A simple groundwater scheme in the TRIP river routing model: global off-line evaluation against GRACE terrestrial water storage estimates and observed river discharges

Vergnes, Jean-Pierre; Decharme, Bertrand

doi:10.5194/hessd-9-8213-2012

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar conclusions about the performance of JULES‐GFB in comparison with JULES‐FD without PDM can be drawn for the linear correlation coefficient and the mean bias. Previous studies reported improvements on the same order of magnitude (Maxwell & Miller, 2005; Yeh and Eltahir, 2005a; Vergnes & Decharme, 2012; York et al, 2002). Interestingly, if JULES‐FD is applied with a calibrated version of PDM, its performance improves substantially, but still does not exceed the performance of our JULES‐GFB.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Recently, improvements have been made towards to coupling groundwater models below LSMs and global hydrological models (e.g., de Graaf et al, 2017; de Graaf, Sutanudjaja, Van Beek, & Bierkens, 2015; Fan, Li, & Miguez‐Macho, 2013; Fan & Miguez‐Macho, 2011; Ganji & Sushama, 2018; Gedney & Cox, 2003; Gulden et al, 2007; Gutowski Jr et al, 2002; Guzman et al, 2015; Koirala, Kim, Hirabayashi, Kanae, & Oki, 2019; Maxwell et al, 2011; Maxwell & Miller, 2005; Niu, Yang, Dickinson, Gulden, & Su, 2007; Reinecke et al, 2019; Tian et al, 2020; Tian, Li, Wang, & Hu, 2012; Vergnes & Decharme, 2012; Yeh & Eltahir, 2005a, 2005b; York, Person, Gutowski, & Winter, 2002; Zeng et al, 2018). These studies generally showed that adding the groundwater component led to a more realistic partitioning of water components at the land surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are two main classifications of groundwater coupling, namely, the empirical lumped GW models and the physically based distributed GW models (Tian et al, 2012). Regarding their dimension, this can be either a one‐dimensional (1‐D) model (e.g., Gedney & Cox, 2003; Maxwell & Miller, 2005; Yeh and Eltahir, 2005a; Niu et al, 2007; Huang et al, 2019), two‐dimensional (2‐D) model (e.g., Fan & Miguez‐Macho, 2011; Vergnes & Decharme, 2012) or 3‐D model (e.g., Gutowski Jr et al, 2002; Maxwell et al, 2011; Tian et al, 2012; York et al, 2002). In the 1‐D coupling, the soil domain is extrapolated for a few tens of meters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Towards the representation of groundwater in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator

Batelis

Rahman

Kollet

et al. 2020

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groundwater is an important component of the hydrological cycle with significant interactions with soil hydrological processes. Recent studies have demonstrated that incorporating groundwater hydrology in land surface models (LSMs) considerably improves the prediction of the partitioning of water components (e.g., runoff and evapotranspiration) at the land surface. However, the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), an LSM developed in the United Kingdom, does not yet have an explicit representation of groundwater. We propose an implementation of a simplified groundwater flow boundary parameterization (JULES‐GFB), which replaces the original free drainage assumption in the default model (JULES‐FD). We tested the two approaches under a controlled environment for various soil types using two synthetic experiments: (1) single‐column and (2) tilted‐V catchment, using a three‐dimensional (3‐D) hydrological model (ParFlow) as a benchmark for JULES’ performance. In addition, we applied our new JULES‐GFB model to a regional domain in the UK, where groundwater is the key element for runoff generation. In the single‐column infiltration experiment, JULES‐GFB showed improved soil moisture dynamics in comparison with JULES‐FD, for almost all soil types (except coarse soils) under a variety of initial water table depths. In the tilted‐V catchment experiment, JULES‐GFB successfully represented the dynamics and the magnitude of saturated and unsaturated storage against the benchmark. The lateral water flow produced by JULES‐GFB was about 50% of what was produced by the benchmark, while JULES‐FD completely ignores this process. In the regional domain application, the Kling‐Gupta efficiency (KGE) for the total runoff simulation showed an average improvement from 0.25 for JULES‐FD to 0.75 for JULES‐GFB. The mean bias of actual evapotranspiration relative to the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) product was improved from −0.22 to −0.01 mm day−1. Our new JULES‐GFB implementation provides an opportunity to better understand the interactions between the subsurface and land surface processes that are dominated by groundwater hydrology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards the representation of groundwater in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator

