Simple process-led algorithms for simulating habitats (SPLASH v.2.0): calibration-free calculations of water and energy fluxes.

The current representation of key processes in Land Surface Models for estimating water and energy balances still relies heavily on empirical equations that require site-specific calibration. When multiple parameters are used, different combinations of parameter values can produce equally acceptable results leading to a risk of obtaining "right answers for wrong reasons", compromising the reproducibility of the simulations and limiting the ecological interpretability of the results. To reduce the need for free parameters, here we present novel formulations based on first-principles to calculate key components of water and energy balances, extending the already parsimonious SPLASH v.1.0 model (Davis et al. 2017, GMD). We found analytical solutions for many processes, enabling us to increase spatial resolution and include the terrain effects directly in the calculations without unreasonably inflating computational demands. This calibration-free model estimates quantities such as net radiation, evapotranspiration, condensation, soil water content, surface runoff, subsurface lateral flow and snow-water equivalent. These quantities are derived from readily meteorological data such as near-surface air temperature, precipitation and solar radiation, and soil physical properties. Whenever empirical formulations were required, we selected and optimized the best-performing equations through a combination of remote sensing and globally distributed terrestrial observational datasets. Simulations at global scales at different resolutions were run to evaluate spatial patterns, while simulations with point-based observations were run to evaluate seasonal patterns using data from hundreds of stations and comparisons with the VIC-3L model, demonstrating improved performance based on statistical tests and observational comparisons. In summary, our model offers a more robust, reproducible, and ecologically interpretable solution compared to more complex LSMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]