Interseasonal Hysteresis and Linearity Among Surface Energy Fluxes and Soil Water Content in Observations, Reanalyses, and Model Simulations

Abstract Understanding how surface energy partitioning varies with soil water content (SWC) is crucial to land–atmosphere (LA) coupling. This study evaluates monthly variations in SWC and surface energy budget components across CONUS using in situ observations (OBS) and model‐derived products, including reanalyses (MERRA2 and ERA5) and two CESM configurations (offline CLM and coupled CLM+CAM). Large discrepancies emerge in the representation of SWC–EF dynamics during the growing season. ERA5 reproduces EF magnitude but produces the opposite interseasonal hysteresis of SWC‐EF than OBS. CLM captures the observed SWC–LE/SH/EF relationships better than CLM+CAM, suggesting biases introduced by coupled LA processes. During the cold season, models misrepresent EF due to incorrect partitioning of LE and SH. Correlation and normalized mutual information show that models, except for CLM, overestimate linearity in SWC–LE/SH coupling. These results highlight the need to improve LA coupling parameterizations for more accurate and hysteresis‐aware model behavior.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Geophysical Research Letters
Published
2026-07-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2026gl121975
Primary Topic
Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Interseasonal Hysteresis and Linearity Among Surface Energy Fluxes and Soil Water Content in Observations, Reanalyses, and Model Simulations

Paul A. Dirmeyer, Megan D. Fowler, Eunkyo Seo, Daisuke Tokuda et al.
Geophysical Research Letters
Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
article

Interseasonal Hysteresis and Linearity Among Surface Energy Fluxes and Soil Water Content in Observations, Reanalyses, and Model Simulations

Paul A. Dirmeyer, Megan D. Fowler, Eunkyo Seo, Daisuke Tokuda, Sungyoon Kim
article en

Abstract

Abstract Understanding how surface energy partitioning varies with soil water content (SWC) is crucial to land–atmosphere (LA) coupling. This study evaluates monthly variations in SWC and surface energy budget components across CONUS using in situ observations (OBS) and model‐derived products, including reanalyses (MERRA2 and ERA5) and two CESM configurations (offline CLM and coupled CLM+CAM). Large discrepancies emerge in the representation of SWC–EF dynamics during the growing season. ERA5 reproduces EF magnitude but produces the opposite interseasonal hysteresis of SWC‐EF than OBS. CLM captures the observed SWC–LE/SH/EF relationships better than CLM+CAM, suggesting biases introduced by coupled LA processes. During the cold season, models misrepresent EF due to incorrect partitioning of LE and SH. Correlation and normalized mutual information show that models, except for CLM, overestimate linearity in SWC–LE/SH coupling. These results highlight the need to improve LA coupling parameterizations for more accurate and hysteresis‐aware model behavior.

Geophysical Research LettersVol. 53(14)
NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US), Tokyo University of Science (JP), George Mason University (US), Pukyong National University (KR)
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
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.

Interseasonal Hysteresis and Linearity Among Surface Energy Fluxes and Soil Water Content in Observations, Reanalyses, and Model Simulations — Paul A. Dirmeyer, Megan D. Fowler, et al. · Geophysical Research Letters (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS