Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Effect of Land–Atmosphere Interactions on the IHOP 24–25 May 2002 Convection Case

Teddy R. Holt Marine Meteorology Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Monterey, California

Search for other papers by Teddy R. Holt in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Dev Niyogi Departments of Agronomy and Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Search for other papers by Dev Niyogi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Fei Chen National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Fei Chen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Kevin Manning National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Kevin Manning in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Margaret A. LeMone National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Margaret A. LeMone in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Aneela Qureshi Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

Search for other papers by Aneela Qureshi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jan 2006
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3057.1
Page(s):
113–133
Restricted access

Abstract

Numerical simulations are conducted using the Coupled Ocean/Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS) to investigate the impact of land–vegetation processes on the prediction of mesoscale convection observed on 24–25 May 2002 during the International H2O Project (IHOP_2002). The control COAMPS configuration uses the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version of the Noah land surface model (LSM) initialized using a high-resolution land surface data assimilation system (HRLDAS). Physically consistent surface fields are ensured by an 18-month spinup time for HRLDAS, and physically consistent mesoscale fields are ensured by a 2-day data assimilation spinup for COAMPS. Sensitivity simulations are performed to assess the impact of land–vegetative processes by 1) replacing the Noah LSM with a simple slab soil model (SLAB), 2) adding a photosynthesis, canopy resistance/transpiration scheme [the gas exchange/photosynthesis-based evapotranspiration model (GEM)] to the Noah LSM, and 3) replacing the HRLDAS soil moisture with the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) 40-km Eta Data Assimilation (EDAS) operational soil fields.

CONTROL, EDAS, and GEM develop convection along the dryline and frontal boundaries 2–3 h after observed, with synoptic-scale forcing determining the location and timing. SLAB convection along the boundaries is further delayed, indicating that detailed surface parameterization is necessary for a realistic model forecast. EDAS soils are generally drier and warmer than HRLDAS, resulting in more extensive development of convection along the dryline than for CONTROL. The inclusion of photosynthesis-based evapotranspiration (GEM) improves predictive skill for both air temperature and moisture. Biases in soil moisture and temperature (as well as air temperature and moisture during the prefrontal period) are larger for EDAS than HRLDAS, indicating land–vegetative processes in EDAS are forced by anomalously warmer and drier conditions than observed. Of the four simulations, the errors in SLAB predictions of these quantities are generally the largest.

By adding a sophisticated transpiration model, the atmospheric model is able to better respond to the more detailed representation of soil moisture and temperature. The sensitivity of the synoptically forced convection to soil and vegetative processes including transpiration indicates that detailed representation of land surface processes should be included in weather forecasting models, particularly for severe storm forecasting where local-scale information is important.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Teddy R. Holt, Code 7533, Naval Research Laboratory, Monterey, CA 93943-5502. Email: holt@nrlmry.navy.mil

Abstract

Numerical simulations are conducted using the Coupled Ocean/Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS) to investigate the impact of land–vegetation processes on the prediction of mesoscale convection observed on 24–25 May 2002 during the International H2O Project (IHOP_2002). The control COAMPS configuration uses the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version of the Noah land surface model (LSM) initialized using a high-resolution land surface data assimilation system (HRLDAS). Physically consistent surface fields are ensured by an 18-month spinup time for HRLDAS, and physically consistent mesoscale fields are ensured by a 2-day data assimilation spinup for COAMPS. Sensitivity simulations are performed to assess the impact of land–vegetative processes by 1) replacing the Noah LSM with a simple slab soil model (SLAB), 2) adding a photosynthesis, canopy resistance/transpiration scheme [the gas exchange/photosynthesis-based evapotranspiration model (GEM)] to the Noah LSM, and 3) replacing the HRLDAS soil moisture with the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) 40-km Eta Data Assimilation (EDAS) operational soil fields.

CONTROL, EDAS, and GEM develop convection along the dryline and frontal boundaries 2–3 h after observed, with synoptic-scale forcing determining the location and timing. SLAB convection along the boundaries is further delayed, indicating that detailed surface parameterization is necessary for a realistic model forecast. EDAS soils are generally drier and warmer than HRLDAS, resulting in more extensive development of convection along the dryline than for CONTROL. The inclusion of photosynthesis-based evapotranspiration (GEM) improves predictive skill for both air temperature and moisture. Biases in soil moisture and temperature (as well as air temperature and moisture during the prefrontal period) are larger for EDAS than HRLDAS, indicating land–vegetative processes in EDAS are forced by anomalously warmer and drier conditions than observed. Of the four simulations, the errors in SLAB predictions of these quantities are generally the largest.

