Using Satellite-Based Terrestrial Water Storage Data: A Review

Vol.:(0123456789) Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-022-09754-9 1 3 Using Satellite‑Based Terrestrial Water Storage Data: AReview VincentHumphrey1,2 · MatthewRodell3 · AnnetteEicker4 Received: 11 August 2022 / Accepted: 23 November 2022 / Published online: 13 January 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Land water storage plays a key role for the Earth’s climate, natural ecosystems, and human activities. Since the launch of the first Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission in 2002, spaceborne observations of changes in terrestrial water storage (TWS) have provided a unique, global perspective on natural and human-induced changes in freshwater resources. Even though they have become much used within the broader Earth system science community, space-based TWS datasets still incorporate important and case-specific limitations which may not always be clear to users not familiar with the underlying processing algorithms. Here, we provide an accessible and illustrated overview of the measurement concept, of the main available data products, and of some frequently encountered technical terms and concepts. We summarize concrete recommendations on how to use TWS data in combination with other hydrological or climatological datasets, and guidance on how to avoid possible pitfalls. Finally, we provide an overview of some of the main applications of GRACE TWS data in the fields of hydrology and climate science. This review is written with the intention of supporting future research and facilitating the use of satellite-based terrestrial water storage datasets in interdisciplinary contexts. Keywords Terrestrial water storage· GRACE· Climatology· Hydrology· Remote sensing· Geodesy Article Highlights • A summary of the GRACE satellite mission, the derived terrestrial water storage datasets, and the main technical terms and concepts * Vincent Humphrey [email protected] 1 Department ofGeography, University ofZürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057Zürich, Switzerland 2 Institute forAtmospheric andClimate Science, ETH Zürich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092Zürich, Switzerland 3 Earth Sciences Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD20771, USA 4 HafenCity University Hamburg, Überseeallee 16, 20457Hamburg, Germany 1490 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 • A survey of the main challenges encountered in hydro-climate research when working with GRACE data and how to address them • An overview of recent applications of GRACE TWS in water budget analyses, extremes monitoring, and Earth system modelling 1 Introduction Terrestrial water storage (TWS) is defined as the total amount of water stored on land. This includes any type of natural or artificial water reservoir, such as ground water, soil moisture, rivers, lakes, snowpack, glaciers, land ice, and water stored in biomass. TWS changes represent changes in terms of available freshwater resources which can have important impacts on both natural ecosystems and human activities. In response to the combined influences of natural climate variability and human interventions, TWS changes unfold over a wide range of temporal scales, ranging from short-lived extreme events caused by droughts and floods, to seasonal variability, inter-annual variability, and decadal trends related to, for instance, glacier mass loss or groundwater abstractions. As an integrator of changes in all water fluxes, TWS represents a key long-term memory variable for the water cycle and the Earth system in general, both responding to and feeding back to atmospheric and oceanic variability. TWS will change in response to any imbalance between the main water fluxes that are precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET), and runoff (R). For this reason, it represents one of the key variables of the water budget (Eq.1). TWS can also be expressed as the sum of all the potential water reservoirs. Here, GW is the groundwater, SM is the soil moisture, SWE is the snow water equivalent, SW is the surface water, LI is the land ice, and BW is the biomass water. Space-based observation of TWS changes debuted with the launch of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission in 2002. Before 2002, there were mainly two ways that TWS changes could be estimated. First, they can be estimated as the residual of the other observed water fluxes within the water budget equation (Eq.1). Of course, this approach requires sufficiently accurate estimates of precipitation, evapotranspiration and runoff fluxes (Oki etal. 1995; Hirschi and Seneviratne 2017). The second approach is to estimate TWS as the sum of individually observed or modelled reservoirs (Eq.2). In this case, one can either rely on estimates from a hydrological model or use extensive ground observations, provided these are available (Rodell and Famiglietti 2001). Depending on the climate type, certain of these TWS components may dominate TWS variability (e.g., snow and ice in polar and alpine regions) while others, like biomass water, can be safely ignored (Rodell etal. 2005; Getirana etal. 2017). Both of these approaches have serious limitations. In particular, these indirect estimates accumulate the measurement or estimation errors present in all the other terms, leading to potentially large uncertainties. The GRACE mission provided the first direct observations of TWS changes at the continental scale (Wahr etal. 1998, 2004; Tapley etal. 2004). The mission’s goal was to measure very small variations of the Earth’s gravity field which are caused by the redistribution of (1) dTWS dt =P−ET − R (2) TWS =GW +SM +SWE +SW +LI +BW 1491 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 masses over land, atmosphere, and oceans. In the next section, we will discuss the mission concept and data products in more detail. During the first years of the GRACE mission, obtaining precise estimates of TWS changes from the raw GRACE observations required developing and testing new retrieval algorithms and postprocessing strategies. Those techniques have since then made enormous progress, and GRACE-based TWS observations have reached a level of maturity enabling them to be used in a wide variety of applications, such as monitoring of freshwater resources and assimilation into numerical hydrological models (Tapley etal. 2019; Rodell etal. 2018). Following the success of the pioneering GRACE mission, gravimetric TWS remote sensing has entered a new phase where several successor missions are being proposed and implemented (Wiese etal. 2011; Elsaka etal. 2013; Pail etal. 2015; Haagmans etal. 2020; Flechtner etal. 2021). The objective is to both extend the existing data record and improve the spatiotemporal resolution of the final data products. In 2018, just one year after the initial GRACE mission ended, the successor GRACE Follow-On mission was successfully launched (Landerer etal. 2020). Some efforts have also been invested in producing publicly available long-term TWS records that cover the pre-GRACE era as well, mainly by means of data assimilation, machine learning, and statistical reconstructions (Kumar etal. 2016; Humphrey and Gudmundsson 2019; Li etal. 2021). Using only geodetic observations from satellite laser ranging (SLR), Löcher and Kusche (2020) have recently been able to extend the GRACE record back to 1992. We provide in this article an overview of gravimetric TWS observations, of their usage, and of some of their applications. Section2 provides a summary of the GRACE mission, of the main available hydrological data products, and of some frequently encountered concepts and issues that are part of the processing algorithms. Section3 reviews some of the frequent challenges associated to using GRACE data products and offers guidance as to how to address them. Section4 reviews a selection of applications that illustrate the use of space-based TWS observations in hydrology and Earth system sciences. 2 GRACE Mission, Common Terms, andData Products 2.1 Mission Concept The overall principle of the GRACE mission is to measure time-varying anomalies in the Earth’s gravity field, from which terrestrial water storage changes can be inferred (Tapley etal. 2004; Wahr etal. 2004). Because the water cycle and the global atmospheric circulation continuously redistribute enormous amounts of water mass around the globe, this causes local and extremely small changes in the Earth’s gravitational attraction. Such changes are on the order of 10–8m s−2, which is a billion times smaller than the average value of g = 9.81m s−2 (Wouters etal. 2014). Still, this is substantial enough to influence the orbits of satellites, especially when they have a relatively low altitude (i.e. initially 500km for the GRACE satellites). A temporary excess in water mass, for instance wet soils caused by heavy rains, produces a temporarily stronger gravitational acceleration at that location. This in turn leads to minor variations in the behaviour of a spacecraft along its usual orbit (relative to what happens when the TWS is close its long-term mean). The spacecraft experiences a stronger gravitational pull when approaching a positive mass anomaly, leading to an along-track acceleration, followed by a deceleration immediately after passing the anomaly (Fig.1). Insituations where water mass is lacking (i.e. during a drought), the opposite behaviour 1492 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 is seen and along-track deceleration is followed by acceleration. Here, it becomes obvious that one key characteristic of GRACE is that it estimates mass anomalies relative to the long-term average gravity field. In other words, GRACE provides estimates of terrestrial water storage anomalies ( TWSA =TWS −TWS ). Neither the total amount of TWS nor its long-term average ( TWS ) can be measured with GRACE. To measure gravity field variations (and infer water mass changes from them), the firstGRACE mission used a pair of twin satellites, with the first spacecraft flying about 220km ahead of the other. The satellites were equipped with three-dimensional accelerometers to measure atmospheric drag and other non-gravitational accelerations, and the change in distance between the two spacecraft (on average 220km apart) was continuously measured with a K-band microwave interferometer to a precision of about 1μm per second. GRACE Follow-On can achieve nanometre precision with its laser ranging instrument. These measurements are needed to precisely monitor changes in the orbital trajectory of each satellite. The orbits are further constrained with observations from the on-board GPS receivers and star cameras. Of course, only substantial mass changes (typically occurring over a large spatial extent) can be recovered with this method. At the global scale (summing all land areas), the alternance between wet and dry seasons causes seasonal changes in global TWS (clearly visible in GRACE data) of about 6000 gigatons (equivalent to 6000 km3 of water) (Reager etal. 2016). This seasonal change in land water storage causes global sea level to fall and rise by about 17mm every year as water is exchanged between land and oceans. GRACE satellites can also monitor TWS anomalies at smaller spatial scales, over areas as small as 150,000 Fig. 1 Measurement principle of the GRACE mission. The two GRACE satellites follow each other at an altitude of about 500km, separated by a distance of about 220km. When a region experiences an excess in mass, the gravitational attraction is locally stronger, causing the leading satellite to accelerate towards the positive mass anomaly. As a result the distance between the two spacecraft increases until the trailing satellite catches up. These variations in orbital behaviour are then used to infer time-dependent mass changes at the Earth’s surface. Background credit: freepik.com 1493 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 km2 at mid-latitudes, and down to 50,000 km2 near the poles, where the satellite ground tracks are close together (Fig.2; Rowlands etal. 2005; Swenson etal. 2006; Vishwakarma etal. 2018). As will be seen in the next sections, there are many factors which control the accuracy and resolution of GRACE data for a specific use case. Very often, choices in retrieval techniques and postprocessing algorithms may have different impacts on the interpretability of the data. Here, we provide an overview of the main concepts and terms that are commonly encountered when working with user-level GRACE data. 2.2 Spherical harmonics Since the initial years of the GRACE mission, the standard approach to processing GRACE gravity data to infer mass change has been to represent the Earth’s gravity field using spherical harmonics. Spherical harmonics are functions that are particularly convenient for approximating the non-spherical shape of the Earth or its gravity field (Wahr etal. 1998). The so-called low-degree and low-order (Stokes) coefficients of these spherical harmonics represent large-scale features (like the Earth’s oblateness), while higher-degree and higherorder coefficients represent features at increasingly finer spatial scales. There is an upper limit to the number of coefficients which can be robustly estimated with a given set of GRACE measurements. If insufficient observations are available, high-degree coefficients will be very uncertain. With a month’s worth of GRACE measurements, it is generally accepted that one can reliably estimate spherical harmonic coefficients up to a degree and order of at least 60. This number puts a hard limit on the resulting spatial resolution of the mass change estimates, at about 330 × 330km. Including a higher number of (less robust) coefficients with the aim of including more detailed spatial features is of course possible (e..g., at degree/order 120, resolution would be about 160km); however, this will increase Fig. 2 Satellite ground tracks of the GRACE mission (figure by Torsten Mayer-Gürr, Technische Universität Graz) 1494 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 the uncertainty of the solution and lead to a much higher level of noise. As a result, more intense spatialfiltering (smoothing) will be needed to reduce this noise, which often has the effect of damping the recovered TWS dynamics. In some of the GRACE literature, a resolution of about 3° × 3° (330 × 330km) has been proposed as a possible compromise between having the highest possible resolution while still limiting the level of noise globally (Watkins et al. 2015). Thus, many of the available monthly GRACE hydrological products based on spherical harmonics are using solutions that are referred to as up to (or truncated to) degree and order 60 (Fig.3a). Note that the trade-off between the number of observations used to constrain the solution and the achievable spatial resolution also makes it possible to generate weekly or even daily GRACE products albeit at lower spatial resolution or with reduced accuracy (Kurtenbach etal. 2012). Finally, we note that some of the low-degree coefficients (like C20, a coefficient related to the Earth’s oblateness) are not particularly well measured by GRACE and are often replaced with data from other sources like satellite laser ranging (SLR) (Loomis etal. 2020). 