TY - JOUR
T1 - Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements
AU - Harper, Anna B.
AU - Williams, Karina E.
AU - Mcguire, Patrick C.
AU - Duran Rojas, Maria Carolina
AU - Hemming, Debbie
AU - Verhoef, Anne
AU - Huntingford, Chris
AU - Rowland, Lucy
AU - Marthews, Toby
AU - Breder Eller, Cleiton
AU - Mathison, Camilla
AU - Nobrega, Rodolfo L.B.
AU - Gedney, Nicola
AU - Vidale, Pier Luigi
AU - Otu-Larbi, Fred
AU - Pandey, Divya
AU - Garrigues, Sebastien
AU - Wright, Azin
AU - Slevin, Darren
AU - De Kauwe, Martin G.
AU - Blyth, Eleanor
AU - Ardo¨, Jonas
AU - Black, Andrew
AU - Bonal, Damien
AU - Buchmann, Nina
AU - Burban, Benoit
AU - Fuchs, Kathrin
AU - De Grandcourt, Agnès
AU - Mammarella, Ivan
AU - Merbold, Lutz
AU - Montagnani, Leonardo
AU - Nouvellon, Yann
AU - Restrepo-Coupe, Natalia
AU - Wohlfahrt, Georg
PY - 2021/6/3
Y1 - 2021/6/3
N2 - 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&z.ast;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.
AB - 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&z.ast;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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107553488&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021
DO - 10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85107553488
SN - 1991-959X
VL - 14
SP - 3269
EP - 3294
JO - Geoscientific Model Development
JF - Geoscientific Model Development
IS - 6
ER -