the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Southern Andes Daily Snow Depth Dataset (2010–2024): Quality–Controlled Dataset from Chile and Argentina
Abstract. The snowpack is a critical component of the water cycle in the Southern Andes of Chile and Argentina. In this region, quantitative assessments of snow accumulation remain limited by the scarcity, heterogeneity, and inconsistency of in situ observations, leading to large uncertainties in mountain hydrological modeling. To address this gap, we compile and quality–control snow depth observations, which are more spatially extensive and have a higher temporal resolution than snow water equivalent measurements, producing a consistent daily dataset of 81 stations between 21° S and 54° S for the period 2010–2024. Our quality-control procedure was primarily based on an adjustment of the snow depth ground reference level defined as the soil surface during snow-free periods, followed by the removal of anomalous spikes and observations outside physically plausible ranges. This process substantially improved data reliability, increasing the Physical Consistency Index (PCI), a multivariable metric that evaluates whether snow accumulation events are consistent with precipitation occurrence and lower temperatures, from 87 % to 95 % at some stations, while reducing the median data availability across all stations by 23 % (from 1,392 to 1,074 observations). The snow depth data availability increased markedly over time, from only one station in 2010, to 14 stations in 2015, and up to 57 stations in 2024, largely driven by expanded monitoring efforts of the General Directorate of Water, Chile. However, this expansion remains uneven across the Andean zones. The Mediterranean Andes concentrate the highest station density (39) and the largest number of highly complete records, with 17 stations reaching 80–100 % data coverage. In contrast, both the Arid Andes and the Wet Andes have only nine stations each reaching the same level of completeness, highlighting persistent spatial and temporal gaps. Using this newly quality–controlled dataset, we find that snow depth increases with precipitation from the Arid to the Wet Andes, but does not necessarily increase with elevation. The snow depth–elevation relationship is nonlinear in the Arid and Mediterranean Andes, with maximum accumulation at 4,300 m a.s.l. in the Elqui River Basin and 3,300 m a.s.l. in the Maipo River Basin. In contrast, a positive relationship emerges in the Wet Andes (Maule–Itata River Basin). This open–access, quality–controlled snow depth dataset (Medina and Caro, 2026, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20089265) represents the largest and most complete collection of continuous snow depth data for the Southern Andes, providing a robust basis for hydrological applications, such as model forcing and calibration, empirical analyses, reanalysis evaluation, and improved seasonal streamflow forecasting.
- Preprint
(3649 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-324', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jun 2026 reply
Data sets
The Southern Andes Daily Snow Depth Dataset (2010–2024): Quality-Controlled Dataset from Chile and Argentina Javier Medina and Alexis Caro https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20089265
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 318 | 85 | 14 | 417 | 18 | 20 |
- HTML: 318
- PDF: 85
- XML: 14
- Total: 417
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General Comments
Caro and co-authors present a new dataset of snow depth observations across the Southern Andes, compiled from several independent sources in Chile and Argentina. The observations are quality-controlled and homogenized through a systematic procedure. The authors demonstrate the scientific value of the dataset by analysing the relationship between snow depth observations and elevation in each of the three best-monitored river basins in the dataset. The article is within the scope of ESSD.
This study is a very welcome contribution, as snow depth data in the Andes are scarce and sometimes very difficult to find and process. The overview of data availability provided by the authors is useful for understanding the current limitations in spatial and temporal coverage. The new dataset will serve as a reference for hydro-meteorological studies in the region.
I am confident that this work can be accepted soon, but I would suggest a major revision at this stage so that the authors have the opportunity to clarify a few methodological issues and refine the presentation. Please see my comments below.
1. Methods
The presentation of the methods is confusing in some parts, and I could not follow all the details, particularly the logic and explanations behind the new PCI index. Please see my specific comments below.
2. Snow depth – elevation gradients
The conclusions about snow depth variations with elevation need to be cautious, as they are not necessarily generalizable from the available stations. Although the results presented here are based on this excellent database, the stations are still restricted to a few accessible locations, and many areas remain unmonitored. I refer especially to the discussion of altitudinal patterns of snow accumulation with breaks at specific elevations, for example in L49–50 and L534–542.
3. Text length
The text is lengthy in some sections. Please check for repetitions and consider shortening some paragraphs. I have left a few suggestions in this direction.
4. Updating the database
And a general question: I didn’t understand whether this is a static database, or whether you are planning to have regular updates.
Specific comments and text suggestions
- 41: I think that the mean is a better indicator here. The median neglects the magnitude of extreme values as it is calculated using only the central values. This comment is valid in several parts of the paper.
- 56-57: Although this applies only to mid-latitude regions. In fact, you show later that snow accumulation in the northern stations occurs mostly during the austral winter.
- 58: Can you add a reference for this? Is this meant in general or just for the Southern Andes?
- 64: Please specify briefly here the elevation limits of the Mediterranean Andes. Is this above a certain elevation? The rivers of central Chile exhibit an important pluvial component to lower elevations. Or maybe specify that you refer to mountain rivers.
- 84: Chile and Argentina?
- 102-103: percentile ranges of what? Do you mean that 50% of the stations are between 32 and 34 degrees?
- 103:104: Can you provide examples o these extrapolations? Or do you mean in non-academic work?
- 104:105: The water supply sentence sounds like a repetition from the first paragraph.
- 107-108: Although Cornwell et al. (2016) did find evidence of a peak in SWE around 5000 m.
- 131: Check the paper structure. It reads strange that there is only 1.1. I suggest that Study area moves to number 2.
- 132: commonly -> can be
- 132-133: Is this classification used in those studies? I thought that Caro et al. (2021) use the Tropical-Dry-Wet classification from Lliboutry, don’t they? Maybe Sarricolea et al. (2017) is a better reference here?
- 135: delete “northern”
- 147: “comparatively” to what?
- 149: can you briefly explain what does “persistent” mean here? Having snow for a minimum number of months during the year?
- 150-151: “Chilean ...” can be removed
- 151-154: Repetition. Can be removed
- 161: At what time resolution are the original data provided?
- 162-163: Maybe “three” river basins?
- 163: Delete “including”? These are all the stations used in the article
- 172: “initial station-level screening” Is this a visual screening based on expert judgment?
- 172: Is this initial screening a type of Step 0?
- 172: “Prior to the data cleaning” Does the “data cleaning” corresponds to steps 2.1 to 2.5?
- 173: Remove “criteria used to evaluate”
- 174-177: I think this would fit better at the end of this sub-section. It is a nice summary of the final dataset.
- 181-182: what is “sufficient temporal coverage”? Did you set a minimum time length?
- 184-186: Is this referring to steps 2.1-2.5? Please refer to the corresponding number of each step to be clear about what are you referring to.
- 188: “This step”, what number?
- 184-188: In what temporal resolution are these proceedings applied?
- 194: “a median window length of five days was adopted” But you use different windows for each station, right? Or is there a relation with the macrozone? Please explain better the selection of these windows. How do you select the value for each station?
- 197: Why 5 cm?
- 200: Please introduce the “validated offset” earlier in the text
- 202: Is the Campbell sensor accuracy valid for all stations?
- 203: Please present the information about the hourly observations earlier in the text
- 191-207: I suggest the authors to re-structure this paragraph. I think that all the information is there, but the explanations are convoluted.
- 210: The use of the median is again not fully informative. See my comment 3 on Table 1.
- 210-211: What criteria did you use to select the window size?
- 208: Are you using daily or hourly data at this point?
- 216: “k was calibrated”, but what is the target in this calibration?
- 217: “the median value” across stations or basins?
- 223-224: How did you select these thresholds? Based on expert judgement?
- 228: “the median physical limits” do the limits depend on each station?
- 232: “cleaned SD”, is this the final clean dataset shown in Figure 2? Then the arrow should come from Step 2 and not Step 4?
- 238: what type of external sources?
- 239-240: is the dataset going to be regularly updated? See one of my main comments
- 245: observations at the same site, right? Maybe specify more explicitly
- 251: “We developed and implemented a new index of physical consistency” Just to be more explicit
- 252: Here and later, there are several “?” symbols in the equations
- 259-260: I don’t understand this part. Why is the temperature threshold defined as the 95th percentile? Wouldn’t be better to use an absolute number between 0 and 2 C? Don’t you obtain values of T well above zero C using the 95th percentile? Or even below zero?
- 263-264: So the only difference between the numerator and denominator is the condition of T<Train? Is that the purpose of the PCI index? To detect unplausible events with Delta-S>0 and Pr>1 but with T>Train? Wouldn’t be more logical to use all the SD changes in the denominator (and not only those with Pr>`mm)? Then, the raw, noisy datasets will have low PCIs.
