Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Current refinement(s):

Records 1 - 3 / 3

  • help
  • print

    Print search results

  • export

    Export search results

  • alert
    We will mail you new results for this query: keywords==land-surface scheme
Check title to add to marked list
Mechanisms of water supply and vegetation demand govern the seasonality and magnitude of evapotranspiration in Amazonia and Cerrado
Christoffersen, B.O. ; Restrepo-Coupe, N. ; Arain, M.A. ; Baker, I.T. ; Cestaro, B.P. ; Ciais, P. ; Fisher, J.B. ; Galbraith, D. ; Guan, X. ; Hurk, B. van den; Kruijt, B. - \ 2014
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 191 (2014). - ISSN 0168-1923 - p. 33 - 50.
land-surface scheme - environment simulator jules - carbon-cycle feedbacks - stomatal conductance - regional evapotranspiration - atmosphere interactions - model description - biosphere model - boundary-layer - climate model
Evapotranspiration (E) in the Amazon connects forest function and regional climate via its role in precipitation recycling However, the mechanisms regulating water supply to vegetation and its demand for water remain poorly understood, especially during periods of seasonal water deficits In this study, we address two main questions: First, how do mechanisms of water supply (indicated by rooting depth and groundwater) and vegetation water demand (indicated by stomatal conductance and intrinsic water use efficiency) control evapotranspiration (E) along broad gradients of climate and vegetation from equatorial Amazonia to Cerrado, and second, how do these inferred mechanisms of supply and demand compare to those employed by a suite of ecosystem models? We used a network of eddy covariance towers in Brazil coupled with ancillary measurements to address these questions With respect to the magnitude and seasonality of E, models have much improved in equatorial tropical forests by eliminating most dry season water limitation, diverge in performance in transitional forests where seasonal water deficits are greater, and mostly capture the observed seasonal depressions in E at Cerrado However, many models depended universally on either deep roots or groundwater to mitigate dry season water deficits, the relative importance of which we found does not vary as a simple function of climate or vegetation In addition, canopy stomatal conductance (gs) regulates dry season vegetation demand for water at all except the wettest sites even as the seasonal cycle of E follows that of net radiation In contrast, some models simulated no seasonality in gs, even while matching the observed seasonal cycle of E. We suggest that canopy dynamics mediated by leaf phenology may play a significant role in such seasonality, a process poorly represented in models Model bias in gs and E, in turn, was related to biases arising from the simulated light response (gross primary productivity, GPP) or the intrinsic water use efficiency of photosynthesis (iWUE). We identified deficiencies in models which would not otherwise be apparent based on a simple comparison of simulated and observed rates of E. While some deficiencies can be remedied by parameter tuning, in most models they highlight the need for continued process development of belowground hydrology and in particular, the biological processes of root dynamics and leaf phenology, which via their controls on E, mediate vegetation-climate feedbacks in the tropics.
Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance: Setup and first results
Haddeland, I. ; Clark, D. ; Franssen, W.H.P. ; Ludwig, F. ; Voss, F. ; Arnell, N.W. ; Bertrand, N. ; Best, M. ; Folwell, S. ; Gerten, D. ; Gomes, S. ; Gosling, S. ; Hagemann, S. ; Hanasaki, N. ; Harding, R. ; Heinke, J. ; Kabat, P. ; Koirala, S. ; Oki, T. ; Polcher, J. ; Stacke, T. ; Viterbo, P. ; Weedon, G.P. ; Yeh, P. - \ 2011
Journal of Hydrometeorology 12 (2011)5. - ISSN 1525-755X - p. 869 - 884.
land-surface scheme - space-time climate - parameterization schemes - integrated model - project - simulation - resources - runoff - gcm - precipitation
Six land surface models and five global hydrological models participate in a model intercomparison project [Water Model Intercomparison Project (WaterMIP)], which for the first time compares simulation results of these different classes of models in a consistent way. In this paper, the simulation setup is described and aspects of the multimodel global terrestrial water balance are presented. All models were run at 0.5° spatial resolution for the global land areas for a 15-yr period (1985–99) using a newly developed global meteorological dataset. Simulated global terrestrial evapotranspiration, excluding Greenland and Antarctica, ranges from 415 to 586 mm yr-1 (from 60 000 to 85 000 km3 yr-1), and simulated runoff ranges from 290 to 457 mm yr-1 (from 42 000 to 66 000 km3 yr-1). Both the mean and median runoff fractions for the land surface models are lower than those of the global hydrological models, although the range is wider. Significant simulation differences between land surface and global hydrological models are found to be caused by the snow scheme employed. The physically based energy balance approach used by land surface models generally results in lower snow water equivalent values than the conceptual degree-day approach used by global hydrological models. Some differences in simulated runoff and evapotranspiration are explained by model parameterizations, although the processes included and parameterizations used are not distinct to either land surface models or global hydrological models. The results show that differences between models are a major source of uncertainty. Climate change impact studies thus need to use not only multiple climate models but also some other measure of uncertainty (e.g., multiple impact models).
Parameter Sensitivity in LSMs: An Analysis Using Stochastic Soil Moisture Models and ELDAS Soil Parameters
Teuling, A.J. ; Uijlenhoet, R. ; Hurk, B. van den; Seneviratne, S.I. - \ 2009
Journal of Hydrometeorology 10 (2009)3. - ISSN 1525-755X - p. 751 - 765.
land-surface scheme - data assimilation - hydraulic-properties - level parameters - water-balance - climate - energy - simulations - vegetation - atmosphere
Integration of simulated and observed states through data assimilation as well as model evaluation requires a realistic representation of soil moisture in land surface models (LSMs). However, soil moisture in LSMs is sensitive to a range of uncertain input parameters, and intermodel differences in parameter values are often large. Here, the effect of soil parameters on soil moisture and evapotranspiration are investigated by using parameters from three different LSMs participating in the European Land Data Assimilation System (ELDAS) project. To prevent compensating effects from other than soil parameters, the effects are evaluated within a common framework of parsimonious stochastic soil moisture models. First, soil parameters are shown to affect soil moisture more strongly than the average evapotranspiration. In arid climates, the effect of soil parameters is on the variance rather than the mean, and the intermodel flux differences are smallest. Soil parameters from the ELDAS LSMs differ strongly, most notably in the available moisture content between the wilting point and the critical moisture content, which differ by a factor of 3. The ELDAS parameters can lead to differences in mean volumetric soil moisture as high as 0.10 and an average evapotranspiration of 10%–20% for the investigated parameter range. The parsimonious framework presented here can be used to investigate first-order parameter sensitivities under a range of climate conditions without using full LSM simulations. The results are consistent with many other studies using different LSMs under a more limited range of possible forcing conditions
Check title to add to marked list

Show 20 50 100 records per page

Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.