% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Gebler:828155,
author = {Gebler, Sebastian and Hendricks-Franssen, Harrie-Jan and
Kollet, Stefan and Qu, Wei and Vereecken, Harry},
title = {{H}igh resolution modelling of soil moisture patterns with
{T}err{S}ys{MP}: {A} comparison with sensor network data},
journal = {Journal of hydrology},
volume = {547},
issn = {0022-1694},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {FZJ-2017-02123},
pages = {309–331},
year = {2017},
abstract = {The prediction of the spatial and temporal variability of
land surface states and fluxes with land surface models at
high spatial resolution is still a challenge. This study
compares simulation results using TerrSysMP including a 3D
variably saturated groundwater flow model (ParFlow) coupled
to the Community Land Model (CLM) of a 38 ha managed
grassland head-water catchment in the Eifel (Germany), with
soil water content (SWC) measurements from a wireless sensor
network, actual evapotranspiration recorded by lysimeters
and eddy covariance stations and discharge observations.
TerrSysMP was discretized with a 10 × 10 m lateral
resolution, variable vertical resolution (0.025–0.575 m),
and the following parameterization strategies of the
subsurface soil hydraulic parameters: (i) completely
homogeneous, (ii) homogeneous parameters for different soil
horizons, (iii) different parameters for each soil unit and
soil horizon and (iv) heterogeneous stochastic realizations.
Hydraulic conductivity and Mualem-Van Genuchten parameters
in these simulations were sampled from probability density
functions, constructed from either (i) soil texture
measurements and Rosetta pedotransfer functions (ROS), or
(ii) estimated soil hydraulic parameters by 1D inverse
modelling using shuffle complex evolution (SCE).The results
indicate that the spatial variability of SWC at the scale of
a small headwater catchment is dominated by topography and
spatially heterogeneous soil hydraulic parameters. The
spatial variability of the soil water content thereby
increases as a function of heterogeneity of soil hydraulic
parameters. For lower levels of complexity, spatial
variability of the SWC was underrepresented in particular
for the ROS-simulations. Whereas all model simulations were
able to reproduce the seasonal evapotranspiration
variability, the poor discharge simulations with high model
bias are likely related to short-term ET dynamics and the
lack of information about bedrock characteristics and an
on-site drainage system in the uncalibrated model. In
general, simulation performance was better for the SCE
setups. The SCE-simulations had a higher inverse air entry
parameter resulting in SWC dynamics in better correspondence
with data than the ROS simulations during dry periods. This
illustrates that small scale measurements of soil hydraulic
parameters cannot be transferred to the larger scale and
that interpolated 1D inverse parameter estimates result in
an acceptable performance for the catchment.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {690},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000398871100023},
doi = {10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.048},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/828155},
}