2.3 Mass Concentration Blocks (Mascons) The primary alternative to spherical harmonics for processing GRACE data and deriving mass anomalies is to use the so-called mass concentration blocks (abbreviated as mascons) (Rowlands etal. 2005, 2010). A mascon corresponds to a small, predefined region on the Earth’s surface, for instance a 3° rectangular grid cell (Fig.3b). The approach applies timedependent mascon parameters to adjust a static (forward modelled) gravity field so that it matches the time-dependent mass surpluses or deficits. This procedure is different from spherical harmonics in the sense that a mascon is not a representation of the global gravity field, but instead serves to quantify a local mass anomaly. The static gravity field is typically a spherical harmonic solution based on several years of GRACE data that acts as a high-resolution and low-noise reference. An advantage of having location-dependent mascon parameters is that they can be more easily constrained based on a priori information, thus providing some improvement in terms of the achievable spatial resolution, especially Fig. 3 TWS anomalies for the month of December 2015, as recovered in two different GRACE products. a Spherical harmonic solution from the GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) and b mass concentration (mascon) solution from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Note that the mass anomalies are more concentrated but also blockier in the mascon solution. Both datasets were obtained from NASA’s GRACE Tellus website which provides a collection of data products suited for hydrological applications. In December 2015, there was a large drought over most of the Amazon basin which caused a significant negative TWS anomaly as illustrated here. Source data: a GRC Tellus Land RL06 (GFZ), b JPL RL06M Version 2.0 (as listed in Table1) 1495 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 over polar regions which are more densely sampled by GRACE’s ground tracks (Luthcke etal. 2006). The estimation of mascon parameters can be improved by using as an additional constraint an expected average pattern of covariances or variances between neighbouring mascons (taken for instance from a hydrologicalmodel or a previous GRACE solution) (Watkins etal. 2015; Save etal. 2016). An additional potential constraint is to implement temporal correlation in the mascon parameters, taking advantage of the fact that many large-scale mass changes unfold relatively slowly and are thus autocorrelated in time. In contrast, spherical harmonic solutions are global in nature and each monthly solution is usually independent from the next. Note that spatial and/or temporal constraints can also be introduced in spherical harmonics, as in Kurtenbach etal. (2012) or in Save etal. (2012). For hydrological applications, key advantages of constrained mascon products compared to unconstrained spherical harmonics are that the original magnitudes of the TWS signals are better recovered and the TWS changes (especially along coastlines) are better resolved spatially (Scanlon etal. 2016) (also see Fig.3). Mascon products are also easier to use in general as they do not need to be spatially filtered (smoothed) during postprocessing. This is because some (geophysically motivated) spatial information is explicitly guiding the retrieval of the mascon solution, thus greatly reducing the spatial noise patterns. While such constraints are effective in reducing the noise, the number of observations necessary to compute a solution still places an upper limit on the achievable maximum spatial resolution (see the Section2.2 on ‘Spherical harmonics’). Thus, while some centres provide mascons that have a relatively fine spatial resolution, for instance at 1° (110 × 110km) grid, the effective spatial resolution remains closer to 300 × 300km (Save etal. 2016). 2.4 De‑aliasing Temporal changes in the Earth’s gravity field are not only happening because of terrestrial water storage variations, but also due to many other processes. For instance, the atmospheric and oceanic circulations cause gravity field changes at temporal scales of a few hours to a few days (Dobslaw etal. 2013). Because GRACE observations are sensitive to these processes as well, the variability caused by atmospheric and oceanic processes is said to be aliased onto the GRACE measurements (Fig.4a). In other words, the gravity signal associated with land hydrological processes is convolved with gravity signals resulting from higher-frequency processes. In order to isolate the hydrological effects, the high-frequency signals need to be estimated with observation-driven atmospheric reanalysis (i.e. weather models) and then subtracted from the GRACE measurements. This process is called de-aliasing. Several de-aliasing products are available, such as the AOD1B product from the German GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) (Dobslaw etal. 2017). For end-users of GRACE hydrology data products, the choice of the de-aliasing method is rarely an issue because this step is performed during the generation of TWS anomaly fields. However, it is worth knowing that errors in the atmospheric and oceanic circulation models, together with spatial and temporal undersampling of the gravity field changes associated with those circulations (which complicates their removal) do contribute a large fraction of the errors in retrieved TWS anomalies (Han etal. 2004; Seo etal. 2008). In addition to reducing aliasing errors, de-aliasing also implicitly removes the contribution of the atmosphere to monthly mass changes. 1496 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 2.5 De‑striping andFiltering A long-standing issue with GRACE data processing has been the presence of unphysical north–south-oriented stripes in maps of mass anomalies (e.g., Wouters etal. 2014). The origin of these stripes lies mainly in the polar configuration of the GRACE orbits and the along-track orientation of the two satellites themselves, which causes north–south gradients to be much better observed than east–west ones. Simulation studies have shown that this orbit configuration tends to magnify inaccuracies in the de-aliasing products, causing striping in the gravity solutions (Seo etal. 2008). Recent work by Peidou and Pagiatakis (2020) has also shown that striping may result from sub-Nyquist artefacts caused by latitudinal oversampling of the low-frequency gravitational signal of the geoid. In addition to stripes, measurements errors and noise from many other sources also cause residual errors which contaminate the maps of TWS anomalies obtained from raw GRACE solutions. a b c Fig. 4 Illustration of some of the frequently encountered concepts in GRACE processing. a Aliasing refers to the contamination of a low-frequency signal, here the hydrological variability, by an undersampled highfrequency signal, here tidal and non-tidal effects on the geopotential. De-aliasing refers to the (imperfect) removal of aliasing using model estimates of the high-frequency signals. b Simplified representation of the correlated errors affecting the mass anomalies recovered by GRACE and the use of filtering techniques to remove them. An unwanted effect of filtering is that it also attenuates and mixes up the true geophysical signals, leading to a bias in the retrieved TWS amplitude and a leakage of TWS signals between neighbouring regions. c Generation process and usage of the model-based scale factors designed to correct for biases in GRACE TWS when computing regional averages at a larger scale 1497 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 Many approaches have been proposed to reduce striping patterns as well as other errors in the most efficient way. Originally, large-scale (i.e. up to 1000km) Gaussian filtering was applied to the data, effectively removing the noise, but with the negative consequence that many real smaller-scale features would be entirely smoothed out (Wouters etal. 2014). This posed a significant challenge because evaluating the first GRACE TWS anomalies against hydrological models required that the model data undergo a comparable filtering (Schmidt etal. 2006). More advanced techniques take advantage of the anisotropy of the striping patterns to optimally remove the noise while still retaining most of the real spatial patterns (Swenson and Wahr 2006b; Kusche 2007). The objective of these de-striping and filtering algorithms has generally been to improve gridded GRACE hydrology products or region-specific time series that are based on spherical harmonics and make them more easily comparable to other model-based or observational datasets. For mascon solutions, this problem is much less prominent because the a priori constraints used in the solutions explicitly mitigate the noise. Thus, it is not necessary to apply de-striping or filtering during mascon postprocessing. 