. Shukla, 1991: A simplified biosphere model for global climate studies. J. Climate,4, 345–364.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 194 194 92
PDF Downloads 69 69 8

The Interplay between Transpiration and Runoff Formulations in Land Surface Schemes Used with Atmospheric Models

View More View Less
  • 1 Hydrological Sciences Branch, Laboratory for Hydrospheric Processes, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
  • | 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, Princeton, New Jersey
© Get Permissions Rent on DeepDyve
Restricted access

Abstract

The Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes (PILPS) has shown that different land surface models (LSMs) driven by the same meteorological forcing can produce markedly different surface energy and water budgets, even when certain critical aspects of the LSMs (vegetation cover, albedo, turbulent drag coefficient, and snowcover) are carefully controlled. To help explain these differences, the authors devised a monthly water balance model that successfully reproduces the annual and seasonal water balances of the different PILPS schemes. Analysis of this model leads to the identification of two quantities that characterize an LSM’s formulation of soil water balance dynamics: 1) the efficiency of the soil’s evaporation sink integrated over the active soil moisture range, and 2) the fraction of this range over which runoff is generated. Regardless of the LSM’s complexity, the combination of these two derived parameters with rates of interception loss, potential evaporation, and precipitation provides a reasonable estimate for the LSM’s simulated annual water balance. The two derived parameters shed light on how evaporation and runoff formulations interact in an LSM, and the analysis as a whole underscores the need for compatibility in these formulations.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Randal D. Koster, Hydrological Sciences Branch, NASA/GSFC, Code 974, Greenbelt, MD 20771.

Email: randal.koster@gsfc.nasa.gov

Abstract

The Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes (PILPS) has shown that different land surface models (LSMs) driven by the same meteorological forcing can produce markedly different surface energy and water budgets, even when certain critical aspects of the LSMs (vegetation cover, albedo, turbulent drag coefficient, and snowcover) are carefully controlled. To help explain these differences, the authors devised a monthly water balance model that successfully reproduces the annual and seasonal water balances of the different PILPS schemes. Analysis of this model leads to the identification of two quantities that characterize an LSM’s formulation of soil water balance dynamics: 1) the efficiency of the soil’s evaporation sink integrated over the active soil moisture range, and 2) the fraction of this range over which runoff is generated. Regardless of the LSM’s complexity, the combination of these two derived parameters with rates of interception loss, potential evaporation, and precipitation provides a reasonable estimate for the LSM’s simulated annual water balance. The two derived parameters shed light on how evaporation and runoff formulations interact in an LSM, and the analysis as a whole underscores the need for compatibility in these formulations.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Randal D. Koster, Hydrological Sciences Branch, NASA/GSFC, Code 974, Greenbelt, MD 20771.

Email: randal.koster@gsfc.nasa.gov

Save