IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i1p126-d723790.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation and Comparison of the Common Land Model and the Community Land Model by Using In Situ Soil Moisture Observations from the Soil Climate Analysis Network

Author

Listed:
  • Minzhuo Ou

    (Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yet-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China)

  • Shupeng Zhang

    (Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yet-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China)

Abstract

Soil moisture is a key state variable in land surface processes. Since field measurements of soil moisture are generally sparse and remote sensing is limited in terms of observation depth, land surface model simulations are usually used to continuously obtain soil moisture data in time and space. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate the performance of models that simulate soil moisture under various land surface conditions. In this work, we evaluated and compared two land surface models, the Common Land Model version 2014 (CoLM2014) and the Community Land Model Version 5 (CLM5), using in situ soil moisture observations from the Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN). The meteorological and soil attribute data used to drive the models were obtained from SCAN station observations, as were the soil moisture data used to validate the simulation results. The validation results revealed that the correlation coefficients between the simulations by CLM5 (0.38) and observations are generally higher than those by CoLM2014 (0.11), especially in shallow soil (0–0.1016 m). The simulation results by CoLM2014 have smaller bias than those by CLM5 . Both models could simulate diurnal and seasonal variations of soil moisture at seven sites, but we found a large bias, which may be due to the two models’ representation of infiltration and lateral flow processes. The bias of the simulated infiltration rate can affect the soil moisture simulation, and the lack of a lateral flow scheme can affect the models’ division of saturated and unsaturated areas within the soil column. The parameterization schemes in land surface models still need to be improved, especially for soil simulations at small scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Minzhuo Ou & Shupeng Zhang, 2022. "Evaluation and Comparison of the Common Land Model and the Community Land Model by Using In Situ Soil Moisture Observations from the Soil Climate Analysis Network," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:126-:d:723790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/1/126/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/1/126/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:126-:d:723790. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.