Articles | Volume 17, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-117-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-117-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Data description paper
| 
16 Jan 2025
Data description paper |
| 16 Jan 2025
| 16 Jan 2025
A flux tower site attribute dataset intended for land surface modeling
Jiahao Shi
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Hua Yuan
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Wanyi Lin
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Wenzong Dong
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Hongbin Liang
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Zhuo Liu
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Jianxin Zeng
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Haolin Zhang
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Nan Wei
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Zhongwang Wei
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Shupeng Zhang
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Shaofeng Liu
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Xingjie Lu
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Yongjiu Dai
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangdong Province Key Laboratory for Climate Change and Natural Disaster Studies, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
Related authors
No articles found.
Zhongwang Wei, Qingchen Xu, Fan Bai, Xionghui Xu, Zixin Wei, Wenzong Dong, Hongbin Liang, Nan Wei, Xingjie Lu, Lu Li, Shupeng Zhang, Hua Yuan, Laibao Liu, and Yongjiu Dai
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6517–6540, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6517-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6517-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface models are used for simulating how Earth's surface interacts with the atmosphere. As models grow more complex and detailed, researchers need better tools to evaluate their performance. OpenBench, a new software system that makes the evaluation process more comprehensive and efficient, stands out by incorporating various factors and working with data at any scale, enabling scientists to incorporate new types of models and measurements as our understanding of Earth's systems evolves.
Chen Yang, Aoqi Sun, Shupeng Zhang, Yongjiu Dai, Stefan Kollet, and Reed Maxwell
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3935, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater strongly influences how water and energy move between land and air, yet most large-scale climate and Earth system models treat it too simply. We reviewed 20 years of work combining a detailed groundwater model, ParFlow, with land surface models, showing ways groundwater shapes energy and water cycles. We also updated this model link, improving its performance, and proposed a flexible framework to support future advances.
Shuyang Guo, Yongjiu Dai, Hua Yuan, and Hongbin Liang
The Cryosphere, 19, 3553–3570, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3553-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3553-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Snow, Ice, and Aerosol Radiation Model version 4 has only been used to evaluate bare-ice albedo in land surface models, with necessary ice property data lacking quality control. We integrated this model into our land surface model and improved bare-ice properties using quality-controlled satellite data. Our findings show regional warming and reduced snow cover in Greenland’s bare-ice region, driven by changes in bare-ice properties through bare-ice–snow albedo feedback.
Shiao Feng, Wenhong Wang, Yonggen Zhang, Zhongwang Wei, Jianzhi Dong, Lutz Weihermüller, and Harry Vereecken
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-410, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-410, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Soil moisture is key for weather, farming, and ecosystems, but global datasets have gaps and biases. We compared three products against 1,615 stations with more than 1.9 million measured moisture, finding ERA5-Land highly correlated but biased high, and SMAP-L4 accurate but short-term. Fusing them created an enhanced dataset, improving correlation by 5%, reducing errors by 20%, and enhancing overall fit by 15%. This seamless resource aids drought tracking, water planning, and climate adaptation.
Shulei Zhang, Hongbin Liang, Fang Li, Xingjie Lu, and Yongjiu Dai
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 3119–3143, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3119-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3119-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study enhances irrigation modeling in the Common Land Model by capturing the full irrigation process, detailing water supplies from various sources, and enabling bidirectional coupling between water demand and supply. The proposed model accurately simulates irrigation water withdrawals, energy fluxes, river flow, and crop yields. It offers insights into irrigation-related climate impacts and water scarcity, contributing to sustainable water management and improved Earth system modeling.
Weilin Liao, Yanman Li, Xiaoping Liu, Yuhao Wang, Yangzi Che, Ledi Shao, Guangzhao Chen, Hua Yuan, Ning Zhang, and Fei Chen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2535–2551, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2535-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2535-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The currently available urban canopy parameter (UCP) datasets are limited to just a few cities for urban climate simulations by the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. To address this gap, we develop a global 1 km spatially continuous UCP dataset (GloUCP) which provides superior spatial coverage and higher accuracy in capturing urban morphology across diverse regions. It has great potential to support further advancements in urban climate modeling and related applications.