- 275-276: “The procedure effectively identified and removed…” To what procedure are you referring to? Step 2?
- 282: “we selected precipitation observations” for what? For the classification of years?
- 288-289: “In contrast, mean air temperature…” This sounds trivial, I suggest removing
- 290: “competing effects” why are they exactly competing effects? Both positive precipitation gradients and negative temperature gradients affect in the same direction, don’t they?
- 296: Add the reference of the SRTM dataset
- 297-304: What is the purpose of this procedure using the snow persistence?
- 302: Maybe remove the sentence about SRTM. I would say it is logical that you used the same DEM.
- 303: “elevation contour”
- 306: As you are analysing the distribution of stations, and not actual observations of snow depth, I suggest changing the title to : “Spatial distribution of snow depth stations” or similar.
- 337: delete “effective”
- 354: “Key places” why are these places key? Maybe change to “selected”
- 366: “across the Andes” or just the Mediterranean Andes?
- 380: availability -> quality?
- 380-434: This section is a bit long providing many details about each corrected station. Can the text be summarized? Specially because the authors comment on several details that can’t be seen in any figure.
- 388: Same problem for the median here. Better use the mean?
- 425-426: Here (and in other parts of this subsection) the use of the median can also be misleading. The median of the reductions could have changed little but the median will not capture a station where the reduction was very high.
- 442-444: Please reword these lines
- 450: why the “spread of values”?
- 457-459: Isn’t that a consequence of using Pr>1mm in the calculation of N, in the PCI formula? See my previous comment on 263-264.
- 477-478: “but from the effective correction data issues…” in what step is that? Please include it in the next
- 483-484: I would delete the first part, start with “We selected…”
- 491: Here and throughout this sub-section, what is this median SD? The median across what? years?
- 518-522: I agree about wind erosion and limited snow deposition, and sublimation. Also, the work of Viale and Nuñez (2011) shows that precipitation has a maximum below the crest of the Andes.
- 531: “In addition, a more robust…” or something similar to reduce the length of the text.
- 537-539: Keep in mind that the analysis is made only for a few stations. The text is written as if the pattern was general. See one of my main comments.
- 554: “that do not provide observations during normal precipitation years” This sounds as the stations would never capture normal years, but I guess the authors refer only to the analysed years.
- 583: “Of the 118…” -> “Of an original total of 118 …” or similar
- 589: “significantly reduced” can you provide the percentage here?
- 596: why is it relevant that these basins had a single station?
- 601: Begin with “Only three river basins…” if you would like to reduce text.
- 601-607: please add some caution to this paragraph stating that the elevation patterns are inferred from a (still) limited set of stations that do not represent the entire catchment. This is valid not only for Maule-Itata but also for Elqui and Maipo.
Figures
- Fig 1: Mention the 3 highlighted basins in the caption. Why are they highlighted?
- Fig 1: Can you use softer colours for the base maps? Maybe using transparency. As it is, it is difficult to see all the details of the stations.
- Fig 2: I think it would be helpful for the reader to show here the 5 sub-steps of Step 2.
- Fig 2: Specify in the figure that five logos above correspond to the data providers
- Fig 3: “Colors indicate” what colours?
- Fig 4: Can you use softer colours for the base maps? Maybe using transparency. As it is, it is difficult to see all the details of the stations.
Tables
- Table 1: Basin area from Table 2 fits better here
- Table 1: Given the small number of stations per basin, I think that the mean is a better metric that the median here. If you have, for example, 3 stations in the catchment with elevations E1, E2 and E3, the median elevation will always be E2, and the information about the elevation of the other two stations is lost. Same for latitude.
- Table 2: I suggest changing to the mean here too
References
Sarricolea, P., Herrera-Ossandon, M., and Meseguer-Ruiz, Ó.: Climatic regionalisation of continental Chile, J. Maps, 13, 66–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2016.1259592, 2017.
Viale, M. and Nuñez, M. N.: Climatology of winter orographic precipitation over the subtropical central Andes and associated synoptic and regional characteristics, J. Hydrometeorol., 12, 481–507, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JHM1284.1, 2011.
Caro, A., Condom, T., and Rabatel, A.: Climatic and Morphometric Explanatory Variables of Glacier Changes in the Andes (8–55°S): New Insights From Machine Learning Approaches, Front. Earth Sci., 9, 1–21, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.713011, 2021.