2.6 Leakage Due to the truncation of spherical harmonics, the de-striping, filtering, and/or constraining processes, gridded maps of TWS anomalies have a very high degree of spatial autocorrelation which is, for a large part, not representative of the real TWS anomaly patterns. The spatial smoothing and filtering inherent to GRACE processing algorithms means that the TWS anomaly estimated at any given grid cell also incorporates TWS signals occurring in the neighbouring region, outside the area of interest. The consequence is that real TWS anomaly patterns may be distorted and signal amplitudes will be generally damped. In the GRACE community, this effect is usually referred to as signal leakage. Figure4b illustrates it for the general case of spherical harmonics postprocessing. Some authors prefer to use the term leakage to describe the contamination by external signals and use the term bias to describe signal damping (Klees etal. 2007). Other authors use the term leakage to describe both effects (Swenson and Wahr 2002). Signal bias and leakage are problematic for hydrological applications which attempt to isolate the TWS anomalies occurring within a specific region like a watershed or a large aquifer. It is even worse when damped TWS changes are combined or compared with fluxes in a water budget analysis. Various approaches have been proposed to address this issue, which affects spherical harmonic solutions more than mascon solutions. If the region of interest is precisely defined, a specifically optimized averaging kernel (or function) can be used to minimize the contamination by TWS signals that are located outside of the region of interest (Swenson and Wahr 2002). These averaging kernels are also used to calculate the expected signal attenuation and estimate a multiplicative correction factor which is used to restore (or rescale) the signal amplitude (Velicogna and Wahr 2006; Rodell etal. 2009), thus mitigating signal bias (though not leakage). In some cases, hydrological model data may also be used to estimate and remove the leakage contribution of TWS signals outside of the area of interest (Swenson and Wahr 2007). For the case of signal leakage across coastlines (i.e. between land and ocean mass changes), specific approaches have been developed to further reduce leakage and better separate the land and ocean mass contributions (Chen etal. 2015; Wiese etal. 2016; Tregoning etal. 2022). However, leakage and bias correction techniques are in general too cumbersome to implement for hydrologists, glaciogists, or other end-users who are not familiar with GRACE data processing 1504 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 noted in Eq.1 corresponds to the difference between the start and the end of the considered time period. However, GRACE never provides such instantaneous estimates of TWS, only temporal averages taken over the whole time period (Fig.6a). As a result, differentiating monthly GRACE data only provides an approximate estimate of dTWS∕dt (Rodell etal. 2004; Swenson and Wahr 2006a). This can be easily demonstrated for various difference operators and synthetic ‘toy’ model data (Fig.6b). Swenson and Wahr (2006a) originally evaluated the accuracy of the backwards difference approximation using hydrological model data: As demonstrated in Swenson and Wahr (2006a) and as illustrated in Fig.6b, approximation errors for a given month can be very large, extreme values are generally underestimated and may also be temporally shifted. Users should very carefully take these approximation errors into account when deriving any conclusions about water balance closure or phase shifts between water storage and water fluxes on a monthly basis. Because GRACE observations also contain noise, computing centred differences has been reported to provide a more robust and less noisy approximation of dTWS∕dt as compared to forwards or backwards differences (Landerer etal. 2010; Long etal. 2014; Pascolini-Campbell etal. 2020). This means computing the difference between the next and the preceding months and dividing that by the time difference. Note that this introduces some smoothing in the estimate of dTWS∕dt (see Fig.6b). (3) dTWS dt ≈ TWSA t −TWSA t− 1 Δt Fig. 6 a Illustrative TWS anomaly time series generated with a simplified hydrological model. b Water budget closure at monthly scale between the monthly sum of water fluxes (green), and monthly TWS changes estimated with different approaches: backwards differences of monthly TWS averages (blue), centred differences of monthly TWS averages (orange), and the actual monthly storage change calculated from the daily TWS time series (black) 1505 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 The most important takeaway here is that computing a derivative of monthly TWS to obtain monthly TWS changes ( Δ TWS, or ΔTWSAm ) does not provide a necessarily accurate estimate of dTWS∕dt for use in Eq.1 (Rodell etal. 2004; Swenson and Wahr 2006a). If daily estimates of water fluxes (i.e. of P-ET-R) are available, it becomes possible to more accurately compare GRACE monthly TWS data against water fluxes (Rodell etal. 2004). In the following, we provide equations that can support such a formal comparison between water fluxes and monthly GRACE data. First, TWS is defined as the average TWS calculated over a whole month m which includes several days d = [1,…, n]: Because GRACE can only provide anomalies with respect to some unknown long-term TWS average, what is actually measured is a TWS anomaly (TWSA): TWSd is the absolute water storage on a given day of the month. (This absolutequantity cannot be derived from GRACE observations, as the satellites are affected by all mass, not just water mass.) Neglecting lateral water redistribution, TWSd can be defined as the accumulation of the water fluxes since the start of the month, plus the TWS amount which was already there just before the month started (Rodell etal. 2004; Swenson and Wahr 2006a). For instance, with Pi, ETi, and Ri expressing daily sums, Replacing TWSd in Eq.6 with the above expression yields the following This equation shows that the GRACE TWS anomaly of a given month is related to the mean of the cumulative sums of the water fluxes for each day of the month, plus two unknown offsets. These offsets conveniently cancel out with differentiation. For instance, using Eq.8 and computing the backwards difference between two consecutive GRACE months m12 and m34, which start at days n1 and n3, and end at days n2 and n4, respectively, we obtain (neglecting measurement errors): where Δt is the time difference between the middle points of the two months. This formulation corresponds to the difference in the running means of the flux accumulations (Rodell (4) dTWS dt ≈ TWSA t+1 −TWSA t−1 2Δt (5) TWS m= 1 n n ∑ d=1 TWS d (6) TWSA m=TWSm−TWS = 1 n n ∑ d=1 TWSd−TWS (7) TWS d= [d ∑ i= 1 Pi−ETi−Ri ] +TWSd= 0 (8) TWSA m= 1 n n ∑ d= 1 [d ∑ i= 1 Pi−ETi−Ri ] +TWSd=0− TWS (9) dTWS A dt = TWSA m34 −TWSA m12 Δt = 1 (n4−n3+1)∑n4 d=n3[∑d i=n1 Pi−ETi−Ri]−1 (n2−n1+1)∑n2 d=n1[∑d i=n1 Pi−ETi−Ri ] Δt 1506 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 etal. 2011). Provided daily estimates of P, ET, and R, are available, TWSA differences can be formally compared to water flux variables using Eq.9. 