Chen Yang, Zitong Jia, Wenjie Xu, Zhongwang Wei, Xiaolang Zhang, Yiguang Zou, Jeffrey McDonnell, Laura Condon, Yongjiu Dai, and Reed Maxwell
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2201–2218, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2201-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2201-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We developed the first high-resolution, integrated surface water–groundwater hydrologic model of the entirety of continental China using ParFlow. The model shows good performance in terms of streamflow and water table depth when compared to global data products and observations. It is essential for water resources management and decision-making in China within a consistent framework in the changing world. It also has significant implications for similar modeling in other places in the world.
Gaosong Shi, Wenye Sun, Wei Shangguan, Zhongwang Wei, Hua Yuan, Lu Li, Xiaolin Sun, Ye Zhang, Hongbin Liang, Danxi Li, Feini Huang, Qingliang Li, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 517–543, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-517-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-517-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we developed the second version of China's high-resolution soil information grid using legacy soil samples and advanced machine learning. This version predicts over 20 soil properties at six depths, providing accurate soil variation maps across China. It outperforms previous versions and global products, offering valuable data for hydrological and ecological analyses and Earth system modelling, enhancing our understanding of soil roles in environmental processes.
Yangzi Che, Xuecao Li, Xiaoping Liu, Yuhao Wang, Weilin Liao, Xianwei Zheng, Xucai Zhang, Xiaocong Xu, Qian Shi, Jiajun Zhu, Honghui Zhang, Hua Yuan, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 5357–5374, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-5357-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-5357-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Most existing building height products are limited with respect to either spatial resolution or coverage, not to mention the spatial heterogeneity introduced by global building forms. Using Earth Observation (EO) datasets for 2020, we developed a global height dataset at the individual building scale. The dataset provides spatially explicit information on 3D building morphology, supporting both macro- and microanalysis of urban areas.
Liqing Peng, Justin Sheffield, Zhongwang Wei, Michael Ek, and Eric F. Wood
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1277–1300, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1277-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1277-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Integrating evaporative demand into drought indicators is effective, but the choice of method and the effectiveness of surface features remain undocumented. We evaluate various methods and surface features for predicting soil moisture dynamics. Using minimal ancillary information alongside meteorological and vegetation data, we develop a simple land-cover-based method that improves soil moisture drought predictions, especially in forests, showing promise for better real-time drought forecasting.
Bangjun Cao, Yaping Shao, Xianyu Yang, Xin Yin, and Shaofeng Liu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 275–285, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-275-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-275-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our novel scheme enhances large-eddy simulations (LESs) for atmosphere–land interactions. It couples LES subgrid closure with Monin–Obukhov similarity theory (MOST), overcoming MOST's limitations. Validated over diverse land surfaces, our approach outperforms existing methods, aligning well with field measurements. Robustness is demonstrated across varying model resolutions. MOST's influence strengthens with decreasing grid spacing, particularly for sensible heat flux.
Qingliang Li, Gaosong Shi, Wei Shangguan, Vahid Nourani, Jianduo Li, Lu Li, Feini Huang, Ye Zhang, Chunyan Wang, Dagang Wang, Jianxiu Qiu, Xingjie Lu, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 5267–5286, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-5267-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-5267-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
SMCI1.0 is a 1 km resolution dataset of daily soil moisture over China for 2000–2020 derived through machine learning trained with in situ measurements of 1789 stations, meteorological forcings, and land surface variables. It contains 10 soil layers with 10 cm intervals up to 100 cm deep. Evaluated by in situ data, the error (ubRMSE) ranges from 0.045 to 0.051, and the correlation (R) range is 0.866-0.893. Compared with ERA5-Land, SMAP-L4, and SoMo.ml, SIMI1.0 has higher accuracy and resolution.
Yi Nan, Zhihua He, Fuqiang Tian, Zhongwang Wei, and Lide Tian
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4147–4167, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4147-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4147-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Tracer-aided hydrological models are useful tool to reduce uncertainty of hydrological modeling in cold basins, but there is little guidance on the sampling strategy for isotope analysis, which is important for large mountainous basins. This study evaluated the reliance of the tracer-aided modeling performance on the availability of isotope data in the Yarlung Tsangpo river basin, and provides implications for collecting water isotope data for running tracer-aided hydrological models.
