Land surface models systematically overestimate the intensity, duration and magnitude of seasonal-scale evaporative droughts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land surface models (LSMs) must accurately simulate observed energy and water fluxes during droughts in order to provide reliable estimates of future water resources. We evaluated 8 different LSMs (14 model versions) for simulating evapotranspiration (ET) during periods of evaporative drought (Edrought) across six flux tower sites. Using an empirically defined Edrought threshold (a decline in ET below the observed 15th percentile), we show that LSMs simulated 58 Edrought days per year, on average, across the six sites, ∼3 times as many as the observed 20 d. The simulated Edrought magnitude was ∼8 times greater than observed and twice as intense. Our findings point to systematic biases across LSMs when simulating water and energy fluxes under water-stressed conditions. The overestimation of key Edrought characteristics undermines our confidence in the models' capability in simulating realistic drought responses to climate change and has wider implications for phenomena sensitive to soil moisture, including heat waves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".