3.6 Aggregating errors When interpreting user-level gridded GRACE data, it is best to assume that neighbouring pixels are not independent of each other. This needs to be taken into account when computing error estimates for the TWS average at the basin scale or region scale (Bevington and Robinson 2003). When computing an average over an area containing i=[1, …,n] pixels, the aggregated error variance 𝜎2 is obtained as the sum of the variance–covariance matrix of all the (grid point level) errors. where w is the weight assigned to each grid point (for an arithmetic average, w=1∕n ) and 𝜌i , j is the correlation between the errors (not between the TWS time series) at the grid level. That correlation is assumed to decay exponentially as a function of the (spherical) distance between grid points Di , j , with a rate that is conditioned by the so-called de-correlation length ( l ) of the error. (Note that this isotropic approach neglects the north–south error structure induced by stripes.) The GRC Tellus Land webpage1 recommends to use l=300 km for the measurement error and l=100 km for the leakage error. It also provides a pseudo-code for implementing this equation. The total error is usually estimated in quadrature (i.e. assuming the measurement and leakage errors are independent): 𝜎2 total =𝜎 2 measurement +𝜎 2 leakage For the 3° JPL mascons, assuming that the measurement errors between mascons are independent, the above formulation can be adapted to 𝜌i,j=1 if grid points i and j belong to the same mascon and 𝜌i , j=0 otherwise (for the measurement errors only). Other approaches to determine regional uncertainties from mascon products are discussed in Loomis etal. (2019). 4 Applications ofGRACE inHydrology andClimate Science This section provides only a brief overview of some of the most common applications of space-based terrestrial water storage observations for freshwater resources. For a more complete perspective, we also suggest the reviews by Frappart and Ramillien (2018) and Chen etal. (2016) for groundwater monitoring, Rodell etal. (2018) for long-term trends in freshwater resources, Girotto and Rodell (2019) for extremes in terrestrial water storage, Humphrey etal. (2016) for a climatological summary, Li etal. (2019) for data assimilation into numerical hydrological models, Tapley etal. (2019) for climate change impacts (10) 𝜎 2= n ∑ i=1 n ∑ j=1 wi𝜎i⋅wj𝜎j⋅𝜌i, j (11) 𝜌i , j =e −(Di,j) 2 2l2 1 https:// grace. jpl. nasa. gov/ data/ getdata/ month lymassgridsland/. 1507 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 detection with GRACE, and Chen etal. (2022) for a broader review including GRACE Follow-On. 4.1 Budget Residual Approaches Because TWS is linked to other components of the water cycle (Eq.1 and 2), it can be used in combination with other well-observed components in order to estimate another (less well-observed) term as the residual of the budget equation. For instance, using Eq.2, it is possible to estimate groundwater storage changes as ΔGW = ΔTWS – ΔSM – ΔSWE – ΔSW – ΔLI – ΔBW, provided reliable estimates of all the other components are available. For instance, Rodell etal. (2007) applied this approach to estimate groundwater changes in the Mississippi basin using GRACE TWS observations, as well as hydrological model estimates of soil moisture and snow water equivalent (other components were sufficiently small to be neglected). These basin-scale estimates were then compared against insitu groundwater well observations. This type of approach has been successfully repeated to monitor seasonal as well as long-term groundwater changes over many different regions and aquifers of the world (Yeh etal. 2006; Rodell etal. 2009; Famiglietti etal. 2011; Shamsudduha etal. 2012; Feng etal. 2013; Richey etal. 2015a), and requires a careful consideration of the error propagation. Indeed, because ΔGW is estimated as the residual of the other terms, it also accumulates estimation errors from all these variables. In combination with other data, GRACE-based groundwater variations can be used to identify unsustainable depletion of water resources (Richey etal. 2015b). Another type of budget approach is to invert Eq.1 in order to estimate water fluxes in a way that gives proper consideration to the particular nature of GRACE measurements (see Sect. 3.5 Integration with the water budget). Because evapotranspiration is arguably one of the most ill-observed water cycle variables, there is great interest in obtaining large-scale estimates using a combination of GRACE TWS, precipitation, and runoff data (Rodell etal. 2004; Swenson and Wahr 2006a; Long etal. 2014). Recently, this approach has been used to evaluate model-based evapotranspiration over the Amazon basin (Swann and Koven 2017), and U.S. basins (Pascolini-Campbell etal. 2020). Other authors have used the same approach to estimate other components of the water balance equation. For instance, Behrangi etal. (2017) or Girotto etal. (2021) have used GRACE data to constrain or improve precipitation estimates, with the most success for snowfall. Freshwater discharge has also been estimated from GRACE using a budget approach for instance in Syed etal. (2005) or in Famiglietti etal. (2009). 4.2 Monitoring Extremes Unlike precipitation-based or meteorological drought indices, GRACE directly observes changes in available freshwater resources, thus providing particularly useful information for hydrological drought monitoring. Many different characteristics of large-scale hydrological droughts such as duration, peak magnitude, severity, or spatial extent have been investigated with GRACE data. A large number of drought indices or metrics that can be used quantify these characteristics at a regional or global scale has been proposed in previous studies (Thomas etal. 2014; Zhao etal. 2017; Kusche etal. 2016). Regionally, exceptional droughts which occurred during the GRACE record have been well studied and reported. GRACE has provided a space-based perspective of these droughts, often in the context of pre-existing freshwater scarcity and unsustainable groundwater abstractions, 1508 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 such as in California (Famiglietti 2014), the Colorado basin (Castle etal. 2014), Texas (Long etal. 2013), Northwestern China (Cao etal. 2015), or the Tigris-Euphrates region (Voss etal. 2013). Many of these droughts have also been studied from the perspective of decadal climate variability and oscillations like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), for instance over the Yangtze river basin (Zhang etal. 2015), in Argentina (Chen etal. 2010b), the Amazon basin (Frappart etal. 2012; Chaudhari etal. 2019), or at the global scale (Forootan etal. 2019). In fact, most of the inter-annual variability in GRACE TWS changes can be related to climate indices such as ENSO (Ni etal. 2017; Pfeffer etal. 2021). GRACE observations are also routinely assimilated into hydrological models in order to produce continuous maps of drought indicators (Houborg etal. 2012; Li etal. 2019) and drought forecasts (Getirana etal. 2020). More recently, GRACE observations have been increasingly used as an ancillary dataset to quantify drought impacts on terrestrial ecosystems. For instance, GRACE data has been used to study the response of the Amazonian forest to the exceptional 2015–2016 drought (Yang etal. 2018; Gloor etal. 2018) or the role of groundwater in buffering the impact of heatwaves on vegetation (Mu etal. 2021). Vegetation also modulates the contribution of the different water stores to the total TWS variability (Trautmann etal. 2022). At the global and regional scales, GRACE-based terrestrial water storage variations are associated with anomalies in carbon sequestration by terrestrial ecosystems that are visible in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Humphrey etal. 2018; Bastos etal. 2020). Besides monitoring droughts, terrestrial water storage observations are also useful to monitor flood potential. Because the risk of large floods is increased in the presence of saturated soils and filled water stores, GRACE observations can be used to predict the likelihood of floods at several months’ lead time (Reager and Famiglietti 2009; Reager etal. 2014). Although they are typically more short-lived than droughts, and thus more difficult to capture in monthly GRACE solutions, major floods can also be diagnosed in the GRACE record. For instance, Chen etal. (2010a) studied the TWS anomalies associated with the exceptional 2009 Amazon flood. Over the Tonlé Sap basin, in Cambodia, Tangdamrongsub etal. (2016) could derive a remarkably robust relationship between TWS anomalies and inundated extent based on MODIS. Still, there are significantly fewer studies using GRACE to monitor floods (compared to droughts), mainly because of their limited spatial and temporal extent, which is poorly captured by the monthly and coarse resolution GRACE observations. Thus, for floods, it makes most sense to assimilate GRACE data into hydrological models with the aim of improving flood warning systems in combination with other higher-resolution data (Reager etal. 2015). 