Ziqi Lin, Yongjiu Dai, Umakant Mishra, Guocheng Wang, Wei Shangguan, Wen Zhang, and Zhangcai Qin
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-232, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-232, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Spatial soil organic carbon (SOC) data is critical for predictions in carbon climate feedbacks and future climate trends, but no conclusion has yet been reached on which dataset to be used for specific purposes. We evaluated the SOC estimates from five widely used global soil datasets and a regional permafrost dataset, and identify uncertainties of SOC estimates by region, biome, and data sources, hoping to help improve SOC/soil data in the future.
Shuang Ma, Lifen Jiang, Rachel M. Wilson, Jeff P. Chanton, Scott Bridgham, Shuli Niu, Colleen M. Iversen, Avni Malhotra, Jiang Jiang, Xingjie Lu, Yuanyuan Huang, Jason Keller, Xiaofeng Xu, Daniel M. Ricciuto, Paul J. Hanson, and Yiqi Luo
Biogeosciences, 19, 2245–2262, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-2245-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-2245-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The relative ratio of wetland methane (CH4) emission pathways determines how much CH4 is oxidized before leaving the soil. We found an ebullition modeling approach that has a better performance in deep layer pore water CH4 concentration. We suggest using this approach in land surface models to accurately represent CH4 emission dynamics and response to climate change. Our results also highlight that both CH4 flux and belowground concentration data are important to constrain model parameters.
Yaoping Wang, Jiafu Mao, Mingzhou Jin, Forrest M. Hoffman, Xiaoying Shi, Stan D. Wullschleger, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4385–4405, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4385-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4385-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We developed seven global soil moisture datasets (1970–2016, monthly, half-degree, and multilayer) by merging a wide range of data sources, including in situ and satellite observations, reanalysis, offline land surface model simulations, and Earth system model simulations. Given the great value of long-term, multilayer, gap-free soil moisture products to climate research and applications, we believe this paper and the presented datasets would be of interest to many different communities.
Fei Jiang, Hengmao Wang, Jing M. Chen, Weimin Ju, Xiangjun Tian, Shuzhuang Feng, Guicai Li, Zhuoqi Chen, Shupeng Zhang, Xuehe Lu, Jane Liu, Haikun Wang, Jun Wang, Wei He, and Mousong Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1963–1985, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1963-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1963-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present a 6-year inversion from 2010 to 2015 for the global and regional carbon fluxes using only the GOSAT XCO2 retrievals. We find that the XCO2 retrievals could significantly improve the modeling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the inferred interannual variations in the terrestrial carbon fluxes in most land regions have a better relationship with the changes in severe drought area or leaf area index, or are more consistent with the previous estimates about drought impact.
Richard Essery, Hyungjun Kim, Libo Wang, Paul Bartlett, Aaron Boone, Claire Brutel-Vuilmet, Eleanor Burke, Matthias Cuntz, Bertrand Decharme, Emanuel Dutra, Xing Fang, Yeugeniy Gusev, Stefan Hagemann, Vanessa Haverd, Anna Kontu, Gerhard Krinner, Matthieu Lafaysse, Yves Lejeune, Thomas Marke, Danny Marks, Christoph Marty, Cecile B. Menard, Olga Nasonova, Tomoko Nitta, John Pomeroy, Gerd Schädler, Vladimir Semenov, Tatiana Smirnova, Sean Swenson, Dmitry Turkov, Nander Wever, and Hua Yuan
The Cryosphere, 14, 4687–4698, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are uncertain in predicting how warming changes snow cover. This paper compares 22 snow models with the same meteorological inputs. Predicted trends agree with observations at four snow research sites: winter snow cover does not start later, but snow now melts earlier in spring than in the 1980s at two of the sites. Cold regions where snow can last until late summer are predicted to be particularly sensitive to warming because the snow then melts faster at warmer times of year.
Cited articles
Anderson, R. G., Canadell, J. G., Randerson, J. T., Jackson, R. B., Hungate, B. A., Baldocchi, D. D., Ban-Weiss, G. A., Bonan, G. B., Caldeira, K., Cao, L., Diffenbaugh, N. S., Gurney, K. R., Kueppers, L. M., Law, B. E., Luyssaert, S., and O'Halloran, T. L.: Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection, Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 174–182, https://doi.org/10.1890/090179, 2011.
