J. Perket


DOI bib
Hillslope Hydrology in Global Change Research and Earth System Modeling
Ying Fan, Martyn P. Clark, David M. Lawrence, Sean Swenson, Lawrence E. Band, Susan L. Brantley, P. D. Brooks, W. E. Dietrich, Alejandro N. Flores, Gordon E. Grant, James W. Kirchner, D. S. Mackay, Jeffrey J. McDonnell, P. C. D. Milly, Pamela Sullivan, Christina Tague, Hoori Ajami, Nathaniel W. Chaney, Andreas Hartmann, P. Hazenberg, J. P. McNamara, Jon D. Pelletier, J. Perket, Elham Rouholahnejad Freund, Thorsten Wagener, Xubin Zeng, R. Edward Beighley, Jonathan Buzan, Maoyi Huang, Ben Livneh, Binayak P. Mohanty, Bart Nijssen, Mohammad Safeeq, Chaopeng Shen, Willem van Verseveld, John Volk, Dai Yamazaki
Water Resources Research, Volume 55, Issue 2

Earth System Models (ESMs) are essential tools for understanding and predicting global change, but they cannot explicitly resolve hillslope‐scale terrain structures that fundamentally organize water, energy, and biogeochemical stores and fluxes at subgrid scales. Here we bring together hydrologists, Critical Zone scientists, and ESM developers, to explore how hillslope structures may modulate ESM grid‐level water, energy, and biogeochemical fluxes. In contrast to the one‐dimensional (1‐D), 2‐ to 3‐m deep, and free‐draining soil hydrology in most ESM land models, we hypothesize that 3‐D, lateral ridge‐to‐valley flow through shallow and deep paths and insolation contrasts between sunny and shady slopes are the top two globally quantifiable organizers of water and energy (and vegetation) within an ESM grid cell. We hypothesize that these two processes are likely to impact ESM predictions where (and when) water and/or energy are limiting. We further hypothesize that, if implemented in ESM land models, these processes will increase simulated continental water storage and residence time, buffering terrestrial ecosystems against seasonal and interannual droughts. We explore efficient ways to capture these mechanisms in ESMs and identify critical knowledge gaps preventing us from scaling up hillslope to global processes. One such gap is our extremely limited knowledge of the subsurface, where water is stored (supporting vegetation) and released to stream baseflow (supporting aquatic ecosystems). We conclude with a set of organizing hypotheses and a call for global syntheses activities and model experiments to assess the impact of hillslope hydrology on global change predictions.

DOI bib
The Community Land Model Version 5: Description of New Features, Benchmarking, and Impact of Forcing Uncertainty
David M. Lawrence, Rosie A. Fisher, Charles D. Koven, Keith W. Oleson, Sean Swenson, G. B. Bonan, Nathan Collier, Bardan Ghimire, Leo van Kampenhout, Daniel Kennedy, Erik Kluzek, Fang Li, Hongyi Li, Danica Lombardozzi, William J. Riley, William J. Sacks, Mingjie Shi, Mariana Vertenstein, William R. Wieder, Chonggang Xu, Ashehad A. Ali, Andrew M. Badger, Gautam Bisht, Michiel van den Broeke, Michael A. Brunke, Sean P. Burns, Jonathan Buzan, Martyn P. Clark, Anthony P Craig, Kyla M. Dahlin, Beth Drewniak, Joshua B. Fisher, M. Flanner, A. M. Fox, Pierre Gentine, Forrest M. Hoffman, G. Keppel‐Aleks, R. G. Knox, Sanjiv Kumar, Jan T. M. Lenaerts, L. Ruby Leung, William H. Lipscomb, Yaqiong Lü, Ashutosh Pandey, Jon D. Pelletier, J. Perket, James T. Randerson, Daniel M. Ricciuto, Benjamin M. Sanderson, A. G. Slater, Z. M. Subin, Jinyun Tang, R. Quinn Thomas, Maria Val Martin, Xubin Zeng
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Volume 11, Issue 12

The Community Land Model (CLM) is the land component of the Community Earth System Model (CESM) and is used in several global and regional modeling systems. In this paper, we introduce model developments included in CLM version 5 (CLM5), which is the default land component for CESM2. We assess an ensemble of simulations, including prescribed and prognostic vegetation state, multiple forcing data sets, and CLM4, CLM4.5, and CLM5, against a range of metrics including from the International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMBv2) package. CLM5 includes new and updated processes and parameterizations: (1) dynamic land units, (2) updated parameterizations and structure for hydrology and snow (spatially explicit soil depth, dry surface layer, revised groundwater scheme, revised canopy interception and canopy snow processes, updated fresh snow density, simple firn model, and Model for Scale Adaptive River Transport), (3) plant hydraulics and hydraulic redistribution, (4) revised nitrogen cycling (flexible leaf stoichiometry, leaf N optimization for photosynthesis, and carbon costs for plant nitrogen uptake), (5) global crop model with six crop types and time‐evolving irrigated areas and fertilization rates, (6) updated urban building energy, (7) carbon isotopes, and (8) updated stomatal physiology. New optional features include demographically structured dynamic vegetation model (Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator), ozone damage to plants, and fire trace gas emissions coupling to the atmosphere. Conclusive establishment of improvement or degradation of individual variables or metrics is challenged by forcing uncertainty, parametric uncertainty, and model structural complexity, but the multivariate metrics presented here suggest a general broad improvement from CLM4 to CLM5.

DOI bib
Representing Intrahillslope Lateral Subsurface Flow in the Community Land Model
Sean Swenson, Martyn P. Clark, Ying Fan, David M. Lawrence, J. Perket
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Volume 11, Issue 12

The concept of using representative hillslopes to simulate hydrologically similar areas of a catchment has been incorporated in many hydrologic models but few Earth system models. Here we describe a configuration of the Community Land Model version 5 in which each grid cell is decomposed into one or more multicolumn hillslopes. Within each hillslope, the intercolumn connectivity is specified, and the lateral saturated subsurface flow from each column is passed to its downslope neighbor. We first apply the model to simulate a headwater catchment and assess the results against runoff and evapotranspiration flux measurements. By redistributing soil water within the catchment, the model is able to reproduce the observed difference between evapotranspiration in the upland and lowland portions of the catchment. Next, global simulations based on hypothetical hillslope geomorphic parameters are used to show the model's sensitivity to differences in hillslope shape and discretization. Differences in evapotranspiration between upland and lowland hillslope columns are found to be largest in arid and semiarid regions, while humid tropical and high‐latitude regions show limited evapotranspiration increases in lowlands relative to uplands.