Improved representations of coupled soil–canopy processes in the CABLE land surface model (Subversion revision 3432)

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Abstract. CABLE is a global land surface model, which has been used extensively in offline and coupled simulations. While CABLE performs well in comparison with other land surface models, results are impacted by decoupling of transpiration and photosynthesis fluxes under drying soil conditions, often leading to implausibly high water use efficiencies. Here, we present a solution to this problem, ensuring that modelled transpiration is always consistent with modelled photosynthesis, while introducing a parsimonious single-parameter drought response function which is coupled to root water uptake. We further improve CABLE's simulation of coupled soil–canopy processes by introducing an alternative hydrology model with a physically accurate representation of coupled energy and water fluxes at the soil–air interface, including a more realistic formulation of transfer under atmospherically stable conditions within the canopy and in the presence of leaf litter. The effects of these model developments are assessed using data from 18 stations from the global eddy covariance FLUXNET database, selected to span a large climatic range. Marked improvements are demonstrated, with root mean squared errors for monthly latent heat fluxes and water use efficiencies being reduced by 40%. Results highlight the important roles of deep soil moisture in mediating drought response and litter in dampening soil evaporation.

Related collections

Most cited references 39

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes

R B Jackson, J Canadell, J R Ehleringer … (1996)

Understanding and predicting ecosystem functioning (e.g., carbon and water fluxes) and the role of soils in carbon storage requires an accurate assessment of plant rooting distributions. Here, in a comprehensive literature synthesis, we analyze rooting patterns for terrestrial biomes and compare distributions for various plant functional groups. We compiled a database of 250 root studies, subdividing suitable results into 11 biomes, and fitted the depth coefficient β to the data for each biome (Gale and Grigal 1987). β is a simple numerical index of rooting distribution based on the asymptotic equation Y=1-βd, where d = depth and Y = the proportion of roots from the surface to depth d. High values of β correspond to a greater proportion of roots with depth. Tundra, boreal forest, and temperate grasslands showed the shallowest rooting profiles (β=0.913, 0.943, and 0.943, respectively), with 80-90% of roots in the top 30 cm of soil; deserts and temperate coniferous forests showed the deepest profiles (β=0.975 and 0.976, respectively) and had only 50% of their roots in the upper 30 cm. Standing root biomass varied by over an order of magnitude across biomes, from approximately 0.2 to 5 kg m-2. Tropical evergreen forests had the highest root biomass (5 kg m-2), but other forest biomes and sclerophyllous shrublands were of similar magnitude. Root biomass for croplands, deserts, tundra and grasslands was below 1.5 kg m-2. Root/shoot (R/S) ratios were highest for tundra, grasslands, and cold deserts (ranging from 4 to 7); forest ecosystems and croplands had the lowest R/S ratios (approximately 0.1 to 0.5). Comparing data across biomes for plant functional groups, grasses had 44% of their roots in the top 10 cm of soil. (β=0.952), while shrubs had only 21% in the same depth increment (β=0.978). The rooting distribution of all temperate and tropical trees was β=0.970 with 26% of roots in the top 10 cm and 60% in the top 30 cm. Overall, the globally averaged root distribution for all ecosystems was β=0.966 (r 2=0.89) with approximately 30%, 50%, and 75% of roots in the top 10 cm, 20 cm, and 40 cm, respectively. We discuss the merits and possible shortcomings of our analysis in the context of root biomass and root functioning.