Author
Abstract
Soil moisture plays a crucial role in surface hydrological processes and land–atmosphere interactions. It can influence vegetation growth directly, serving as a significant indicator for monitoring agricultural drought. However, spatially continuous datasets of root zone soil moisture rely on model simulations, introducing numerous uncertainties associated with model parameters and input data. Currently, multiple soil moisture products derived from model simulations exist, but their representation at spatial scales remains unclear. Moreover, their abilities to express soil–atmosphere and soil–vegetation interactions within land–atmosphere coupling are not understood, leading to divergent inclinations toward drought. This study investigates the performance of five soil moisture products, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis v5-Land (ERA5-Land), Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS), Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM), The Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), and SoMo.ml, under drought conditions. The bias, correlation, and difference of standard deviation (STDD) were calculated between these products and the observations from International Soil Moisture Network stations. The causal probability of soil, meteorological, and agricultural drought was calculated using the causal-effect Peter and Clark (PC) Momentary Conditional Independence (MCI) method to evaluate the data propensity of these products. ERA5-Land and SoMo.ml gave a similar performance with the highest accuracy, which was attributed to the use of the same meteorological forcing data. The biases of soil moisture from these two products at surface, middle and deep depths against station observations are below 0.1 m3/m3, and the STDD is within 0.05 m3/m3. The accuracy of GLDAS is comparatively lower, characterized by lower correlations (below 0.2 for deeper layers) and high bias (above 0.15 and 0.2 for middle and deep layers, respectively). This discrepancy could be attributed to substantial biases in the precipitation forcing data. ERA5-Land shows higher spatial resolution and greater spatial heterogeneity, whereas MERRA-2 underperformed in this area. MERRA-2 had the strongest connection to agricultural drought, with a propensity probability of 0.477. Conversely, SoMo.ml demonstrates the strongest connection to meteorological drought, with a propensity probability of 0.234. Due to the errors in simulated and observational data during the MERRA data assimilation, substantial biases in the soil moisture data, and low accuracy in meteorological forcing of GLDAS, there was no clear causal relationship between soil moisture drought and meteorological drought between these two products. These findings provide recommendations for the use of soil moisture products in drought research.
Suggested Citation
Xue, Shouye & Wu, Guocan, 2024.
"Causal inference of root zone soil moisture performance in drought,"
Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:305:y:2024:i:c:s0378377424004591
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2024.109123
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:305:y:2024:i:c:s0378377424004591. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.