A global terrestrial water budget discrete grid dataset constrained by GRDC observations (2000–2020)
Abstract. With the development of large-scale data-driven research paradigm, spatially continuous and physically consistent gridded water-cycle data have become an essential basis for global hydrological process assessments, model training, and numerical simulations. Previous studies on terrestrial water budget closure have encountered persistent difficulty in simultaneously accounting for the observational realism of basin-scale runoff and the spatial continuity of gridded data. To address this problem, we developed a technical pathway for transferring constraints from real basin-scale observations to global gridded water-cycle variables. This approach overcomes the limitations of traditional basin-scale methods, which cannot adequately describe the internal spatial heterogeneity, and those of gridded-scale methods, which typically lack constraints from real runoff observations. The ISEA3H10 equal-area hexagonal discrete global grid was used as a unified spatial framework for this new dataset. Through basin–grid spatial overlay and area weighting, GRDC basin outlet runoff observations were converted into supervisory information that can be used by a gridded model. A deep-learning model with physical loss constraints was designed to jointly optimize key water-cycle variables, including precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff, and terrestrial water storage change. The model further introduced natural background variables, including topography, vegetation, land-surface temperature, snow cover, and soil moisture. So that the water-cycle estimation does not rely solely on individual hydrological flux information, but also uses the spatial heterogeneity of more environmental factors to support water budget closure. This study integrated multiple remote-sensing, reanalysis, and land-surface model products, and further incorporated 710,274 GRDC runoff records from 3,471 basins worldwide as observational constraints. Based on these data, this study developed a monthly gridded dataset of precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff, and terrestrial water storage changes covering global land areas from 2000 to 2020, for a total of 252 months. The optimized gridded runoff had a correlation coefficient of approximately 0.9 with GRDC observations, and its root mean square error (RMSE) was substantially lower than that of the original gridded runoff proxy products. Independent validation at 524 FLUXNET sites worldwide showed that precipitation and evapotranspiration maintained an accuracy comparable to, or more stable than, that of mainstream input products. Among 672 original P-E-R-ΔS product combinations, the combination exhibiting the optimal performance in terms of closure had a global monthly water budget residual RMSE of 43.37 mm/month. The optimized product reduced the RMSE to 14.33 mm/month, with a mean residual of −0.44 mm/month. The dataset preserved the seasonal consistency of each water-cycle variable and the consistency of the land-cover type zonal differences. Typical regions validation indicated that it also captured the coordinated anomalous responses of precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff, and terrestrial water storage during special flood and drought events.
In general this is a very good manuscript introducing a new deep-learning-generated database for precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff and terrestrial water storage. The authors trained a DL-architecture to receive several sources of information on these variables as well as static variables and related dynamic variables and force the model to predict the median value of these 4 variables, while preserving the water balance closure as close as possible and minimizing the difference with GRDC runoff.
In general I would like to see a bit more evaluation and distributional characteristics of the produced dataset. Additionally, I believe extending the dataset to at least 2025 would increase its usefulness for other tasks/research.
Line 78: “approximately 8.31%” I would reduce the precision here to state “approximately 8%”.
Line 89: “The resulting dataset reduced the residual water balance and improved the physical consistency and spatial representation.” Where does this reduce it?
Line 104: “The training and validation samples were divided by time for model training and evaluation of extrapolation capability.” Why not also hold out a few basins?
Lines 116-124: Please reference these datasets.
Tables 1 & 2 are not reader-friendly.
Line 174: What is the area of the cells then?
Line 194: drop approximately or reduce the precision of the number.
Line 202: What is a readout layer?
Lines 270-285: Why not make use of the (lack of) spread in the input variables to close the water balance? For example, if the spread in e.g., E is high in the input data (and low for P and S), then you’ll likely want the model to be a bit more flexible in its error score for E and harsher for P and S (since the “obs” agree more for these variables so you assume them to be more close to reality). Just taking the median loses this information and can actually score the model against unsure “true” values. If instead the output is probabilistic then you can choose/calculate the “most likely” total configuration that exactly closes the water balance and this takes into account the (dis)agreement of the “observations”.
Line 380: “As the consistency constraints strengthened, the agreement with the GRDC decreased observed runoff decreased slightly.” This sentence does not make sense?