By adding a sophisticated transpiration model, the atmospheric model is able to better respond to the more detailed representation of soil moisture and temperature. The sensitivity of the synoptically forced convection to soil and vegetative processes including transpiration indicates that detailed representation of land surface processes should be included in weather forecasting models, particularly for severe storm forecasting where local-scale information is important.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Teddy R. Holt, Code 7533, Naval Research Laboratory, Monterey, CA 93943-5502. Email: holt@nrlmry.navy.mil

Save
Cover Monthly Weather Review
Monthly Weather Review

  • Atkins, N. T., R. M. Wakimoto, and C. L. Ziegler, 1998: Observations of the finescale structure of a dryline during VORTEX95. Mon. Wea. Rev, 126 , 525–550.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Baker, N. L., 1992: Quality control for the navy operational atmospheric database. Wea. Forecasting, 7 , 250–261.

  • Ball, J., I. Woodrow, and J. Berry, 1987: A model predicting stomatal resistance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. Progress in Photosynthesis Research, J. Biggins, Ed., Vol. IV, Martinus Nijhoff, 221–224.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Barker, E. H., 1992: Design of the navy's multivariate optimum interpolation analysis system. Wea. Forecasting, 7 , 220–231.

  • Calvet, J-C., J. Noilhan, J. Roujean, P. Bessemoulin, M. Cabelguenne, A. Olioso, and J. Wigneron, 1998: An interactive vegetation SVAT model tested against data from six contrasting sites. Agric. For. Meteor, 92 , 73–95.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Campbell, G. S., and J. M. Norman, 1998: An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. 2d ed. Springer, 312 pp.

  • Chang, J-T., and P. J. Wetzel, 1991: Effects of spatial variations of soil moisture and vegetation on the evolution of a prestorm environment: A case study. Mon. Wea. Rev, 119 , 1368–1390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 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 , 569–585.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chen, F., and Coauthors, 1996: Modeling of land-surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations. J. Geophys. Res, 101 , 7251–7268.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chen, F., K. W. Manning, D. N. Yates, M. A. LeMone, S. B. Trier, R. Cuenca, and D. Niyogi, 2004: Development of a High Resolution Land Data Assimilation System (HRLDAS). Preprints, 16th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, 22.3.

  • Clark, C. A., and R. W. Arritt, 1995: Numerical simulations of the effect of soil moisture and vegetation cover on the development of deep convection. J. Appl. Meteor, 34 , 2029–2045.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Collatz, G. J., J. Ball, C. Grivet, and J. Berry, 1991: Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis, and transpiration: A model that includes a laminar boundary layer. Agric. For. Meteor, 54 , 107–136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Collatz, G. J., M. Ribas-Carbo, and J. Berry, 1992: Coupled photosynthesis–stomatal conductance model for leaves of C4 plants. Aust. J. Plant Physiol, 19 , 519–538.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Doran, J. C., and S. Zhong, 1995: Variations in mixed-layer depths arising from inhomogeneous surface conditions. J. Climate, 8 , 1965–1973.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Findell, K. L., and E. A. B. Eltahir, 2003: Atmospheric controls on soil moisture–boundary layer interactions. Part II: Feedbacks within the continental United States. J. Hydrometeor, 4 , 570–583.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Grasso, L. D., 2000: A numerical simulation of dryline sensitivity to soil moisture. Mon. Wea. Rev, 128 , 2816–2834.

  • Hodur, R. M., 1997: The Naval Research Laboratory's Coupled Ocean/Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS). Mon. Wea. Rev, 125 , 1414–1430.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jacquemin, B., and J. Noilhan, 1990: Sensitivity study and validation of a land surface parameterization using the HAPEX-MOBILHY data set. Bound.-Layer Meteor, 52 , 93–134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jarvis, P. G., 1976: The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, B273 , 593–610.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • LeMone, M. A., and Coauthors, 2000: Land–atmosphere interaction research, early results, and opportunities in the Walnut River Watershed in southeast Kansas: CASES and ABLE. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 81 , 757–779.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mahfouf, J-F., E. Richard, and P. Mascart, 1987: The influence of soil and vegetation on the development of mesoscale circulations. J. Climate Appl. Meteor, 26 , 1483–1495.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mahrt, L., and M. Ek, 1984: The influence of atmospheric stability on potential evaporation. J. Climate Appl. Meteor, 23 , 222–234.

  • Mahrt, L., and H. L. Pan, 1984: A two-layer model of soil hydrology. Bound.-Layer Meteor, 29 , 1–20.

  • McCumber, M. C., and R. A. Pielke, 1981: Simulation of the effects of surface fluxes of heat and moisture in a mesoscale numerical model. Part I: Soil layer. J. Geophys. Res, 86 , 9929–9938.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McGuire, E. L., 1962: The vertical structure of three drylines as revealed by aircraft traverses. National Severe Storms Project Rep. 7, 11 pp. [Available from NCAR, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • Miller, J. E., 1948: On the concept of frontogenesis. J. Meteor, 5 , 169–171.

