This work tests the hypothesis that jointly assimilating satellite observations of leaf area index and surface soil moisture into a land surface model improves the estimation of land vegetation and water variables. An Ensemble Kalman Filter is used to test this hypothesis across the Contiguous United States from April 2015 to December 2018. The performance of the proposed methodology is assessed for several modeled vegetation and water variables (evapotranspiration, net ecosystem exchange, and soil moisture) in terms of random errors and anomaly correlation coefficients against a set of independent validation datasets (i.e., Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model, FLUXCOM, and International Soil Moisture Network). The results show that the assimilation of the leaf area index mostly improves the estimation of evapotranspiration and net ecosystem exchange, whereas the assimilation of surface soil moisture alone improves surface soil moisture content, especially in the western US, in terms of both root mean squared error and anomaly correlation coefficient. The joint assimilation of vegetation and soil moisture information combines the results of individual vegetation and soil moisture assimilations and reduces errors (and increases correlations with the reference datasets) in evapotranspiration, net ecosystem exchange, and surface soil moisture simulated by the land surface model. However, because soil moisture satellite observations only provide information on the water content in the top 5 cm of the soil column, the impact of the proposed data assimilation technique on root zone soil moisture is limited. This work moves one step forward in the direction of improving our estimation and understanding of land surface interactions using a multivariate data assimilation approach, which can be particularly useful in regions of the world where ground observations are sparse or missing altogether.

Optimizing empirical baseflow filters using environmental tracers (e.g., specific electrical conductance (SEC), turbidity) is an effective and efficient way to quantify the contribution of baseflow to total flow. To execute this baseflow separation, three key components are needed: The tracer, the method to estimate tracer concentration in different flow components, and the empirical baseflow filter. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the various combinations of these components, especially with a large sample of catchments, is currently lacking in the literature. Therefore, our study assembles 16 hybrid baseflow filters from two tracers, two concentration estimation methods, and four empirical baseflow filters, and evaluated their performance in baseflow separation and producing two long‐term baseflow signatures for 1,100 catchments in the Contiguous United States. Our results suggest that SEC is a superior tracer to turbidity for baseflow separation. Additionally, using monthly maximum and minimum values to represent tracer concentration in flow components produces better separation than using a power function relationship between flow rate and concentration. The four empirical baseflow filters offer a similar level of performance, regardless of the other options used. Yet, some of these filters produce inconsistent results in calculating the baseflow signatures for the catchments. Our analysis shed light on the optimization of hybrid baseflow filters for the accurate quantification of baseflow contribution.

This paper evaluates the use of precipitation forecasts from a numerical weather prediction (NWP) model for near-real-time satellite precipitation adjustment based on 81 flood-inducing heavy precipitation events in seven mountainous regions over the conterminous United States. The study is facilitated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) real-time ensemble forecasts (called model), the Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG) near-real-time precipitation product (called raw IMERG) and the Stage IV multi-radar/multi-sensor precipitation product (called Stage IV) used as a reference. We evaluated four precipitation datasets (the model forecasts, raw IMERG, gauge-adjusted IMERG and model-adjusted IMERG) through comparisons against Stage IV at six-hourly and event length scales. The raw IMERG product consistently underestimated heavy precipitation in all study regions, while the domain average rainfall magnitudes exhibited by the model were fairly accurate. The model exhibited error in the locations of intense precipitation over inland regions, however, while the IMERG product generally showed correct spatial precipitation patterns. Overall, the model-adjusted IMERG product performed best over inland regions by taking advantage of the more accurate rainfall magnitude from NWP and the spatial distribution from IMERG. In coastal regions, although model-based adjustment effectively improved the performance of the raw IMERG product, the model forecast performed even better. The IMERG product could benefit from gauge-based adjustment, as well, but the improvement from model-based adjustment was consistently more significant.

In this study, the authors investigate the use of high-resolution simulations from the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) for evaluating satellite rainfall biases of flood-inducing storms in mountainous areas. A probability matching approach is applied to evaluate a power-law relationship between satellite-retrieved and WRF-simulated rain rates over the storm domain. Satellite rainfall in this study is from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center morphing technique (CMORPH). Results are presented based on analyses of five heavy precipitation events that induced flash floods in northern Italy and southern France complex terrain basins. The WRF-based adjusted CMORPH rain rates exhibited improved error statistics against independent radar rainfall estimates. The authors show that the adjustment procedure reduces the underestimation of high rain rates, thus moderating the magnitude dependence of CMORPH rainfall bias. The Heidke skill score for the WRF-based adjusted CMORPH was consistently higher for a range of rain rate thresholds. This is an indication that the adjustment procedure ameliorates the satellite rain rates to provide a better estimation. Results also indicate that the low rain detection of CMORPH technique is also identifiable in the WRF–CMORPH comparison; however, the adjustment procedure herein does not incorporate this effect on the satellite rainfall bias adjustment.