Intercomparison of land-surface parameterization schemes: sensitivity of surface energy and water fluxes to model parameters
Intercomparison of land-surface parameterization schemes: sensitivity of surface energy and water fluxes to model parameters
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0022-1694(03)00168-9
复制
发表时间：
2003-08-25
影响因子：
6.4
通讯作者：
Guo, JZ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Liang, X;Guo, JZ
基于部分因子分析方法，研究了10个陆面方案（LSS）对最大土壤含水量（MSMC）、有效有效含水量（EAWC）、Clapp-Hornberger B参数、叶面积指数（LAI）和最小气孔阻力等5个模型参数的敏感性。四个模型的响应（即蒸散，总径流，感热通量，土壤水分在整个区域）的敏感性进行评估，这五个参数的函数，考虑个人和参数的相互作用的影响。为了便于这些敏感性分析，这是进行三个水文气候情景，两个指数引入沿着与标准测量相对参数的影响。两个新的指标是单一反应效应指数和多重反应效应指数。结果表明，对于大多数LSS，四个模式的响应通常是最敏感的MSMC参数，其次是Clapp-Hornberger B参数，在三种不同的水文气候情景。在10个方案中，MSMC、Clapp-Hornberger B参数和EAWC对模型响应的影响一般远大于LAI和最小气孔阻力。这意味着，可能由于测量的不确定性和/或空间异质性与土壤特性的变化可能会发挥更重要的作用，在分区水和能量收支比那些与植被特性在当前一代的陆面模型参数化。结果还表明，大的敏感性模型的响应存在于LSS的选择，当使用相同的参数值，并在水文气候的情况下，使用相同的参数和LSS。差异有时可能相当大。此外，参数交互作用的影响通常比单个参数的影响弱。从这项研究中获得的初步结论提供了一些见解，为什么在陆地表面参数化方案（PILPS）第1，2（a），2（B）和2（c）阶段的相互比较研究中，每次都出现方案之间的大响应差异，也许是为什么每个方案在自己的测试站点（S）比在PILPS站点表现更好。(C)2003 Elsevier B. V.保留所有权利。
In this study, sensitivities of 10 land-surface schemes (LSS) to five prescribed model parameters (i.e. the maximum soil moisture content (MSMC), effective available water content (EAWC), Clapp-Hornberger B parameter, leaf area index (LAI), and minimum stomatal resistance) are investigated based on the fractional factorial analysis method. The sensitivities of four model responses (i.e. evapotranspiration, total runoff, sensible heat flux, and soil moisture in the total zone) are evaluated as functions of these five parameters considering both individual and parameter interaction effects. To facilitate these sensitivity analyses, which are conducted for three hydroclimatic scenarios, two indices are introduced along with a criterion for measuring relative parameter effects. The two new indices are single response effect index and multiple response effect index. Results show that for the majority of LSS, the four model responses are generally most sensitive to the MSMC parameter, followed by the Clapp-Hornberger B parameter, under the three different hydroclimatic scenarios. The effects of MSMC, the Clapp-Hornberger B parameter, and EAWC on the model responses are generally much larger than those of LAI and minimum stomatal resistance among most of the 10 schemes. This implies that the variations associated with the soil properties possibly due to the measurement uncertainties and/or spatial heterogeneity may play a more significant role in partitioning water and energy budgets than those associated with vegetation properties in the current generation of land-surface model parameterizations. Results also show that large sensitivities of model responses exist in relation to the choice of LSS when using the same parameter values, and in relation to the hydroclimatic scenario when using the same parameter and LSS. The differences can be sometimes quite large. In addition, the effects of parameter interactions are generally weaker than those of single parameters. The preliminary conclusions obtained from this study offer some insight on why large response differences between schemes occurred every time in the Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes (PILPS) phases 1, 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) intercomparison studies, and perhaps on why each scheme performs better at its own testing site(s) than at the PILPS sites. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.