On the optimal level of complexity for the representation of groundwater-dependent wetland systems in land surface models
-
Published:2023-12-22
Issue:24
Volume:27
Page:4595-4608
-
ISSN:1607-7938
-
Container-title:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Elrashidy Mennatullah T.ORCID, Ireson Andrew M.ORCID, Razavi SamanORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Wetland systems are among the largest stores of carbon on the planet, the most biologically diverse of all ecosystems, and dominant controls on the hydrologic cycle. However, their representation in land surface models (LSMs), which are the terrestrial lower boundary of Earth system models (ESMs) that inform climate actions, is limited. Here, we explore different possible parameterizations to represent wetland–groundwater–upland interactions with varying levels of system and computational complexity. We perform a series of numerical experiments informed by field observations from a particular type of wetland, called a fen, at the well-instrumented White Gull Creek in Saskatchewan, in the boreal region of North America. In this study, we focus on how modifying the modelling connection between the upland and the wetland affects the system's outcome. We demonstrate that the typical representation of groundwater-dependent wetlands in LSMs, which ignores interactions with groundwater and uplands, can be inadequate. We show that the optimal level of model complexity depends on the land cover, soil type, and the ultimate modelling purpose, being nowcasting and prediction, scenario analysis, or diagnostic learning.
Funder
Global Water Futures
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference34 articles.
1. Barr, A. G., van der Kamp, G., Black, T. A., McCaughey, J. H., and Nesic, Z.: Energy balance closure at the BERMS flux towers in relation to the water balance of the White Gull Creek watershed 1999–2009, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 153, 3–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.05.017, 2012. 2. Blyth, E. M., Arora, V. K., Clark, D. B., Dadson, S. J., De Kauwe, M. G., Lawrence, D. M., Melton, J. R., Pongratz, J., Turton, R. H., Yoshimura, K., and Yuan, H.: Advances in Land Surface Modelling, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 7, 45–71, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00171-5, 2021. 3. Canada Committee on Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification (Ed.): Wetlands of Canada, Sustainable Development Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa, 452 pp., 1988. 4. Clark, M. P., Fan, Y., Lawrence, D. M., Adam, J. C., Bolster, D., Gochis, D. J., Hooper, R. P., Kumar, M., Leung, L. R., Mackay, D. S., Maxwell, R. M., Shen, C., Swenson, S. C., and Zeng, X.: Improving the representation of hydrologic processes in Earth System Models: REPRESENTING HYDROLOGIC PROCESSES IN EARTH SYSTEM MODELS, Water Resour. Res., 51, 5929–5956, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017096, 2015. 5. Dai, Y., Zeng, X., Dickinson, R. E., Baker, I., Bonan, G. B., Bosilovich, M. G., Denning, A. S., Dirmeyer, P. A., Houser, P. R., Niu, G., Oleson, K. W., Schlosser, C. A., and Yang, Z.-L.: The Common Land Model, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 84, 1013–1024, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1013, 2003.
|
|