Inconsistencies in GRACE‐Based Groundwater Storage Estimation—A Call for a Proper Use of Land Surface Models

Abstract Estimating groundwater storage (GWS) anomalies by subtracting model‐derived components from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) terrestrial water storage (TWS) anomalies is a common practice in hydrology. Typically, land surface model (LSM) simulated soil moisture (SM), snow water equivalent, and canopy water content are removed from GRACE‐derived TWS, and the residual is interpreted as GWS. However, this method implicitly assumes that LSMs account for all non‐groundwater storages within distinct, physically meaningful compartments. In this comment, we examine the assumptions, semantic and structural challenges embedded in this approach, suggesting that users consider the consequences of model simplifications and conventions on the results. We encourage careful interpretation and advocate for more sophisticated methods, including making use of data assimilation and models that represent physical hydrological processes more completely.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Geophysical Research Letters
Published
2025-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2025gl119197
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Geophysics and Gravity Measurements
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.59
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Inconsistencies in GRACE‐Based Groundwater Storage Estimation—A Call for a Proper Use of Land Surface Models

Augusto Getirana, Matthew Rodell, Sujay V. Kumar
2 citations
Geophysical Research Letters
Geophysics and Gravity Measurements
3.59
article

Inconsistencies in GRACE‐Based Groundwater Storage Estimation—A Call for a Proper Use of Land Surface Models

Augusto Getirana, Matthew Rodell, Sujay V. Kumar
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Estimating groundwater storage (GWS) anomalies by subtracting model‐derived components from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) terrestrial water storage (TWS) anomalies is a common practice in hydrology. Typically, land surface model (LSM) simulated soil moisture (SM), snow water equivalent, and canopy water content are removed from GRACE‐derived TWS, and the residual is interpreted as GWS. However, this method implicitly assumes that LSMs account for all non‐groundwater storages within distinct, physically meaningful compartments. In this comment, we examine the assumptions, semantic and structural challenges embedded in this approach, suggesting that users consider the consequences of model simplifications and conventions on the results. We encourage careful interpretation and advocate for more sophisticated methods, including making use of data assimilation and models that represent physical hydrological processes more completely.

Geophysical Research LettersVol. 52(19)
Goddard Space Flight Center (US), Science Applications International Corporation (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Geophysics and Gravity Measurements
3.59
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Inconsistencies in GRACE‐Based Groundwater Storage Estimation—A Call for a Proper Use of Land Surface Models — Augusto Getirana, Matthew Rodell, et al. · Geophysical Research Letters (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS