the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Short-term effects of hurricanes on nitrate-nitrogen runoff loading: a case study of Hurricane Ida using E3SM land model (v2.1)
Abstract. When nutrient level in the soil surpasses vegetation demand, nutrient losses due to surface runoff and subsurface leaching are the major reasons for the deterioration of water quality. The Lower Mississippi river basin (LMRB) is one of the sub-basins that deliver the highest nitrogen loads to the Gulf of Mexico. Potential changes in episodic events induced by hurricanes may exacerbate water quality issue in the future. However, uncertainties in modeling the hydrologic response to hurricanes may limit the modeling of nutrient losses during such events. Using a machine learning approach, we calibrated the land component of the Energy Exascale Earth System model (E3SM), or ELM, version 2.1, based on the water table depth (WTD) of a calibrated 3D subsurface hydrology model. While the overall performance of the calibrated ELM is satisfactory, some discrepancies in WTD remain in slope areas with low precipitation due to the missing lateral flow process in ELM. Simulations including biogeochemistry performed using ELM with and without model calibration showed important influences of soil hydrology, precipitation intensity, and runoff parameterization on the magnitude of nitrogen runoff loss and leaching pathway. Despite such sensitivities, both ELM simulations produced reduced WTD and increased runoff and accelerated nitrate-nitrogen runoff loading during Hurricane Ida in August 2021, consistent with the observations. With observations suggesting more pronounced effects of Hurricane Ida on nitrogen runoff than the simulations, we identified factors for model improvement to provide a useful tool for studying hurricane-induced nutrient losses in the LMRB region.
- Preprint
(1698 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-70', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Sep 2024
The manuscript proposed new hydrological parameterization for ELM in the Lower Mississippi river basin by constraining ELM predicted water table depth with predictions from a calibrated 3D subsurface hydrology model. Then the manuscript conducted simulations during the period of Hurricane Ida using both default and new parameterization with ELM and compared the simulated hydrological and nitrogen responses to Ida with observations. The study concludes runoff process is important to predict hydrological and nutrient responses to heavy rainfall events.
Overall, the paper is easy to read. However, One thing is unclear to me - what is the key evidence that calibrated ELM is better than default ELM? It seems to me the biggest difference is that default model does not predict changes in WTD but calibrated model predicted shallower WTD after Ida. The conclusion states that "the calibrated ELM was able to simulate the increased nitrate-nitrogen runoff leaching during Hurricane Ida" (Line 472-473) but both versions predict increases in runoff and N Loss (Fig. 5e and Fig. 6a) and it is not discussed which one is closer to the observation. Given this is a model evaluation paper, more direct and quantitative model-data comparison would be helpful
Some additional comments:
Line 195-205. The whole training workflow reads a little confusing to me. WTD is a model ouptut depending on fmax and fdrai but it is used to predict fmax and fdrai... Doesn't it make more sense to create a model/emulator for WTD based on ELM inputs and parameters and then find the best fmax/fdrai to get WTD values close to Tran2024 WTD?
Line 285. For nitrogen and runoff loading response, it seems only one station has significant response but the other one (07381600) did not? Any explanations? In addition, is the model able to explain the decline of Nitrogen and Runoff Loading before Ida?
Line 370. Fig. 6 panel a, if the value is cumulative sum, the unit should just be gN/m2 without per month.
Line 410. There is not panel g in Fig. 8
Line 432-433. What are the "valuable insights"?
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-70-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2024-70', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Sep 2024
The Manuscript developes a new soil hydrology parameterization for ELM for the Lower Mississipi River Basin (LMRB)Â
in an effort to better understand nitrate loss. This proposed calibrated model predicts water table depth from a 3D subsurfaceÂ
hydrology model. The authors then conducted simulations of the Hurricane Ida of period and compares default ELM and calibratedÂ
model simulated results with observations.ÂI think the manuscript is relatively easy to read and understand and proposes a novel way to improve our understanding of nitrate leaching. However, I struggle to understand which model performs better in the context of the observations. Both versions predict an increase nitrate runoff but having these comparisons with direct observations on the figure would help the reader understand how model performance compared.Â
Additional comments
Figure 1 make the USGS points larger to improve clarity
In figure 3f, I understand the overprediction but why are there a bunch of points at just less than 4m?
