Open AccessComparison of NLDAS-2 Simulated and NASMD Observed Daily Soil Moisture. Part I: Comparison and Analysis
Author(s) -
Youlong Xia,
Michael Ek,
Yihua Wu,
Trent W. Ford,
Steven M. Quiring
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of hydrometeorology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.733
H-Index - 123
eISSN - 1525-755X
pISSN - 1525-7541
DOI - 10.1175/jhm-d-14-0096.1
Subject(s) - environmental science , water content , data assimilation , infiltration (hvac) , evapotranspiration , biome , soil water , soil horizon , moisture , soil science , hydrology (agriculture) , atmospheric sciences , climatology , geology , ecosystem , meteorology , geography , ecology , geotechnical engineering , biology
Soil moisture observations from seven observational networks (spanning portions of seven states) with different biome and climate conditions were used in this study to evaluate multimodel simulated soil moisture products. The four land surface models, including Noah, Mosaic, Sacramento soil moisture accounting (SAC), and the Variable Infiltration Capacity model (VIC), were run within phase 2 of the North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS-2), with a ⅛° spatial resolution and hourly temporal resolution. Hundreds of sites in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, West Texas, and Utah were used to evaluate simulated soil moisture in the 0–10-, 10–40-, and 40–100-cm soil layers. Soil moisture was spatially averaged in each state to reduce noise. In general, the four models captured broad features (e.g., seasonal variation) of soil moisture variations in all three soil layers in seven states, except for the 10–40-cm soil layer in West Texas and the 40–100-cm soil layer in Alabama, where the anomaly correlations are weak. Overall, Mosaic, SAC, and the ensemble mean have the highest simulation skill and VIC has the lowest simulation skill. The results show that Noah and VIC are wetter than the observations while Mosaic and SAC are drier than the observations, mostly likely because of systematic errors in model evapotranspiration.