Sensitivity of a coupled climate model to canopy interception capacity
- 422 Downloads
The canopy interception capacity is a small but key part of the surface hydrology, which affects the amount of water intercepted by vegetation and therefore the partitioning of evaporation and transpiration. However, little research with climate models has been done to understand the effects of a range of possible canopy interception capacity parameter values. This is in part due to the assumption that it does not significantly affect climate. Near global evapotranspiration products now make evaluation of canopy interception capacity parameterisations possible. We use a range of canopy water interception capacity values from the literature to investigate the effect on climate within the climate model HadCM3. We find that the global mean temperature is affected by up to −0.64 K globally and −1.9 K regionally. These temperature impacts are predominantly due to changes in the evaporative fraction and top of atmosphere albedo. In the tropics, the variations in evapotranspiration affect precipitation, significantly enhancing rainfall. Comparing the model output to measurements, we find that the default canopy interception capacity parameterisation overestimates canopy interception loss (i.e. canopy evaporation) and underestimates transpiration. Overall, decreasing canopy interception capacity improves the evapotranspiration partitioning in HadCM3, though the measurement literature more strongly supports an increase. The high sensitivity of climate to the parameterisation of canopy interception capacity is partially due to the high number of light rain-days in the climate model that means that interception is overestimated. This work highlights the hitherto underestimated importance of canopy interception capacity in climate model hydroclimatology and the need to acknowledge the role of precipitation representation limitations in determining parameterisations.
KeywordsInterception GCM Land–atmosphere interactions Evapotranspiration Canopy storage capacity
We would like to thank John Gash for his comments on a draft version of the manuscript, as well as the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the submitted manuscript. We gratefully acknowledge Diego Miralles for providing the canopy evaporation satellite product for comparison. CDJ is supported by the Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101). TDB is supported by Natural Environment Research Council Dtg NE/J500033/1.
- Cox PM (2001) Description of the TRIFFID dynamic global vegetation model. Hadley Cent Tech Note 24:1–16Google Scholar
- Crétat J, Vizy EK, Cook KH (2013) How well are daily intense rainfall events captured by current climate models over Africa? Clim Dyn:1–21. doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1796-7
- Demory M-E (2009) Does overestimated canopy interception weaken the UK land surface model response to precipitation events? ILeaps Newsl 7:14–16Google Scholar
- Dunkerley D (2000) Measuring interception loss and canopy storage in dryland vegetation: a brief review and evaluation of available research strategies. Hydrol Process 14:669–678. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(200003)14:4<669:AID-HYP965>3.0.CO;2-I CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Essery R, Best M, Cox P (2001) MOSES 2.2 technical documentation. Hadley Centre Technical NoteGoogle Scholar
- Gregory D, Smith RNB, Cox PM (1994) Canopy, surface and soil hydrology. Unified Model documentation paper 25. Bracknell, UKGoogle Scholar
- Motahari M, Attarod P, Pypker TG et al (2013) Rainfall interception in a Pinus eldarica plantation in a semi-arid climate zone: an application of the gash model. J Agric Sci Technol 15:981–994Google Scholar
- Oleson KW, Niu G-Y, Yang Z-L et al (2008) Improvements to the community land model and their impact on the hydrological cycle. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 113:n/a–n/a. doi: 10.1029/2007JG000563
- Roeckner E, Bäuml G, Bonventura L et al (2003) The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM5. Part I: model description, report 349, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, HamburgGoogle Scholar
- Van den Hoof C, Vidale PL, Verhoef A, Vincke C (2013) Improved evaporative flux partitioning and carbon flux in the land surface model JULES: impact on the simulation of land surface processes in temperate Europe. Agric For Meteorol 181:108–124. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Warrilow DA, Sangster AB, Slingo J (1986) Modelling of land surface processes and their influence on European climate. Met office technical note DCTN 38, Bracknell, UKGoogle Scholar