Ardö, J., Mölder, M., El-Tahir, B. A., and Elkhidir, H. A. M.: Seasonal variation of carbon fluxes in a sparse savanna in semi arid Sudan, Carbon Balance Manage, 3, 7, https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-3-7, 2008.
Arya, L. M. and Paris, J. F.: A Physicoempirical Model to Predict the Soil Moisture Characteristic from Particle-Size Distribution and Bulk Density Data, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 45, 1023–1030, https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1981.03615995004500060004x, 1981.
Bagley, J. E., Kueppers, L. M., Billesbach, D. P., Williams, I. N., Biraud, S. C., and Torn, M. S.: The influence of land cover on surface energy partitioning and evaporative fraction regimes in the U.S. Southern Great Plains, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 5793–5807, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026740, 2017.
Ball, J. T., Woodrow, I. E., and Berry, J. A.: A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions, in: Progress in Photosynthesis Research, edited by: Biggins, J., Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 221–224, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0519-6_48, 1987.
Beck, H. E., Zimmermann, N. E., McVicar, T. R., Vergopolan, N., Berg, A., and Wood, E. F.: Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution, Sci Data, 5, 180214, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214, 2018.
Berryman, E. M., Vanderhoof, M. K., Bradford, J. B., Hawbaker, T. J., Henne, P. D., Burns, S. P., Frank, J. M., Birdsey, R. A., and Ryan, M. G.: Estimating Soil Respiration in a Subalpine Landscape Using Point, Terrain, Climate, and Greenness Data, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 123, 3231–3249, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JG004613, 2018.
Best, M. J., Abramowitz, G., Johnson, H. R., Pitman, A. J., Balsamo, G., Boone, A., Cuntz, M., Decharme, B., Dirmeyer, P. A., Dong, J., Ek, M., Guo, Z., Haverd, V., van den Hurk, B. J. J., Nearing, G. S., Pak, B., Peters-Lidard, C., Santanello, J. A., Stevens, L., and Vuichard, N.: The Plumbing of Land Surface Models: Benchmarking Model Performance, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 1425–1442, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0158.1, 2015.
Blyth, E., Gash, J., Lloyd, A., Pryor, M., Weedon, G. P., and Shuttleworth, J.: Evaluating the JULES Land Surface Model Energy Fluxes Using FLUXNET Data, J. Hydrometeorol., 11, 509–519, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JHM1183.1, 2010.
Bonan, G. B.: Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests, Science, 320, 1444–1449, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155121, 2008.
Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Kergoat, L., and Oleson, K. W.: Landscapes as patches of plant functional types: An integrating concept for climate and ecosystem models, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 16, 5-1–5-23, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001360, 2002.
Brooke, J. K., Harlow, R. C., Scott, R. L., Best, M. J., Edwards, J. M., Thelen, J.-C., and Weeks, M.: Evaluating the Met Office Unified Model land surface temperature in Global Atmosphere/Land 3.1 (GA/L3.1), Global Atmosphere/Land 6.1 (GA/L6.1) and limited area 2.2 km configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1703–1724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1703-2019, 2019.
Brutsaert, W.: Energy Budget and Related Methods, in: Evaporation into the Atmosphere, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 209–230, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1497-6_10, 1982.
Chu, H., Luo, X., Ouyang, Z., Chan, W. S., Dengel, S., Biraud, S. C., Torn, M. S., Metzger, S., Kumar, J., Arain, M. A., Arkebauer, T. J., Baldocchi, D., Bernacchi, C., Billesbach, D., Black, T. A., Blanken, P. D., Bohrer, G., Bracho, R., Brown, S., Brunsell, N. A., Chen, J., Chen, X., Clark, K., Desai, A. R., Duman, T., Durden, D., Fares, S., Forbrich, I., Gamon, J. A., Gough, C. M., Griffis, T., Helbig, M., Hollinger, D., Humphreys, E., Ikawa, H., Iwata, H., Ju, Y., Knowles, J. F., Knox, S. H., Kobayashi, H., Kolb, T., Law, B., Lee, X., Litvak, M., Liu, H., Munger, J. W., Noormets, A., Novick, K., Oberbauer, S. F., Oechel, W., Oikawa, P., Papuga, S. A., Pendall, E., Prajapati, P., Prueger, J., Quinton, W. L., Richardson, A. D., Russell, E. S., Scott, R. L., Starr, G., Staebler, R., Stoy, P. C., Stuart-Haëntjens, E., Sonnentag, O., Sullivan, R. C., Suyker, A., Ueyama, M., Vargas, R., Wood, J. D., and Zona, D.: Representativeness of Eddy-Covariance flux footprints for areas surrounding AmeriFlux sites, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 301–302, 108350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108350, 2021.
Collatz, G., Ribas-Carbo, M., and Berry, J.: Coupled Photosynthesis-Stomatal Conductance Model for Leaves of C4 Plants, Funct. Plant Biol., 19, 519, https://doi.org/10.1071/PP9920519, 1992.
Crow, W. T., Kumar, S. V., and Bolten, J. D.: On the utility of land surface models for agricultural drought monitoring, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3451–3460, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3451-2012, 2012.
Dai, Y., Zeng, X., Dickinson, R. E., Baker, I., Bonan, G. B., Bosilovich, M. G., Denning, A. S., Dirmeyer, P. A., Houser, P. R., Niu, G., Oleson, K. W., Schlosser, C. A., and Yang, Z.-L.: The Common Land Model, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 84, 1013–1024, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1013, 2003.
Dai, Y., Dickinson, R. E., and Wang, Y.-P.: A Two-Big-Leaf Model for Canopy Temperature, Photosynthesis, and Stomatal Conductance, J. Climate, 17, 2281–2299, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<2281:ATMFCT>2.0.CO;2, 2004.
Dai, Y., Shangguan, W., Wei, N., Xin, Q., Yuan, H., Zhang, S., Liu, S., Lu, X., Wang, D., and Yan, F.: A review of the global soil property maps for Earth system models, SOIL, 5, 137–158, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-137-2019, 2019a.
Dai, Y., Yuan, H., Xin, Q., Wang, D., Shangguan, W., Zhang, S., Liu, S., and Wei, N.: Different representations of canopy structure – A large source of uncertainty in global land surface modeling, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 269–270, 119–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.006, 2019b.
Dirmeyer, P. A.: The terrestrial segment of soil moisture-climate coupling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L16702, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048268, 2011.
Dy, C. Y. and Fung, J. C. H.: Updated global soil map for the Weather Research and Forecasting model and soil moisture initialization for the Noah land surface model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 8777–8800, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024558, 2016.
Entekhabi, D., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., and Castelli, F.: Mutual interaction of soil moisture state and atmospheric processes, J. Hydrol., 184, 3–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(95)02965-6, 1996.
Essery, R.: Large-scale simulations of snow albedo masking by forests, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 5521–5525, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.51008, 2013.
Farquhar, G. D., Von Caemmerer, S., and Berry, J. A.: A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species, Planta, 149, 78–90, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00386231, 1980.
Forzieri, G., Miralles, D. G., Ciais, P., Alkama, R., Ryu, Y., Duveiller, G., Zhang, K., Robertson, E., Kautz, M., Martens, B., Jiang, C., Arneth, A., Georgievski, G., Li, W., Ceccherini, G., Anthoni, P., Lawrence, P., Wiltshire, A., Pongratz, J., Piao, S., Sitch, S., Goll, D. S., Arora, V. K., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Kato, E., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Tian, H., Friedlingstein, P., and Cescatti, A.: Increased control of vegetation on global terrestrial energy fluxes, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 356–362, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0717-0, 2020.
Harper, A. B., Williams, K. E., McGuire, P. C., Duran Rojas, M. C., Hemming, D., Verhoef, A., Huntingford, C., Rowland, L., Marthews, T., Breder Eller, C., Mathison, C., Nobrega, R. L. B., Gedney, N., Vidale, P. L., Otu-Larbi, F., Pandey, D., Garrigues, S., Wright, A., Slevin, D., De Kauwe, M. G., Blyth, E., Ardö, J., Black, A., Bonal, D., Buchmann, N., Burban, B., Fuchs, K., de Grandcourt, A., Mammarella, I., Merbold, L., Montagnani, L., Nouvellon, Y., Restrepo-Coupe, N., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021.
Harper, K. L., Lamarche, C., Hartley, A., Peylin, P., Ottlé, C., Bastrikov, V., San Martín, R., Bohnenstengel, S. I., Kirches, G., Boettcher, M., Shevchuk, R., Brockmann, C., and Defourny, P.: A 29-year time series of annual 300 m resolution plant-functional-type maps for climate models, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1465–1499, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1465-2023, 2023.
Humphrey, V., Berg, A., Ciais, P., Gentine, P., Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Seneviratne, S. I., and Frankenberg, C.: Soil moisture–atmosphere feedback dominates land carbon uptake variability, Nature, 592, 65–69, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03325-5, 2021.
Lawrence, P. J. and Chase, T. N.: Representing a new MODIS consistent land surface in the Community Land Model (CLM 3.0), J. Geophys. Res., 112, G01023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JG000168, 2007.
Li, J., Chen, F., Zhang, G., Barlage, M., Gan, Y., Xin, Y., and Wang, C.: Impacts of Land Cover and Soil Texture Uncertainty on Land Model Simulations Over the Central Tibetan Plateau, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2121–2146, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001377, 2018.
Li, J., Zhang, G., Chen, F., Peng, X., and Gan, Y.: Evaluation of Land Surface Subprocesses and Their Impacts on Model Performance With Global Flux Data, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 1329–1348, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001606, 2019.
Lin, W., Yuan, H., Dong, W., Zhang, S., Liu, S., Wei, N., Lu, X., Wei, Z., Hu, Y., and Dai, Y.: Reprocessed MODIS Version 6.1 Leaf Area Index Dataset and Its Evaluation for Land Surface and Climate Modeling, Remote Sens., 15, 1780, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15071780, 2023.
Mariotti, A., Ruti, P. M., and Rixen, M.: Progress in subseasonal to seasonal prediction through a joint weather and climate community effort, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 1, 4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0014-z, 2018.
Melton, J. R., Arora, V. K., Wisernig-Cojoc, E., Seiler, C., Fortier, M., Chan, E., and Teckentrup, L.: CLASSIC v1.0: the open-source community successor to the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) and the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) – Part 1: Model framework and site-level performance, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2825–2850, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2825-2020, 2020.
Ménard, C. B., Ikonen, J., Rautiainen, K., Aurela, M., Arslan, A. N., and Pulliainen, J.: Effects of Meteorological and Ancillary Data, Temporal Averaging, and Evaluation Methods on Model Performance and Uncertainty in a Land Surface Model, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 2559–2576, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0013.1, 2015.
Minasny, B. and McBratney, A. B.: Estimating the Water Retention Shape Parameter from Sand and Clay Content, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 71, 1105–1110, https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0298N, 2007.
Pastorello, G., Trotta, C., and Canfora, E.: The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data, Sci. Data, 7, 225, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00851-9, 2020.
Pitman, A. J.: The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes designed for climate models, Int. J. Climatol., 23, 479–510, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.893, 2003.
Poulter, B., Ciais, P., Hodson, E., Lischke, H., Maignan, F., Plummer, S., and Zimmermann, N. E.: Plant functional type mapping for earth system models, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 993–1010, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-993-2011, 2011.
Purdy, A. J., Fisher, J. B., Goulden, M. L., and Famiglietti, J. S.: Ground heat flux: An analytical review of 6 models evaluated at 88 sites and globally, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 121, 3045–3059, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003591, 2016.
Shangguan, W., Dai, Y., Duan, Q., Liu, B., and Yuan, H.: A global soil data set for earth system modeling, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 6, 249–263, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000293, 2014.
Shi, J. and Yuan, H.: Mbnl1197/Flux-tower-attribute-for-LSM: Flux-tower-attribute-for-LSM (V3.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13684992, 2024.
Shi, J., Yuan, H., Lin, W., Dong, W., amd Dai, Y.: A flux tower site attribute dataset intended for land surface modeling, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12596218, 2024.
Stevens, D., Miranda, P. M. A., Orth, R., Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., and Dutra, E.: Sensitivity of Surface Fluxes in the ECMWF Land Surface Model to the Remotely Sensed Leaf Area Index and Root Distribution: Evaluation with Tower Flux Data, Atmosphere, 11, 1362, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121362, 2020.
