Reply on RC1

Abstract

So far, various studies aimed at decomposing the integrated terrestrial water storage variations observed by satellite gravimetry (GRACE, GRACE-FO) with the help of large-scale hydrological models. While the results of the storage decomposition depend on model structure, little attention has been given to the impact of the way how vegetation is represented in these models. Although vegetation structure and activity represent the crucial link between water, carbon and energy cycles, their representation in large-scale hydrological models remains a major source of uncertainty. At the same time, the increasing availability and quality of Earth observation-based vegetation data provide valuable information with good prospects for improving model simulations and gaining better insights into the role of vegetation within the global water cycle. In this study, we use observation-based vegetation information such as vegetation indices and rooting depths for spatializing the parameters of a simple global hydrological model to define infiltration, root water uptake and transpiration processes. The parameters are further constrained by considering observations of terrestrial water storage anomalies (TWS), soil moisture, evapotranspiration (ET) and gridded runoff (Q) estimates in a multi-criteria calibration approach. We assess the implications of including vegetation on the simulation results, with a particular focus on the partitioning between water storage components. To isolate the effect of vegetation, we compare a model experiment with vegetation parameters varying in space and time to a baseline experiment in which all parameters are calibrated as static, globally uniform values. Both experiments show good overall performance, but including vegetation data led to even better performance and more physically plausible parameter values. Largest improvements regarding TWS and ET were seen in supply-limited (semi-arid) regions and in the tropics, whereas Q simulations improve mainly in northern latitudes. While the total fluxes and storages are similar, accounting for vegetation substantially changes the contributions of snow and different soil water storage components to the TWS variations, with the dominance of an intermediate water pool that interacts with the fast plant accessible soil moisture and the delayed water storage. The findings indicate the important role of deeper moisture storages as well as groundwater-soil moisture-vegetation interactions as a key to understanding TWS variations. We highlight the need for further observations to identify the adequate model structure rather than only model parameters for a reasonable representation and interpretation of vegetation-water interactions.