Batelis

Rahman

Kollet

et al. 2020

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evapotranspiration results from the direct evaporation of canopy‐intercepted rainfall, from bare soil evaporation and from vegetation transpiration controlled by stomatal conductance (see below). In contrast to most land surface models, ISBA with its river routing module CTRIP includes a representation of aquifers (Vergnes & Decharme, 2012) that feed back on soil moisture content. It also represents inundation from rivers in floodplains.…”

Section: Model Description: Isba_bgc6 In Comparison To Isba_bgc5mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Land Carbon Cycle Simulated With ISBA‐CTRIP: Improvements Over the Last Decade

Delire

Séférian

Decharme

et al. 2020

J Adv Model Earth Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the latest version of the ISBA‐CTRIP land surface system, focusing on the representation of the land carbon cycle. We review the main improvements since the year 2012, mainly added modules for wild fires, carbon leaching through soil and transport of dissolved organic carbon to the ocean, and land cover changes but also improved representation of photosynthesis, respiration, and plant functional types. This version of ISBA‐CTRIP is fully described in terms of land carbon pools, fluxes, and their interactions. Results are compared with the previous version in an off‐line mode forced by observed climate during the historical time period. The two simulations are presented to demonstrate the model performance compared to an ensemble of observed and observation‐derived data sets for gross and net primary productivity, heterotrophic and autotrophic respiration, above and below ground biomass, litter, and soil carbon pools. New developments specific to the new version such as burned area, fire emissions, carbon leaching, and land cover are also validated against observations. The results show clearly that the latest version of ISBA‐CTRIP outperforms the former version and reproduces generally well the observed mean spatial patterns in carbon pools and fluxes, as well as the seasonal cycle of leaf area index. The trends of the global fluxes over the last 50 years agree with other global models and with available estimates. This comparison gives us confidence that the model represents the main processes involved in the terrestrial carbon cycle and can be used to explore future global change projections.

show abstract

The influence of groundwater representation on hydrological simulation and its assessment using satellite‐based water storage variation

Huang

Tang

et al. 2019

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interaction between surface water and groundwater is an important aspect of hydrological processes. Despite its importance, groundwater is not well represented in many land surface models. In this study, a groundwater module with consideration of surface water and groundwater dynamic interactions is incorporated into the distributed biosphere hydrological (DBH) model in the upstream of the Yellow River basin, China. Two numerical experiments are conducted using the DBH model: one with groundwater module active, namely, DBH_GW and the other without, namely, DBH_NGW. Simulations by two experiments are compared with observed river discharge and terrestrial water storage (TWS) variation from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The results show that river discharge during the low flow season that is underestimated in the DBH_NGW has been improved by incorporating the groundwater scheme. As for the TWS, simulation in DBH_GW shows better agreement with GRACE data in terms of interannual and intraseasonal variations and annual changing trend. Furthermore, compared with DBH_GW, TWS simulated in DBH_NGW shows smaller decreases during autumn and smaller increases in spring.These results suggest that consideration of groundwater dynamics enables a more reasonable representation of TWS change by increasing TWS amplitudes and signals and as a consequence, improves river discharge simulation in the low flow seasons when groundwater is a major component in runoff. Additionally, incorporation of groundwater module also leads to wetter soil moisture and higher evapotranspiration, especially in the wet seasons.

show abstract

A simple groundwater scheme in the TRIP river routing model: global off-line evaluation against GRACE terrestrial water storage estimates and observed river discharges

Cited by 3 publications

References 86 publications

Towards the representation of groundwater in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator

Towards the representation of groundwater in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator

The Global Land Carbon Cycle Simulated With ISBA‐CTRIP: Improvements Over the Last Decade

The influence of groundwater representation on hydrological simulation and its assessment using satellite‐based water storage variation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About