Comparing the WTD of figure 5C to observations in 4A was difficult and model results and observations seem very different.
line 232 Specify what exactly those insight are
Line 382 Cod"e"The biggest issue with the paper was understanding whether the default model or the calibrated model performed better.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-70-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-70', Yilin Fang, 30 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-70/gmd-2024-70-AC1-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-70', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Sep 2024
The manuscript proposed new hydrological parameterization for ELM in the Lower Mississippi river basin by constraining ELM predicted water table depth with predictions from a calibrated 3D subsurface hydrology model. Then the manuscript conducted simulations during the period of Hurricane Ida using both default and new parameterization with ELM and compared the simulated hydrological and nitrogen responses to Ida with observations. The study concludes runoff process is important to predict hydrological and nutrient responses to heavy rainfall events.
Overall, the paper is easy to read. However, One thing is unclear to me - what is the key evidence that calibrated ELM is better than default ELM? It seems to me the biggest difference is that default model does not predict changes in WTD but calibrated model predicted shallower WTD after Ida. The conclusion states that "the calibrated ELM was able to simulate the increased nitrate-nitrogen runoff leaching during Hurricane Ida" (Line 472-473) but both versions predict increases in runoff and N Loss (Fig. 5e and Fig. 6a) and it is not discussed which one is closer to the observation. Given this is a model evaluation paper, more direct and quantitative model-data comparison would be helpful
Some additional comments:
Line 195-205. The whole training workflow reads a little confusing to me. WTD is a model ouptut depending on fmax and fdrai but it is used to predict fmax and fdrai... Doesn't it make more sense to create a model/emulator for WTD based on ELM inputs and parameters and then find the best fmax/fdrai to get WTD values close to Tran2024 WTD?
Line 285. For nitrogen and runoff loading response, it seems only one station has significant response but the other one (07381600) did not? Any explanations? In addition, is the model able to explain the decline of Nitrogen and Runoff Loading before Ida?
Line 370. Fig. 6 panel a, if the value is cumulative sum, the unit should just be gN/m2 without per month.
Line 410. There is not panel g in Fig. 8
Line 432-433. What are the "valuable insights"?
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-70-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2024-70', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Sep 2024
The Manuscript developes a new soil hydrology parameterization for ELM for the Lower Mississipi River Basin (LMRB)Â
in an effort to better understand nitrate loss. This proposed calibrated model predicts water table depth from a 3D subsurfaceÂ
hydrology model. The authors then conducted simulations of the Hurricane Ida of period and compares default ELM and calibratedÂ
model simulated results with observations.ÂI think the manuscript is relatively easy to read and understand and proposes a novel way to improve our understanding of nitrate leaching. However, I struggle to understand which model performs better in the context of the observations. Both versions predict an increase nitrate runoff but having these comparisons with direct observations on the figure would help the reader understand how model performance compared.Â
Additional comments
Figure 1 make the USGS points larger to improve clarity
In figure 3f, I understand the overprediction but why are there a bunch of points at just less than 4m?
Comparing the WTD of figure 5C to observations in 4A was difficult and model results and observations seem very different.
line 232 Specify what exactly those insight are
Line 382 Cod"e"The biggest issue with the paper was understanding whether the default model or the calibrated model performed better.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-70-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-70', Yilin Fang, 30 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2024-70/gmd-2024-70-AC1-supplement.pdf
Data sets
Data used to study the short-term effects of hurricane Ida on nitrate-nitrogen runoff loading using E3SM land model Yilin Fang https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10927512
Model code and software
E3SM land model used to study the short-term effects of hurricanes on nitrate-nitrogen runoff loading Yilin Fang https://zenodo.org/records/11372002
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
249 | 51 | 102 | 402 | 18 | 14 |
- HTML: 249
- PDF: 51
- XML: 102
- Total: 402
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1