Still, C. J., Berry, J. A., Collatz, G. J., and DeFries, R. S.: Global distribution of C 3 and C 4 vegetation: Carbon cycle implications, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 17, 6-1–6-14, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001807, 2003.
Stöckli, R., Lawrence, D. M., Bonan, G. B., Denning, A. S., and Running, S. W.: Use of FLUXNET in the Community Land Model development, J. Geophys. Res., 113, G01025, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000562, 2008.
Swenson, S. C., Burns, S. P., and Lawrence, D. M.: The Impact of Biomass Heat Storage on the Canopy Energy Balance and Atmospheric Stability in the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 11, 83–98, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001476, 2019.
Ukkola, A. M., De Kauwe, M. G., Pitman, A. J., Best, M. J., Abramowitz, G., Haverd, V., Decker, M., and Haughton, N.: Land surface models systematically overestimate the intensity, duration and magnitude of seasonal-scale evaporative droughts, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 104012, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104012, 2016a.
Ukkola, A. M., Pitman, A. J., Decker, M., De Kauwe, M. G., Abramowitz, G., Kala, J., and Wang, Y.-P.: Modelling evapotranspiration during precipitation deficits: identifying critical processes in a land surface model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2403–2419, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2403-2016, 2016b.
Ukkola, A. M., Haughton, N., De Kauwe, M. G., Abramowitz, G., and Pitman, A. J.: FluxnetLSM R package (v1.0): a community tool for processing FLUXNET data for use in land surface modelling, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3379–3390, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3379-2017, 2017.
Ukkola, A. M., Abramowitz, G., and De Kauwe, M. G.: A flux tower dataset tailored for land model evaluation, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 449–461, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-449-2022, 2022.
Williams, I. N. and Torn, M. S.: Vegetation controls on surface heat flux partitioning, and land-atmosphere coupling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 9416–9424, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066305, 2015.
Williams, M., Richardson, A. D., Reichstein, M., Stoy, P. C., Peylin, P., Verbeeck, H., Carvalhais, N., Jung, M., Hollinger, D. Y., Kattge, J., Leuning, R., Luo, Y., Tomelleri, E., Trudinger, C. M., and Wang, Y.-P.: Improving land surface models with FLUXNET data, Biogeosciences, 6, 1341–1359, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-1341-2009, 2009.
Wilson, K., Goldstein, A., Falge, E., Aubinet, M., Baldocchi, D., Berbigier, P., Bernhofer, C., Ceulemans, R., Dolman, H., Field, C., Grelle, A., Ibrom, A., Law, B. E., Kowalski, A., Meyers, T., Moncrieff, J., Monson, R., Oechel, W., Tenhunen, J., Valentini, R., and Verma, S.: Energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 113, 223–243, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(02)00109-0, 2002.
Yuan, H., Dai, Y., Xiao, Z., Ji, D., and Shangguan, W.: Reprocessing the MODIS Leaf Area Index products for land surface and climate modelling, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 1171–1187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.01.001, 2011.
Yuan, H., Dai, Y., Dickinson, R. E., Pinty, B., Shangguan, W., Zhang, S., Wang, L., and Zhu, S.: Reexamination and further development of two-stream canopy radiative transfer models for global land modeling, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 9, 113–129, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000773, 2017.
Zeng, X. and Dickinson, R. E.: Effect of Surface Sublayer on Surface Skin Temperature and Fluxes, J. Climate, 11, 537–550, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<0537:EOSSOS>2.0.CO;2, 1998.
Zhang, X., Dai, Y., Cui, H., Dickinson, R. E., Zhu, S., Wei, N., Yan, B., Yuan, H., Shangguan, W., Wang, L., and Fu, W.: Evaluating common land model energy fluxes using FLUXNET data, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1035–1046, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-017-6251-y, 2017.
Short summary
Flux tower data are widely recognized as benchmarking data for land surface models, but insufficient emphasis on and deficiency in site attribute data limits their true value. We collect site-observed vegetation, soil, and topography data from various sources. The final dataset encompasses 90 sites globally, with relatively complete site attribute data and high-quality flux validation data. This work has provided more reliable site attribute data, benefiting land surface model development.
Flux tower data are widely recognized as benchmarking data for land surface models, but...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint