NCAR2005 UTLAND

50 %
50 %
Information about NCAR2005 UTLAND
Education

Published on January 22, 2008

Author: Candelora

Source: authorstream.com

Slide1:  Zong-Liang Yang Guo-Yue Niu Robert E. Dickinson The University of Texas at Austin Modeling Surface and Subsurface Runoff in CLM Prepared for Land Model Working Group Meeting, March 14, 2005 Funded under NASA grant NAG5-12577 Slide2:  Outline Introduction Current treatment of runoff in CLM and problems Saturation area Surface runoff Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor Subsurface runoff Constant versus exponential Ksat Continental-scale simulations Water table Regional-scale simulations Comparison with observations Sensitivity to parameters f Rsub,max Slide3:  Outline Introduction Current treatment of runoff in CLM and problems Saturation area Surface runoff Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor Subsurface runoff Constant versus exponential Ksat Continental-scale simulations Water table Regional-scale simulations Comparison with observations Sensitivity to parameters f Rsub,max Slide4:  Performance of Baseline CLM (1) Soil moisture (Sleepers River Catchment): Too low Odd profile (9th layer driest) Daily runoff (Sleepers River Catchment, Vermont, USA): Negative modeling efficiency because of large spikes Surface runoff (fast component) too high Slide5:  Performance of Baseline CLM (2) Monthly runoff (GSWP2 Project): Overestimated Surface runoff (fast component) too high Surface runoff is 80% of total runoff. Slide6:  Parameterization of Runoff in Baseline CLM Guided by four considerations: TOPMODEL: topographic control on the growth and decay of saturated area and groundwater flow 1-D 10-layer soil structure: Topographic data availability: a simple determination of the saturated area, allowing room for improvement when the topographic parameters are available globally. BATS: success in PILPS experiments, esp. PILPS 1c (The Red-Arkansas River Basin) Slide7:  Parameterization of Runoff in Baseline CLM Runoff = Surface runoff + Subsurface runoff Surface runoff Rs = Fsat Qwat + (1 – Fsat) ws4 Qwat TOPMODEL BATS Qwat = Input of water at the soil surface Fsat = Fractional saturated area = Fmax exp(–Dw) ws = averaged soil wetness in the top three soil layers Subsurface Runoff Rsb = Fsat lb exp(–Dw) + (1 – Fsat) Kb wb2B+3 lb = maximum baseflow rate = 10-5 mm s-1 Kb = maximum drainage rate = 0.04 mm s-1 wb = averaged soil wetness in the bottom three soil layers Ksat (z) = Ksat(0) exp(–f z ) Ksat(0) = saturated hydraulic conductivity at the soil surface, determined by soil texture following Cosby et al. (1984); f = 2 (tunable parameter) Slide8:  Problems in the Baseline CLM 1) The second term in surface runoff is redundant and too large. Rs = Fsat Qwat + (1 – Fsat) ws4 Qwat TOPMODEL BATS 2) The second term in subsurface runoff is redundant and too large. Rsb = Fsat lb exp(-Dw) + (1 – Fsat) Kb wb2B+3 3) How to determine Ksat (0) and Ksat(z)? Following Cosby et al. (1984)? Allowing macorpores? How to account for vertical and horizontal Ksat? 4) How to compute Fsat? Constrained by a global constant? By topography? 5) How to determine the water table? By the total head equilibrium? The moving boundary? An explicit groundwater model? Slide9:  Proposed Runoff Scheme in CLM 1) Surface runoff Rs = Fsat Qwat + (1 – Fsat) max(0, Qwat – Imax) 2) Subsurface runoff Rsb = Rsb,max exp (-f zw) simplified from Rsb = [ α Ksat (0) / f ] exp(- λm) exp(- f zw) α= anisotropic factor for different Ksat in vertical and horizontal directions λm= grid-cell averaged topographic index zw= grid-cell mean water table depth 3) Ksat (0) = ksat exp (f Dc) Ksat (z) = Ksat(0) exp(–f z ) ksat is determined by following Cosby et al. (1984). Allowing macropores. 4) Fsat = ∫λ ≥ (λm + f*zw) pdf(λ) dλ 5) The water table is diagnosed from an equilibrium relationship ψ(z) – z = ψsat – zw (i.e., the total head is equal across the soil column layers) Topography-based Runoff Scheme:  Topography-based Runoff Scheme Runoff production mechanism Surface runoff Saturation excess Infiltration excess Subsurface runoff Topographic control Bottom drainage “Over-saturated” water recharged into upper unsaturated layers Infiltration Excess Water Table Depth Saturation Excess Super-saturation Topography Bottom Slide11:  Outline Introduction Current treatment of runoff in CLM and problems Saturation area Surface runoff Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor Subsurface runoff Constant versus exponential Ksat Continental-scale simulations Water table Regional-scale simulations Comparison with observations Sensitivity to parameters f Rsub,max Slide12:  Maximum Fractional Saturated Area (Fsat,max) Using 1 km × 1 km topographic index (λ) Using Γ-distribution fit to the 1 km data Differences of (Middle – Top) Fsat = ∫λ ≥ (λm + f*zw) pdf (λ) dλ when the water table is at the surface (zw = 0) Slide13:  Defining the Maximum Fractional Saturated Area Fsat = ∫λ ≥ (λm + f*zw) pdf (λ) dλ Fsat,max results when the water table is at or above the surface (zw ≤ 0) Topographic Index λ Slide14:  Simulations over the Sleepers River Basin TOPMODEL: Fsat = ∫λ ≥ (λm + f*zw) pdf (λ) dλ SIMTOP: Fsat = Fsat,max exp (–0.5 f zw) Fsat,max = 0.42 Slide15:  Outline Introduction Current treatment of runoff in CLM and problems Saturation area Surface runoff Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor Subsurface runoff Constant versus exponential Ksat Continental-scale simulations Water table Regional-scale simulations Comparison with observations Sensitivity to parameters f Rsub,max Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor:  Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor ksat depends on soil type (Cosby et al., 1984) Stiglietz et al. (1997) : Ksat(0) = 1000 × ksat α=1, f=3.26 Chen and Kumar (2001): Ksat(0) = exp(f Dc) × ksat = 6 × ksat α=2000, f=1.8 This study: Ksat(0) = exp(f Dc) × ksat = 6 × ksat α=20, f=2 (global); =3.26 (Sleepers River) or Rsb,max = 1.45×10–7m/s 10–7 m/s 10–3 m/s 0 m 1 m 2 m 3 m 10–10 m/s Baseline CLM Stiglietz et al. Chen & Kumar Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor:  Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor Slide18:  Outline Introduction Current treatment of runoff in CLM and problems Saturation area Surface runoff Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor Subsurface runoff Constant versus exponential Ksat Continental-scale simulations Water table Regional-scale simulations Comparison with observations Sensitivity to parameters f Rsub,max Slide19:  Simulations over Various Regional Basins West Siberia East Siberia NW Canada Congo Amazon India E USA W USA C Europe S Africa Sahara Australia N America Eurasia S Hemisphere Slide20:  Simulations over the Sleepers River Basin TOPMODEL: Fsat = ∫λ ≥ (λm + f*zw) pdf (λ) dλ Rsb,max = 1.45 ×10–7 m/s Chen & Kumar Bottom sealed Bottom NOT sealed Slide21:  Simulations over the Sleepers River Basin 10–7 m/s 10–3 m/s 0 m 1 m 2 m 3 m 10–10 m/s Baseline CLM Stiglietz et al. Bottom NOT sealed Bottom sealed Chen & Kumar TOPMODEL: Fsat = ∫λ ≥ (λm + f*zw) pdf (λ) dλ Rsb,max = 1.45 ×10–7 m/s Slide22:  Outline Introduction Current treatment of runoff in CLM and problems Saturation area Surface runoff Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor Subsurface runoff Constant versus exponential Ksat Continental-scale simulations Water table Regional-scale simulations Comparison with observations Sensitivity to parameters f Rsub,max Slide23:  Comparison of Simulated Water Table with Measurements in Illinois Slide24:  Outline Introduction Current treatment of runoff in CLM and problems Saturation area Surface runoff Ksat, macropores and anisotropic factor Subsurface runoff Constant versus exponential Ksat Continental-scale simulations Water table Regional-scale simulations Comparison with observations Sensitivity to parameters f Rsub,max Slide25:  Sensitivity to f: Simulations over the Sleepers River Slide26:  Sensitivity to Rsb,max Simulations over the Sleepers River Slide27:  Simulations over the Sleepers River Slide28:  Simulations over the Amazon Basin Coupled CAM2-CLM2 Results in Amazon:  Coupled CAM2-CLM2 Results in Amazon Simplified TOPMODEL produced less surface runoff, allowing more water to infiltrate into deeper soil and to increase soil moisture. Transpiration increases significantly, more than compensating the decrease in the interception loss. As a result, both ET and precipitation show favorable increases. 1-2mm/d Conclusions:  Conclusions Based on offline tests for a small catchment or global continents, the proposed runoff scheme is shown to be robust for a wide range of assumptions including Different methods of Fsat, Based on 1-km topographic parameters Assuming a global constant Constant versus exponential Ksat In the constant profile case, results depend on whether the bottom is sealed or not Different methods of water table. 2) The simulations of soil moisture and runoff are all improved over the baseline version. 3) In the Amazon region, canopy evaporation and surface runoff are reduced, soil is wetter, and both ET and precipitation are increased. Future Work:  Future Work Increase the total soil thickness to ~10 m and make it a geographic variable Need bedrock data, Adjust root depth and distribution, Collect the water table data, Compare with the GRACE data. 2) Global optimization of two calibration parameters (f and Rsub,max). 3) Include (unconfined) aquifer into CLM to study groundwater recharge, discharge, and climate-groundwater interactions. Land Surface, Surface Water and Groundwater:  Land Surface, Surface Water and Groundwater Can be detected by GRACE

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

List of members of the National Academy of Sciences

List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (Environmental sciences and ecology) – Powerpoint Lectures – Google Web Search by member
Read more

New Results on Snow and Runoff Research

Title: New Results on Snow and Runoff Research Author: Zong-Liang Yang, Department of Geological Sciences Created Date: 6/21/1999 4:32:15 PM Document ...
Read more