4.3 Synergies withHydrological andClimate Models GRACE observations may be used in combination with numerical models in a variety of ways. Here, we will cover two broad categories. First, GRACE observations of TWS anomalies can be used as an independent benchmark to evaluate or compare a collection of hydrological and climate models. Second, GRACE data can also be assimilated into a numerical model. In this case, some information derived from GRACE is transferred to the model, with the goal of improving it. Classically, this can be done either by tuning the model parameters so that the model output best fits with GRACE data (model calibration), or by forcefully adapting the model state (and potentially breaking the mass or energy balance) so that the model is brought closer to the observations (data assimilation). Several examples of these different applications can be found in the literature. 1509 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 Various internationally used model benchmarking tools rely on GRACE data to perform model intercomparisons. For instance the International Land Model Benchmarking system (ILAMB) is used to evaluate land surface and hydrological models (Collier etal. 2018), and the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) (Eyring etal. 2016b) is used to evaluate global coupled climate models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (Eyring etal. 2016a). Comparisons between GRACE and hydrological models has shown that many models tend to produce a peak seasonal TWS that occurs too early compared to GRACE observations, potentially related to a general underestimation of the overall water storage capacity (Schellekens etal. 2017). Limitations in the representation of TWS between the different models (inclusion of surface and ground water stores, modelling of groundwater abstractions), as well as uncertainties in the meteorological forcing, may also explain some of the differences with GRACE observations. Consistent with these findings, land surface and hydrological models were found to lack inter-annual variability compared to GRACE, especially over semi-arid and tropical regions, a situation which further impacts the representation of the carbon cycle in these models (Humphrey etal. 2018). Models were also shown to underestimate the magnitude of long-term TWS trends compared to GRACE data (Scanlon etal. 2018; Yang etal. 2020). In a recent study, Jensen etal. (2019) compared the long-term trends in GRACE TWS against climate change induced trends in water storage as simulated by coupled climate models over the last century. Partly due to the difficulty of deriving robust trends from the short GRACE record, they found limited agreement, except in regions with strong projected drying trends such as the Mediterranean basin and the Southwestern United States. This limited agreement also occursbecause a substantial fraction of the negative TWS trends observed from GRACE globally is related to groundwater abstractions rather than to climatic changes (An etal. 2021). In addition to model evaluations, GRACE is also routinely used for calibration and/or data assimilation into hydrological models. Model parameterization exercises involving GRACE TWS include for example the work by Lo etal. (2010) who used GRACE data to calibrate groundwater parameters for the Community Land Model (CLM) or by Swenson and Lawrence (2015) who derived an optimal soil thickness map also for CLM. Werth et al. (2009) used basin-scale GRACE observations to calibrate the WaterGAP Global Hydrology Model (WGHM) and found that the model parameters which were the most sensitive to TWS as a model constraint were highly dependent on climate regions and the relative importance of the different hydrological processes (snowmelt, evapotranspiration, floodplain dynamics). In addition to studies focusing on the calibration of model parameters, a large number of studies have also used data assimilation techniques, such as Ensemble Kalman filters, with the goal improving the model’s representation of water stores and fluxes over the period where GRACE data is available, without attempting to improve model physics or parameters. In this case, assimilation of GRACE into numerical models can also be viewed as a (model-dependent) way of both downscaling and disaggregating TWS observations into constituting individual water stores (i.e. soil moisture, groundwater, etc.) (Stampoulis etal. 2019). The impact of data assimilation on the performance of hydrological models has generally been reported to be positive. For instance, Zaitchik etal. (2008) found that assimilation of GRACE TWS led to higher model skill when compared to insitu groundwater, Li etal. (2012) obtained improvements in runoff estimates in most cases, Tangdamrongsub etal. (2015) found improved performance against insitu groundwater but only slight improvement for streamflow, and Kumar etal. (2016) obtained a better performance for groundwater but regionally variable impacts in terms of river discharge and evapotranspiration. In cases where anthropogenic processes play an important role, 1510 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 but are not represented in the model (e.g., groundwater use and/or irrigation), assimilating GRACE data can actually lead to a significant decrease in model performance (Girotto etal. 2017). Assimilating GRACE data into numerical models also poses some critical (and not fully resolved) technical challenges because of its quite coarse spatial resolution and monthly sampling (Eicker etal. 2014). In addition, the peculiar, spatially correlated, error structures of GRACE data also need to be taken into account by the data assimilation methods (Schumacher etal. 2016; Khaki etal. 2017). Finally, assimilating only GRACE TWS data into a hydrological model may also lead to a degradation in performance for some other variables. Thus, the assimilation of GRACE simultaneously with several other remotely sensed water variables, such as microwave-based soil moisture or lake altimetry constitutes one of the logical next steps (e.g., van Dijk etal. 2014; Tian etal. 2017; Khaki etal. 2019). Acknowledgements V.H. acknowledges financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. P4P4P2_194464). Data sources are accessible as listed in Table1 or mentioned in the main text. V.H. was responsible forthe conceptualization, literature search, figures (except Fig.2), and initial draft. M.R. and A.E. contributed to the main text and completed the literature search. We thank Torsten MayerGürr at Technische Universität Graz for giving us permission to use Fig.2. We thank Dr. Julia Pfeffer at Magellium for constructive comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Funding Open access funding provided by Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Abelen S, Seitz F (2013) Relating satellite gravimetry data to global soil moisture products via data harmonization and correlation analysis. Remote Sens Environ 136:89–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rse. 2013. 04. 