English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. A snowpack has a profound effect on the hydrology and surface energyconditions of an area through its effects on surface albedo and roughness andits insulating properties. The modeling of a snowpack, soil water dynamics,and the coupling of the snowpack and underlying soil layer has been widelyreported. However, the coupled liquid–vapor–air flow mechanisms consideringthe snowpack effect have not been investigated in detail. In this study, weincorporated the snowpack effect (Utah energy balance snowpack model, UEB) into acommon modeling framework (Simultaneous Transfer of Energy, Mass, andMomentum in Unsaturated Soils with Freeze-Thaw, STEMMUS-FT), i.e.,STEMMUS-UEB. It considers soil water and energy transfer physics with threecomplexity levels (basic coupled, advanced coupled water andheat transfer, and finally explicit consideration of airflow, termedBCD, ACD, and ACD-air, respectively). We then utilized in situ observationsand numerical experiments to investigate the effect of snowpack on soilmoisture and heat transfer with the abovementioned model complexities.Results indicated that the proposed model with snowpack can reproduce theabrupt increase of surface albedo after precipitation events while this wasnot the case for the model without snowpack. The BCD model tended tooverestimate the land surface latent heat flux (LE). Such overestimationswere largely reduced by ACD and ACD-air models. Compared with thesimulations considering snowpack, there is less LE from no-snow simulationsdue to the neglect of snow sublimation. The enhancement of LE was foundafter winter precipitation events, which is sourced from the surface icesublimation, snow sublimation, and increased surface soil moisture. Therelative role of the mentioned three sources depends on the timing andmagnitude of precipitation and the pre-precipitation soil hydrothermalregimes. The simple BCD model cannot provide a realistic partition of masstransfer flux. The ACD model, with its physical consideration of vapor flow,thermal effect on water flow, and snowpack, can identify the relativecontributions of different components (e.g., thermal or isothermal liquidand vapor flow) to the total mass transfer fluxes. With the ACD-air model,the relative contribution of each component (mainly the isothermal liquidand vapor flows) to the mass transfer was significantly altered during thesoil thawing period. It was found that the snowpack affects not only thesoil surface moisture conditions (surface ice and soil water content in theliquid phase) and energy-related states (albedo, LE) but also the transferpatterns of subsurface soil liquid and vapor flow.

STEMMUS-UEB v1.0.0: integrated modeling of snowpack and soil water and energy transfer with three complexity levels of soil physical processes