Scheduled Downtime
On Friday 21 April 2023 @ 5pm MT, this website will be down for maintenance and expected to return online the morning of 24 April 2023 at the latest

WRF Default Landcover and Soil Texture dataset sources and citations

P

politeness

New member
Dear Sir or Madam,
Is there a corresponding resource to the WPS data downloads page (i.e., Static Data Downloads)
that documents their root data sources and production details?

For example, I am specifically interested in the documentation for the following static fields distributed w/ WPS v4.3.1:
modis_landuse_20class_15s_with_lakes
soiltype_top_30s
soiltype_bot_30s

Thank you for any information you can provide.
 
Thank you for your response.
At the website you provided, I see under Background Surface Fields, information for

1) Modified IGBP MODIS 20-category vegetation
This dataset does not include lakes, like the WPS Alternative High Resolution field used (https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/src/wps_files/modis_landuse_20class_15s_with_lakes.tar.gz), so further details would be useful.

2)Hybrid (30-second for CONUS and 5-min elsewhere) 16-category soil texture map
It seems that this dataset likely corresponds to WRF default soiltype_top_30s and soiltype_bot_30s.

In the readme, it states:
"The FAO two-layer 5-minute 16-category global soil texture maps
are remaped into global 30-second regular lat-lon grid. Within CONUS,
the soil texture is then replaced by the 30-second STATSGO data
obtained from http://www.essc.psu.edu/soil_info/index.cgi?soil_data&index.html.
The dominant soil texture from 0-30 cm (30-100 cm) from multi-layer
STATSGO soil was selected to match the FAO soil depths and to produce
the top (bottom) soil texture."

And indeed, in Dennis and Berbery (2022; https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-21-0101.1), they write:
"The default soil texture classifications in WRF are provided
using the USDA STATSGO soil dataset (NRCS 2012). For
regions outside of the United States, the Food and Agricul-
ture Organization (FAO) Soil Map of the World (FAO/
UNSECO 1971), which is about 5-km grid spacing, is
employed. Within the United States, STATSGO is used."
 
Hello,

I would like to add a follow up question to this post.

I cant find the year when the soil texture data used in WRF version 4.2.2 (or latest version) was created. Is it 2012? or more recent?
Where can I find information on this? The above links also does not give the exact details on this.

Thank you!

-Lyndz
 
Liliputian_123 said:
Hello,

I would like to add a follow up question to this post.

I cant find the year when the soil texture data used in WRF version 4.2.2 (or latest version) was created. Is it 2012? or more recent?
Where can I find information on this? The above links also does not give the exact details on this.

Thank you!

-Lyndz
Click to expand...
In fact the origin of the data is not clear in the documentation, unfortunately. Alternatively you could use a high-resolution, well-documented global dataset derived from the Harmonized World Soil Database, version 2.0, and adapted for use as input to WRF. You can find it here: Global soil type dataset for WRF-ARW model, based on HWSD version 2
 
Hi jobonaf,

I hope you're doing well. My name is Aurora, and I'm using your data from the hwsd2-wrf repository. I wanted to thank you for sharing this project.

However, I'm having some trouble understanding how to convert the TIFF files to WPS binary data. In particular, I am using the following command:

SoilType_i1 $ convert_geotiff -c 16 -b 3 -w 2 /the-path/SoilType_depth000to030cm_i1.tif

This process seems to finish successfully, creating many files with names like "00601-00700.00501-00600" along with an "index" file. Here is the content of the index file:

projection = regular_ll
known_x = 1
known_y = 504
known_lat = -31.691668
known_lon = -71.283333
dx = 8.332824e-03
dy = 8.332443e-03
type = categorical
signed = yes
units = "NO UNITS"
description = "NO DESCRIPTION"
wordsize = 2
tile_x = 100
tile_y = 100
tile_z = 1
category_min = 1
category_max = 17
tile_bdr = 3
missing_value = 17.000000
scale_factor = 1.000000
row_order = bottom_top
endian = little

I modified the GEOGRID.TBL to point to this directory and updated the 'geog_data_res' field in the namelist.wps to use this data option. However, when running geogrid, it doesn't finish successfully and exits with the following error:

ERROR: Error in ext_pkg_write_field

I suspect I might be using the convert_geotiff command incorrectly, and I was hoping you could help me figure out what's going wrong. Below is my namelist.wps file:

&share
wrf_core = 'ARW'
max_dom = 1
start_date = '2024-08-00_03:00:00'
end_date = '2024-08-00_18:00:00'
interval_seconds = 21600
io_form_geogrid = 2
debug_level = 0
/

&geogrid
parent_id = 1
parent_grid_ratio = 1
i_parent_start = 1
j_parent_start = 1
e_we = 32
e_sn = 28
geog_data_res = 'CLsoil'
dx = 5000
dy = 5000
map_proj = 'lambert'
ref_lat = -33.652
ref_lon = -69.399
truelat1 = -33.720
truelat2 = -33.720
pole_lat = 90
pole_lon = 0
stand_lon = -69.291
geog_data_path = '/home/proyecto_mma/DATA/ARCHIVOS_MMA/WRF/geog/'
opt_geogrid_tbl_path = './geogrid/'
/

&ungrib
out_format = 'WPS'
prefix = 'FILE'
/

&metgrid
fg_name = 'FILE'
io_form_metgrid = 2
opt_metgrid_tbl_path = './metgrid'
/
Additionally, here is a portion of my GEOGRID.TBL:

name=SOILCTOP
priority=1
dest_type=categorical
z_dim_name=soil_cat
dominant=SCT_DOM
interp_option = CLsoil:nearest_neighbor
rel_path= CLsoil:SoilType_i1/

Any advice or guidance on how to resolve this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and help.

Best regards,
Aurora
 
Hi Aurora,

I hope you're well, and thank you for your kind words about the project! I’m sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but we’ll do our best to help you resolve this issue.

I compared your `convert_geotiff` command:
Bash: 
convert_geotiff -c 16 -b 3 -w 2 /the-path/SoilType_depth000to030cm_i1.tif
with the one we used:
Bash: 
convert_geotiff -c 16 -w 1 -t 1200 -u "category" -d "16-category top layer soil type (0-30 cm)" /the-path/SoilType_depth000to030cm.tif

Here are the main differences that might be affecting your results:

1. Byte size (`-w` parameter): You are using `-w 2`, while we used `-w 1`. The byte size can be critical, as it dictates the output format. This might be worth adjusting in your case to match.

2. Category type (`-u` parameter): In our command, we specified `-u "category"`, which helps define the data type explicitly. This option might be needed for the soil category data and could help resolve the format misinterpretation error you're encountering.

Other differences, like `-b 3` (tile border) in your command, should not impact the outcome as it’s set to the default. Likewise, `-d` (description) and `-t 1200` (output tile size), which we used, are generally non-essential for functionality.

If you could try using `-w 1` and adding `-u "category"` to your command, this might resolve the issue. Let me know how it goes, and feel free to share any further error logs if needed.

Thanks again for your patience, and best regards,
Giovanni
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top