012 An L, Wang J, Huang J, Pokhrel Y, Hugonnet R, Wada Y, Cáceres D, Müller Schmied H, Song C, Berthier E, Yu H, Zhang G (2021) Divergent Causes of Terrestrial Water Storage Decline Between Drylands and Humid Regions Globally. Geophys Res Lett 48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2021g l0950 35 Bastos A, O’Sullivan M, Ciais P, Makowski D, Sitch S, Friedlingstein P, Chevallier F, Rödenbeck C, Pongratz J, Luijkx IT, Patra PK, Peylin P, Canadell JG, Lauerwald R, Li W, Smith NE, Peters W, Goll DS, Jain AK, Kato E, Lienert S, Lombardozzi DL, Haverd V, Nabel JEMS, Poulter B, Tian H, Walker AP, Zaehle S (2020) Sources of uncertainty in regional and global terrestrial CO2 exchange estimates. Glob Biogeochem Cy 34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2019g b0063 93 Behrangi A, Gardner AS, Reager JT, Fisher JB (2017) Using GRACE to constrain precipitation amount over cold mountainous basins. Geophys Res Lett 44:219–227. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2016g l0718 32 Bevington PR, Robinson DK (2003) Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences, Third edition ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston 1511 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 Cao Y, Nan Z, Cheng G (2015) GRACE Gravity satellite observations of terrestrial water storage changes for drought characterization in the arid land of Northwestern China. Remote Sens 7:1021–1047. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ rs701 01021 Castle SL, Thomas BF, Reager JT, Rodell M, Swenson SC, Famiglietti JS (2014) Groundwater depletion during drought threatens future water security of the Colorado River Basin. Geophys Res Lett 41:5904–5911. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2014g l0610 55 Chaudhari S, Pokhrel Y, Moran E, Miguez-Macho G (2019) Multi-decadal hydrologic change and variability in the Amazon River basin: understanding terrestrial water storage variations and drought characteristics. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23:2841–2862. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5194/ hess2328412019 Chen J, Famiglietti JS, Scanlon BR, Rodell M (2016) Groundwater storage changes: present status from GRACE observations. Surv Geophys 37:397–417. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s107120159332-4 Chen J, Cazenave A, Dahle C, Llovel W, Panet I, Pfeffer J, Moreira L (2022) Applications and Challenges of GRACE and GRACE follow-on satellite gravimetry. Surv Geophys. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1071202109685-x Chen JL, Wilson CR, Tapley BD (2010a) The 2009 exceptional Amazon flood and interannual terrestrial water storage change observed by GRACE. Water Resour Res 46:W12526. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2010W R0093 83 Chen JL, Wilson CR, Tapley BD, Longuevergne L, Yang ZL, Scanlon BR (2010b) Recent La Plata basin drought conditions observed by satellite gravimetry. J Geophys Res Atmos 115:D22108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2010J D0146 89 Chen JL, Wilson CR, Li J, Zhang Z (2015) Reducing leakage error in GRACE-observed long-term ice mass change: a case study in West Antarctica. J Geodesy 89:925–940. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s001900150824-2 Collier N, Hoffman FM, Lawrence DM, Keppel-Aleks G, Koven CD, Riley WJ, Mu M, Randerson JT (2018) The international land model benchmarking (ILAMB) system: design, theory, and Implementation. J Adv Model Earth Syst 10:2731–2754. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2018m s0013 54 Croteau MJ, Nerem RS, Loomis BD, Sabaka TJ (2020) Development of a daily GRACE Mascon solution for terrestrial water storage. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2019j b0184 68 Dobslaw H, Flechtner F, Bergmann-Wolf I, Dahle C, Dill R, Esselborn S, Sasgen I, Thomas M (2013) Simulating high-frequency atmosphere-ocean mass variability for dealiasing of satellite gravity observations: AOD1B RL05. J Geophys Res Oceans 118:3704–3711. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jgrc. 20271 Dobslaw H, Bergmann-Wolf I, Dill R, Poropat L, Thomas M, Dahle C, Esselborn S, König R, Flechtner F (2017) A new high-resolution model of non-tidal atmosphere and ocean mass variability for dealiasing of satellite gravity observations: AOD1B RL06. Geophys J Int 211:263–269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ gji/ ggx302 Döll P, Fritsche M, Eicker A, Müller Schmied H (2014) Seasonal water storage variations as impacted by water abstractions: comparing the output of a global hydrological model with GRACE and GPS observations. Surv Geophys 35:1311–1331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s107120149282-2 Eicker A, Schumacher M, Kusche J, Doll P, Muller Schmied H (2014) Calibration/data assimilation approach for integrating GRACE data into the WaterGAP global hydrology model (WGHM) using an ensemble kalman filter: first results. Surv Geophys 35:1285–1309. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s107120149309-8 Elsaka B, Raimondo J-C, Brieden P, Reubelt T, Kusche J, Flechtner F, Iran Pour S, Sneeuw N, Müller J (2013) Comparing seven candidate mission configurations for temporal gravity field retrieval through full-scale numerical simulation. J Geodesy 88:31–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s001900130665-9 Eyring V, Bony S, Meehl GA, Senior CA, Stevens B, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2016a) Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Dev 9:1937–1958 Eyring V, Righi M, Lauer A, Evaldsson M, Wenzel S, Jones C, Anav A, Andrews O, Cionni I, Davin EL, Deser C, Ehbrecht C, Friedlingstein P, Gleckler P, Gottschaldt K-D, Hagemann S, Juckes M, Kindermann S, Krasting J, Kunert D, Levine R, Loew A, Mäkelä J, Martin G, ason E, Phillips AS, Read S, Rio C, Roehrig R, Senftleben D, Sterl A, van Ulft LH, Walton J, Wang S, Williams KD (2016b) ESMValTool (v1.0)—a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP. Geosci Model Dev 9:1747-1802. 10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016b Famiglietti JS, Syed TH, Chambers DP (2009) GRACE-based estimates of terrestrial freshwater discharge from basin to continental scales. J Hydrometeorol 10:22–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1175/ 2008j hm993.1 Famiglietti JS, Lo M, Ho SL, Bethune J, Anderson KJ, Syed TH, Swenson SC, de Linage CR, Rodell M (2011) Satellites measure recent rates of groundwater depletion in California’s Central Valley. Geophys Res Lett 38:L03403. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2010G L0464 42 1512 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 Famiglietti JS (2014) The global groundwater crisis. Nat Clim Chang 4:945–948. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nclim ate24 25 Feng W, Zhong M, Lemoine J-M, Biancale R, Hsu H-T, Xia J (2013) Evaluation of groundwater depletion in North China using the gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) data and ground-based measurements. Water Resour Res 49:2110–2118. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ wrcr. 20192 Flechtner F, Reigber C, Rummel R, Balmino G (2021) Satellite gravimetry: a review of its realization. Surv Geophys 42:1029–1074. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1071202109658-0 Forootan E, Khaki M, Schumacher M, Wulfmeyer V, Mehrnegar N, van Dijk AIJM, Brocca L, Farzaneh S, Akinluyi F, Ramillien G, Shum CK, Awange J, Mostafaie A (2019) Understanding the global hydrological droughts of 2003–2016 and their relationships with teleconnections. Sci Total Environ 650:2587–2604. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv. 2018. 09. 