Abstract:Soil water evaporation plays a critical role in mass and energy exchanges across the land–atmosphere interface. Although much is known about this process, there is no agreement on the best modeling approaches to determine soil water evaporation due to the complexity of the numerical modeling scenarios and lack of experimental data available to validate such models. Existing studies show numerical and experimental discrepancies in the evaporation behavior and soil water distribution in soils at various scales, driving us to revisit the key process representation in subsurface soil. Therefore, the goal of this work is to test different mathematical formulations used to estimate evaporation from bare soils to critically evaluate the model formulations, assumptions and surface boundary conditions. This comparison required the development of three numerical models at the REV scale that vary in their complexity in characterizing water flow and evaporation, using the same modeling platform. The performance of the models was evaluated by comparing with experimental data generated from a soil tank/boundary layer wind tunnel experimental apparatus equipped with a sensor network to continuously monitor water–temperature–humidity variables. A series of experiments were performed in which the soil tank was packed with different soil types. Results demonstrate that the approaches vary in their ability to capture different stages of evaporation and no one approach can be deemed most appropriate for every scenario. When a proper top boundary condition and space discretization are defined, the Richards equation-based models (Richards model and Richards vapor model) can generally capture the evaporation behaviors across the entire range of soil saturations, comparing well with the experimental data. The simulation results of the non-equilibrium two-component two-phase model which considers vapor transport as an independent process generally agree well with the observations in terms of evaporation behavior and soil water dynamics. Certain differences in simulation results can be observed between equilibrium and non-equilibrium approaches. Comparisons of the models and the boundary layer formulations highlight the need to revisit key assumptions that influence evaporation behavior, highlighting the need to further understand water and vapor transport processes in soil to improve model accuracy.

Reply to Comment on “potential Evaporation and the Complementary Relationship” by Jozsef Szilagyi

Reply to Comment on "on the Estimation of Potential Evaporation under Wet and Dry Conditions" by Jozsef Szilagyi

Extending the Integrated Richards Equation Method to New Boundary Conditions: Model Description and Validation

Potential Evaporation and the Complementary Relationship

Reply to Comment by J. Szilagyi and R. Crago on “derivation of a Sigmoid Generalized Complementary Function for Evaporation with Physical Constraints”

Comment on “A Calibration‐Free Formulation of the Complementary Relationship of Evaporation for Continental‐Scale Hydrology” by J. Szilagyi Et Al.

Comment on "Comparison of the Efficiencies of the Prognostic Generalized Complementary Functions on Evaporation Estimation" by Wang, L., et al., Published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

A review of the complementary principle of evaporation: from the original linear relationship to generalized nonlinear functions

A Complementary Relationship Evaporation Model Referring to the Granger Model and the Advection-Aridity Model

Interactive comment on "Does evaporation paradox exist in China?" by Z. T. Cong and D. W. Yang

Contrasting Land and Atmospheric Controls on the Generalized Complementary Relationship of Evaporation Over Grasslands and Forests

Complementary Relationship for evaporation performance at different spatial and temporal scales

A Nonlinear Function Approach for the Normalized Complementary Relationship Evaporation Model

Interactive comment on “ A review of measurement-based assessment of aerosol direct radiative effect and forcing ” by H . Yu et al

Should Two-Parameter Generalized Complementary Models for Evaporation Be Simplified to Single-Parameter? A Pairwise Evaluation over Grassland and Forest Sites

Revisiting the global distribution of the exponent of the power-function complementary relationship of terrestrial evaporation: Insights from an isenthalpic index

Complementary principle of evaporation: From original linear relationship to generalized nonlinear functions

Testing a Maximum Evaporation Theory over Saturated Land: Implications for Potential Evaporation Estimation

Seasonal variability of the complementary relationship in the Asian monsoon region

Evaluation of Model Concepts to Describe Water Transport in Shallow Subsurface Soil and Across the Soil–Air Interface

Integration of Penman Approach with Complementary Principle for Evaporation Research