Abstract
The Arctic region is the most sensitive region to climate change. Hydrological models are fundamental tools for climate change impact assessment. However, due to the extreme weather conditions, specific hydrological process, and data acquisition challenges in the Arctic, it is crucial to select suitable hydrological model(s) for this region. In this paper, a comprehensive review and comparison of different models is conducted based on recently available studies. The functionality, limitations, and suitability of the potential hydrological models for the Arctic hydrological process are analyzed, including: (1) The surface hydrological models Topoflow, DMHS (deterministic modeling hydrological system), HBV (Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning), SWAT (soil and water assessment tool), WaSiM (water balance simulation model), ECOMAG (ecological model for applied geophysics), and CRHM (cold regions hydrological model); and (2) the cryo-hydrogeological models ATS (arctic terrestrial simulator), CryoGrid 3, GEOtop, SUTRA-ICE (ice variant of the existing saturated/unsaturated transport model), and PFLOTRAN-ICE (ice variant of the existing massively parallel subsurface flow and reactive transport model). The review finds that Topoflow, HBV, SWAT, ECOMAG, and CRHM are suitable for studying surface hydrology rather than other processes in permafrost environments, whereas DMHS, WaSiM, and the cryo-hydrogeological models have higher capacities for subsurface hydrology, since they take into account the three phase changes of water in the near-surface soil. Of the cryo-hydrogeological models reviewed here, GEOtop, SUTRA-ICE, and PFLOTRAN-ICE are found to be suitable for small-scale catchments, whereas ATS and CryoGrid 3 are potentially suitable for large-scale catchments. Especially, ATS and GEOtop are the first tools that couple surface/subsurface permafrost thermal hydrology. If the accuracy of simulating the active layer dynamics is targeted, DMHS, ATS, GEOtop, and PFLOTRAN-ICE are potential tools compared to the other models. Further, data acquisition is a challenging task for cryo-hydrogeological models due to the complex boundary conditions when compared to the surface hydrological models HBV, SWAT, and CRHM, and the cryo-hydrogeological models are more difficult for non-expert users and more expensive to run compared to other models.
Highlights
Climate change is expected to alter the hydrological processes in the Arctic [6,18], e.g., through thawing of the permafrost layer, which has been observed from the field measurement data obtained during the last decades [19,20,21,22,23,24]
Topoflow is able to reasonably simulate the active layer thickness (ALT) with a relatively simple method. Such a method should be further improved in order to analyze the dynamics of the active layer more accurately, since the active layer has a high impact on the hydrological processes in permafrost environments [51]
If the accuracy of subsurface hydrology simulation is prioritized, DMHS, WaSiM, and the cryo-hydrogeology models are good options, since such models take into account the three phase changes of water, which are important in permafrost environments for analyzing water during the freezing and thawing process of near-surface soils
Summary
Global climate change (GCC) is more intensive in the Arctic region than in other parts of the world [1,2]. The Presence of Permafrost and Its Relation to Hydrological Processes in the Arctic Region. Permafrost can affect many hydrological processes in Arctic and sub-Arctic environments [6], for example, surface and subsurface water fluxes [4,7,8,9]. The thin soil layer overlying permafrost is the active layer that seasonally freezes and thaws [4,5] This active layer in the Arctic varies from several centimeters to one or two meters in depth [6] and most of the hydrological and biogeochemical processes occur in this layer [7,15]. Unlike non-permafrost soils, where a groundwater system is available and deep, the subsurface movement of water in permafrost-affected soil is mostly confined to the shallow active layer [6]. According to the study by McNamara et al, the specific base flow in a permafrost basin is lower than that in a non-permafrost basin [10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