  • Miller, R. C., 1967: Notes on analysis and severe-storm forecasting procedures of the Military Weather Warning Center Tech. Rep. 200, U.S. Air Force Air Weather Service, Scott Air Force Base, IL, 170 pp.

  • Niyogi, D. S., 2000: Biosphere–atmosphere interactions coupled with carbon dioxide and soil moisture changes. Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, 509 pp.

  • Niyogi, D. S., and S. Raman, 1997: Comparison of four different stomatal resistance schemes using FIFE observations. J. Appl. Meteor, 36 , 903–917.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Niyogi, D. S., K. Alapaty, and S. Raman, 1998: Comparison of four different stomatal resistance schemes using FIFE observations. Part II: Analysis of terrestrial biospheric–atmospheric interactions. J. Appl. Meteor, 37 , 1301–1320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Niyogi, D. S., Y-K. Xue, and S. Raman, 2002: Hydrological land surface response in a tropical regime and a midlatitudinal regime. J. Hydrometeor, 3 , 39–56.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ogura, Y., and Y. Chen, 1977: A life history of an intense mesoscale convective storm in Oklahoma. J. Atmos. Sci, 34 , 1458–1476.

  • Pan, H-L., and L. Mahrt, 1987: Interaction between soil hydrology and boundary-layer development. Bound.-Layer Meteor, 38 , 185–202.

  • Pielke, R. A., 2001: Influence of the spatial distribution of vegetation and soils on the prediction of cumulus convective rainfall. Rev. Geophys, 39 , 151–177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rhea, J. O., 1966: A study of thunderstorm formation along drylines. J. Appl. Meteor, 5 , 58–63.

  • Sanders, F., 1955: An investigation of the structure and dynamics of an intense surface frontal zone. J. Meteor, 12 , 542–552.

  • Schaefer, J. T., 1986: The dryline. Mesoscale Meteorology and Forecasting, P. S. Ray, Ed., Amer. Meteor. Soc., 549–570.

  • Segal, M., and R. W. Arritt, 1992: Nonclassical mesoscale circulations caused by surface sensible heat flux gradients. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 73 , 1593–1604.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Segal, M., W. E. Schreiber, G. Kallos, J. R. Garratt, A. Rodi, J. Weaver, and R. A. Pielke, 1989: The impact of crop areas in northeast Colorado on midsummer mesoscale thermal circulations. Mon. Wea. Rev, 117 , 809–825.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Segal, M., R. Arritt, C. Clark, R. Rabin, and J. Brown, 1995: Scaling evaluation of the effect of surface characteristics on potential for deep convection over uniform terrain. Mon. Wea. Rev, 123 , 383–400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sellers, P., S. O. Los, C. J. Tucker, C. O. Justice, D. A. Dazlich, G. J. Collatz, and D. A. Randall, 1996: A revised land surface parameterization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMs. Part II: The generation of global fields of terrestrial biophysical parameters from satellite data. J. Climate, 9 , 706–737.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Shaw, B. L., R. A. Pielke, and C. L. Ziegler, 1997: A three-dimensional numerical simulation of a Great Plains dryline. Mon. Wea. Rev, 125 , 1489–1506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Trier, S. B., F. Chen, and K. W. Manning, 2004: A study of convection initiation in a mesoscale model using high-resolution land surface initial conditions. Mon. Wea. Rev, 132 , 2954–2976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Walko, R. L., and Coauthors, 2000: Coupled atmosphere–biophysics–hydrology models for environmental modeling. J. Appl. Meteor, 39 , 931–944.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Weckwerth, T. M., and Coauthors, 2004: An overview of the International H2O Project (IHOP_2002) and some preliminary highlights. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 85 , 253–277.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Weiss, C. C., and H. B. Bluestein, 2002: Airborne pseudo–dual Doppler analysis of a dryline–outflow boundary intersection. Mon. Wea. Rev, 130 , 1207–1226.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wilks, D. S., 1995: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. Academic Press, 467 pp.

  • Zhang, D., and R. A. Anthes, 1982: A high-resolution model of the planetary boundary layer—Sensitivity tests and comparison with SESAME-79 data. J. Appl. Meteor, 21 , 1594–1609.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ziegler, C. L., and C. E. Hane, 1993: An observational study of the dryline. Mon. Wea. Rev, 121 , 1134–1151.

  • Ziegler, C. L., W. J. Martin, R. A. Pielke, and R. L. Walko, 1995: A modeling study of the dryline. J. Atmos. Sci, 52 , 263–285.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 759 368 21
PDF Downloads 262 66 5