the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A knowledge-guided daily multi-layer soil freeze-thaw dataset for the Northern Hemisphere during 1950-2025
Abstract. Soil freeze-thaw (FT) dynamics regulate key thermal, hydrological, and ecological processes in cold regions, yet long-term, spatially continuous, and vertically resolved daily FT records remain scarce, particularly before the satellite era. Here, we present a soil Freeze-Thaw dataset generated using Knowledge-Guided Machine Learning (FT-KGML), providing daily FT states at 0.1° spatial resolution across Northern Hemisphere frozen-ground regions from 1950 to 2025 at depths of 10, 30, and 50 cm. FT-KGML was generated using a knowledge-guided neural network model that learns process-based FT relationships from soil-temperature simulations and is subsequently constrained by in situ observations, enabling a continuous 76-year reconstruction of subsurface FT dynamics. Independent station evaluation yielded overall daily classification accuracies of 86.12 %, 89.67 %, and 90.39 % at 10, 30, and 50 cm, respectively. Seasonal FT phenology was also well reproduced, with generally stronger agreement for the onset of soil freezing than for the onset of soil thawing. Matched comparisons with passive-microwave FT products and ERA5-Land showed broadly consistent daily FT dynamics and seasonal transition timing across datasets, providing additional support for the reliability of FT-KGML despite differences in their spatial scales and FT representations. The long-term record reveals relatively weak and spatially heterogeneous FT phenology changes during 1950-1978, followed by widespread earlier spring thaw and later autumn freezing after 1979. During 1979-2025, spring thaw advanced by 2.93-3.12 d decade-1, whereas autumn freezing was delayed by 2.22-3.24 d decade-1 across the three soil depths. By combining long temporal coverage, daily resolution, and multi-depth representation, FT-KGML provides a new resource for cryospheric, hydrological, ecological, and land-surface modelling communities investigating frozen-ground variability, subsurface seasonality, and long-term environmental change. The dataset is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22019944 (Yu and Wu, 2026).
- Preprint
(1855 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2794 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-683', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Oct 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-683', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Oct 2026
This manuscript presents FT-KGML, a daily soil freeze–thaw dataset at 0.1° resolution for Northern Hemisphere frozen-ground regions during 1950–2025, at nominal depths of 10, 30, and 50 cm. The authors pretrain a recurrent neural network using simulations from a simplified soil-temperature model and then fine-tune it with in situ observations. Independent station evaluations and comparisons with microwave and reanalysis products are used to assess daily states and seasonal transition dates. The dataset is also used to examine long-term changes in soil freezing and thawing.
The combination of long temporal coverage and multiple soil depths makes this dataset potentially useful and relevant to ESSD. The independent station evaluation is a strength. However, the manuscript needs stronger evidence for the added value of the knowledge-guided approach and the reliability of the early reconstruction. The relatively large errors in seasonal transition dates also need closer examination. I recommend major revision to address the following points.
Major points 1 Demonstrate the added value of the knowledge guided framework
The manuscript does not yet show which parts of the proposed method improve the results. It would be helpful to add ablation experiments using the same independent test stations:
- Compare the original Rankinen model, a GRU trained only on station observations, and the full model. This would show whether physical-model pretraining improves accuracy.
- Compare the full model with a version without the vertical-consistency constraint. This would show whether that constraint adds value.
2 Strengthen the assessment of the historical reconstruction
The dataset begins in 1950, but station observations begin in 1963 and are sparse in the early decades (Lines 229–232). Testing at different stations does not show whether the model works equally well in earlier years. It would be helpful to:
- Train the model using later observations and test it against earlier observations, where sufficient records are available.
- Report accuracy and the number of available stations for different periods, so readers can see how well the early years are supported.
- Discuss how using fixed land-cover and frozen-ground maps throughout 1950–2025 may affect the reconstructed changes.
3 Examine the accuracy and robustness of seasonal transition dates
The RMSE of spring thaw dates is about 23–37 days, while that of autumn freezing dates is about 16–20 days (Lines 585–593). These errors deserve more attention. It would be helpful to:
- Show where the largest errors occur and whether the predicted dates tend to be too early or too late.
- Test whether the model captures year-to-year changes at individual stations. A correlation calculated by pooling all stations may mainly reflect differences between warmer and colder locations.
- Check whether the results change when using a different persistence rule or a longer search window.
Minor points- Lines 167–173. What is the total study area, and how much does it change when the persistence threshold is reduced from 80% to 50%?
- Lines 189–199. The resampling methods for the static datasets need to be specified, along with the SoilGrids depth intervals used.
- Lines 201–219. Some observation sources may contain the same stations. How were duplicate stations and records identified and removed?
- Lines 220–224. Observations from 5–20 cm are grouped into the nominal 10 cm layer. Providing the actual sensor-depth distribution and checking accuracy using sensors closer to the target depths would help assess the effect of this grouping.
- Lines 227–234 and Figure 1. A table showing station numbers and observation periods for each depth and data source would make the observation coverage clearer. Were all depths at one site, and stations within the same grid cell, assigned to the same training or test group?
- Lines 273–302. Do the heat-capacity terms vary with temperature? The initial soil-temperature settings for the Rankinen simulations also need to be described.
- Lines 433–439. Why was the static encoder kept fixed during fine-tuning, given that the pretraining model uses uniform soil thermal parameters?
- Lines 469–472. What supports the choice of a one-year spin-up? Does a longer spin-up change the predictions for the first few years?
- Lines 494–500. The decision to classify all transitional microwave states as thawed needs justification. How might this choice affect the comparison between products?
- Lines 529–530. The interpretation of these comparisons should acknowledge that ERA5-Land TSL2 and TSL3 represent broad depth ranges, whereas FT-KGML provides estimates at nominal depths of 10 and 50 cm.
- Lines 543–550. Were temporal autocorrelation effects considered in the trend tests? Also, do the regional averages use the same grid cells each year, and how are years without valid transition dates handled?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-683-RC2
Data sets
A soil Freeze-Thaw dataset generated using Knowledge-Guided Machine Learning Han Yu https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22019944
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 503 | 134 | 39 | 676 | 74 | 47 | 42 |
- HTML: 503
- PDF: 134
- XML: 39
- Total: 676
- Supplement: 74
- BibTeX: 47
- EndNote: 42
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Detailed and more precise soil freeze-thaw data are among the most important explanatory data for vegetation growth and hydrological conditions, especially for the complex hydrological conditions in permafrost regions. In addition, these can also improve the accuracy of permafrost simulations. The technical methods and data in this manuscript provide the necessary and relatively high-resolution datasets for such studies. Moreover, the technical methods described in this manuscript are detailed and the technical route is clear. Therefore, it is recommended that the manuscript be accepted after minor revision.
Lines 152-158: What are the spatial resolution and temporal resolution of the raw data, respectively? What is the temporal resolution after processing?
Line 173: What is the basis for the 80% threshold?
Lines 202-219: Are these soil temperature data daily values?
Lines 501-505: There should be support from references.
Line 541: It is the year 1979 that was identified as the change point using the MK test, isn't it?