Integrated parameter and process learning for hydrologic and biogeochemical modules in Earth System Models
Focus area: Primary focal area #2; secondary focal area #3: Learning about parameters and processes of land surface hydrologic and biogeochemical models in Earth System models by integrating machine learning, physics, and big data. Science challenges: How do we maximally leverage big-data observations to improve hydrobiogeochemical process description and parameterization so that such modules more realistically capture hydrologic and vegetation responses and feedbacks under the future climate? For example, how can we leverage physics, limited observations of vegetation and streamflow to better estimate evapotranspiration, and, relatedly, net primary productivity, especially for drought areas? Vegetation plays a critical role in regional and global water cycles; however, existing vegetation models have failed to predict vegetation response to droughts (McDowell & Xu, 2017) , arctic greening (Keenan & Riley, 2018) , and critical transitions between forest and savanna (Hirota et al., 2011) . These studies suggest that when we build process-based models (PBM) parameterized from regional and global plant traits, we tend to poorly describe plant adaptation and local-scale competition processes. The models and their associated parameters assigned for different regions in the world are not capturing essential heterogeneity in vegetation responses at finer spatial scales. Many parameters of the land surface models control hydrology and vegetation dynamics at the same time. The heterogeneity in vegetation response is a function of (i) plant type, (ii) plant size, (iii) competition and succession, (iv) environmental controls, and (v) local variations due to the unique ecological community that are very difficult to describe (e.g., the size of gaps resulting from fire that facilitated the coexistence of pioneering species). In the demographic models, only factors (i) and (iv) were captured, and plant types were generally described only by leaf phenology and climate zones. With current demographic models, we generally consider more traits to define plant types (i) and calibrate these traits to consider factors (ii), (iii) and (iv); however, it is substantially challenging to scale to regional and global simulations due to trait variations across space (Ali et al., 2016). Moreover, it has been noted that hillslope processes, including ridge-to-valley flow and sunny vs. shady slopes are primary organizers of water, energy, and vegetation (Clark et al., 2015; Fan et al., 2019) . Although gradual improvements in the hydrologic model component in earth system models may reduce this error (at a remarkably slow pace), the long-term, gradual impact of hydrology on plant traits are not well captured. Recent work showed that the hydrologic controls exerted by groundwater and lateral flow are primary regulators of rooting depth (Fan et al., 2017) . Such hydrologic controls have seldom been reflected in vegetation model parameterizations.