Search for: All records

Abstract The effect of machine learning and other enhancements on statistical–dynamical forecasts of soil moisture (0–10 and 0–100 cm) and a reference evapotranspiration fraction [evaporative stress index (ESI)] on subseasonal time scales (15–28 days) are explored. The predictors include the current and past land surface conditions and dynamical model hindcasts from the Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction project (S2S). When the methods are enhanced with machine learning and other improvements, the increases in skill are almost exclusively coming from predictors drawn from observations of current and past land surface states. This suggests that operational S2S flash drought forecasts should focus on optimizing use of information on current conditions rather than on integrating dynamically based forecasts, given the current state of knowledge. Nonlinear machine learning methods lead to improved skill over linear methods for soil moisture but not for ESI. Improvements for both soil moisture and ESI are realized by increasing the sample size by including surrounding grid points in training and increasing the number of predictors. In addition, all the improvements in the soil moisture forecasts predominantly impact soil moistening rather than soil drying—i.e., prediction of conditions moving away from drought rather than into drought—especially when the initial soil state is drier than normal. The physical reasons for the nonlinear machine learning improvements are also explored. Significance StatementRapidly intensifying droughts pose extra challenges for predictability. Here, dynamical forecast model output is combined with nonlinear machine learning methods to improve forecasts of rapid changes in soil moisture and the evaporative stress index (ESI). 

Abstract The rooting-zone water-storage capacity—the amount of water accessible to plants—controls the sensitivity of land–atmosphere exchange of water and carbon during dry periods. How the rooting-zone water-storage capacity varies spatially is largely unknown and not directly observable. Here we estimate rooting-zone water-storage capacity globally from the relationship between remotely sensed vegetation activity, measured by combining evapotranspiration, sun-induced fluorescence and radiation estimates, and the cumulative water deficit calculated from daily time series of precipitation and evapotranspiration. Our findings indicate plant-available water stores that exceed the storage capacity of 2-m-deep soils across 37% of Earth’s vegetated surface. We find that biome-level variations of rooting-zone water-storage capacities correlate with observed rooting-zone depth distributions and reflect the influence of hydroclimate, as measured by the magnitude of annual cumulative water-deficit extremes. Smaller-scale variations are linked to topography and land use. Our findings document large spatial variations in the effective root-zone water-storage capacity and illustrate a tight link among the climatology of water deficits, rooting depth of vegetation and its sensitivity to water stress. 

Abstract Probabilistic forecasts of changes in soil moisture and an Evaporative Stress Index (ESI) on sub-seasonal time scales over the contiguous U.S. are developed. The forecasts use the current land surface conditions and numerical weather prediction forecasts from the Sub-seasonal to Seasonal (S2S) Prediction Project. Changes in soil moisture are quite predictable 8-14 days in advance with 50% or more of the variance explained over the majority of the contiguous U.S.; however, changes in ESI are significantly less predictable. A simple red noise model of predictability shows that the spatial variations in forecast skill are primarily a result of variations in the autocorrelation, or persistence, of the predicted variable, especially for the ESI. The difference in overall skill between soil moisture and ESI, on the other hand, is due to the greater soil moisture predictability by the numerical model forecasts. As the forecast lead time increases from 8-14 days to 15-28 days, however, the autocorrelation dominates the soil moisture and ESI differences as well. An analysis of modelled transpiration, and bare soil and canopy water evaporation contributions to total evaporation, suggests improvements to the ESI forecasts can be achieved by estimating the relative contributions of these components to the initial ESI state. The importance of probabilistic forecasts for reproducing the correct probability of anomaly intensification is also shown. 

Abstract. The term “flash drought” is frequently invoked to describe droughts thatdevelop rapidly over a relatively short timescale. Despite extensive andgrowing research on flash drought processes, predictability, and trends,there is still no standard quantitative definition that encompasses allflash drought characteristics and pathways. Instead, diverse definitionshave been proposed, supporting wide-ranging studies of flash drought butcreating the potential for confusion as to what the term means and how tocharacterize it. Use of different definitions might also lead to differentconclusions regarding flash drought frequency, predictability, and trendsunder climate change. In this study, we compared five previously publisheddefinitions, a newly proposed definition, and an operational satellite-baseddrought monitoring product to clarify conceptual differences and toinvestigate the sensitivity of flash drought inventories and trends to thechoice of definition. Our analyses indicate that the newly introduced SoilMoisture Volatility Index definition effectively captures flash droughtonset in both humid and semi-arid regions. Analyses also showed thatestimates of flash drought frequency, spatial distribution, and seasonalityvary across the contiguous United States depending upon which definition is used.Definitions differ in their representation of some of the largest and mostwidely studied flash droughts of recent years. Trend analysis indicates thatdefinitions that include air temperature show significant increases in flashdroughts over the past 40 years, but few trends are evident fordefinitions based on other surface conditions or fluxes. These resultsindicate that “flash drought” is a composite term that includes severaltypes of events and that clarity in definition is critical when monitoring,forecasting, or projecting the drought phenomenon. 

Flash droughts are characterized by a period of rapid intensification over sub-seasonal time scales that culminates in the rapid emergence of new or worsening drought impacts. This study presents a new flash drought intensity index (FDII) that accounts for both the unusually rapid rate of drought intensification and its resultant severity. The FDII framework advances our ability to characterize flash drought because it provides a more complete measure of flash drought intensity than existing classification methods that only consider the rate of intensification. The FDII is computed using two terms measuring the maximum rate of intensification (FD_INT) and average drought severity (DRO_SEV). A climatological analysis using soil moisture data from the Noah land surface model from 1979–2017 revealed large regional and interannual variability in the spatial extent and intensity of soil moisture flash drought across the US. Overall, DRO_SEV is slightly larger over the western and central US where droughts tend to last longer and FD_INT is ~75% larger across the eastern US where soil moisture variability is greater. Comparison of the FD_INT and DRO_SEV terms showed that they are strongly correlated (r = 0.82 to 0.90) at regional scales, which indicates that the subsequent drought severity is closely related to the magnitude of the rapid intensification preceding it. Analysis of the 2012 US flash drought showed that the FDII depiction of severe drought conditions aligned more closely with regions containing poor crop conditions and large yield losses than that captured by the intensification rate component (FD_INT) alone.