231 Frappart F, Papa F, da Silva JS, Ramillien G, Prigent C, Seyler F, Calmant S (2012) Surface freshwater storage and dynamics in the Amazon basin during the 2005 exceptional drought. Environ Res Lett 7:L044010 Frappart F, Ramillien G (2018) Monitoring groundwater storage changes using the gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) satellite mission: a review. Remote Sens. 10, https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ rs100 60829 Getirana A, Kumar S, Girotto M, Rodell M (2017) Rivers and floodplains as key components of global terrestrial water storage variability. Geophys Res Lett 44:10359–310368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2017g l0746 84 Getirana A, Rodell M, Kumar S, Beaudoing HK, Arsenault K, Zaitchik B, Save H, Bettadpur S (2020) GRACE improves seasonal groundwater forecast initialization over the United States. J Hydrometeorol 21:59–71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1175/ jhm-d190096.1 Girotto M, De Lannoy GJM, Reichle RH, Rodell M, Draper C, Bhanja SN, Mukherjee A (2017) Benefits and pitfalls of GRACE data assimilation: a case study of terrestrial water storage depletion in India. Geophys Res Lett 44:4107–4115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2017g l0729 94 Girotto, M., and Rodell, M.: Terrestrial water storage, in: Extreme Hydroclimatic Events and Multivariate Hazards in a Changing Environment, 41–64, 2019. Girotto M, Reichle R, Rodell M, Maggioni V (2021) Data assimilation of terrestrial water storage observations to estimate precipitation fluxes: a synthetic experiment. Remote Sens 13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ rs130 61223 Gloor E, Wilson C, Chipperfield MP, Chevallier F, Buermann W, Boesch H, Parker R, Somkuti P, Gatti LV, Correia C, Domingues LG, Peters W, Miller J, Deeter MN, Sullivan MJP (2018) Tropical land carbon cycle responses to 2015/16 El Niño as recorded by atmospheric greenhouse gas and remote sensing data. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 373. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1098/ rstb. 2017. 0302 Haagmans R, Siemes C, Massotti L, Carraz O, Silvestrin P (2020) ESA’s next-generation gravity mission concepts. Rendiconti Lincei Scienze Fisiche e Naturali 31:15–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1221002000875-0 Han S-C, Jekeli C, Shum CK (2004) Time-variable aliasing effects of ocean tides, atmosphere, and continental water mass on monthly mean GRACE gravity field. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 109. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2003j b0025 01 Hirschi M, Seneviratne SI (2017) Basin-scale water-balance dataset (BSWB): an update. Earth Syst Sci Data 9:251–258. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5194/ essd-92512017 Houborg R, Rodell M, Li B, Reichle R, Zaitchik BF (2012) Drought indicators based on model-assimilated gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) terrestrial water storage observations. Water Resour Res 48:W07525. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2011W R0112 91 Humphrey V, Gudmundsson L, Seneviratne SI (2016) Assessing global water storage variability from GRACE: trends, seasonal cycle, subseasonal anomalies and extremes. Surv Geophys 37:357–395. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s107120169367-1 Humphrey V, Zscheischler J, Ciais P, Gudmundsson L, Sitch S, Seneviratne SI (2018) Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 growth rate to observed changes in terrestrial water storage. Nature 560:628–631. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s415860180424-4 Humphrey V, Gudmundsson L (2019) GRACE-REC: a reconstruction of climate-driven water storage changes over the last century. Earth Syst Sci Data 11:1153–1170. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5194/ essd1111532019 Jensen L, Eicker A, Dobslaw H, Stacke T, Humphrey V (2019) Long-term wetting and drying trends in land water storage derived from GRACE and CMIP5 models. J Geophys Res Atmos. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2018j d0299 89 1513 Surveys in Geophysics (2023) 44:1489–1517 1 3 Khaki M, Schumacher M, Forootan E, Kuhn M, Awange JL, van Dijk AIJM (2017) Accounting for spatial correlation errors in the assimilation of GRACE into hydrological models through localization. Adv Water Resour 108:99–112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. advwa tres. 2017. 07. 024 Khaki M, Hoteit I, Kuhn M, Forootan E, Awange J (2019) Assessing data assimilation frameworks for using multi-mission satellite products in a hydrological context. Sci Total Environ 647:1031–1043. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv. 2018. 08. 032 Klees R, Zapreeva EA, Winsemius HC, Savenije HHG (2007) The bias in GRACE estimates of continental water storage variations. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1227–1241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5194/ hess1112272007 Kumar SV, Zaitchik BF, Peters-Lidard CD, Rodell M, Reichle R, Li B, Jasinski M, Mocko D, Getirana A, De Lannoy G, Cosh MH, Hain CR, Anderson M, Arsenault KR, Xia Y, Ek M (2016) Assimilation of gridded GRACE terrestrial water storage estimates in the North American land data assimilation system. J Hydrometeorol 17:1951–1972. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1175/ jhm-d150157.1 Kurtenbach E, Eicker A, Mayer-Gürr T, Holschneider M, Hayn M, Fuhrmann M, Kusche J (2012) Improved daily GRACE gravity field solutions using a Kalman smoother. J Geodyn 59–60:39–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jog. 2012. 02. 006 Kusche J (2007) Approximate decorrelation and non-isotropic smoothing of time-variable GRACE-type gravity field models. J Geodesy 81:733–749. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s001900070143-3 Kusche J, Eicker A, Forootan E, Springer A, Longuevergne L (2016) Mapping probabilities of extreme continental water storage changes from space gravimetry. Geophys Res Lett 43:8026–8034. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2016g l0695 38 Lambert A, Huang J, van der Kamp G, Henton J, Mazzotti S, James TS, Courtier N, Barr AG (2013) Measuring water accumulation rates using GRACE data in areas experiencing glacial isostatic adjustment: The Nelson River basin. Geophys Res Lett 40:6118–6122. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2013g l0579 73 Landerer FW, Dickey JO, Güntner A (2010) Terrestrial water budget of the Eurasian pan-Arctic from GRACE satellite measurements during 2003–2009. J Geophys Res 115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2010j d0145 84 Landerer FW, Swenson SC (2012) Accuracy of scaled GRACE terrestrial water storage estimates. Water Resour Res 48:W04531. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2011W R0114 53 Landerer FW, Flechtner FM, Save H, Webb FH, Bandikova T, Bertiger WI, Bettadpur SV, Byun SH, Dahle C, Dobslaw H, Fahnestock E, Harvey N, Kang Z, Kruizinga GLH, Loomis BD, McCullough C, Murböck M, Nagel P, Paik M, Pie N, Poole S, Strekalov D, Tamisiea ME, Wang F, Watkins MM, Wen HY, Wiese DN, Yuan DN (2020) Extending the global mass change data record: GRACE follow‐on instrument and science data performance. Geophys Res Lett 47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2020g l0883 06 Levine PA, Randerson JT, Chen Y, Pritchard MS, Xu M, Hoffman FM (2019) Soil Moisture variability intensifies and prolongs Eastern Amazon temperature and carbon cycle response to El Niño-Southern oscillation. J Clim 32:1273–1292. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1175/ jcli-d180150.1 Li B, Rodell M, Zaitchik BF, Reichle RH, Koster RD, van Dam TM (2012) Assimilation of GRACE terrestrial water storage into a land surface model: Evaluation and potential value for drought monitoring in western and central Europe. J Hydrol 446–447:103–115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jhydr ol. 2012. 04. 035 Li B, Rodell M, Kumar S, Beaudoing HK, Getirana A, Zaitchik BF, Goncalves LG, Cossetin C, Bhanja S, Mukherjee A, Tian S, Tangdamrongsub N, Long D, Nanteza J, Lee J, Policelli F, Goni IB, Daira D, Bila M, Lannoy G, Mocko D, Steele-Dunne SC, Save H, Bettadpur S (2019) Global GRACE data assimilation for groundwater and drought monitoring: advances and challenges. Water Resour Res 55:7564–7586. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2018w r0246 18 Li F, Kusche J, Chao N, Wang Z, Löcher A (2021) Long‐term (1979‐present) total water storage anomalies over the global land derived by reconstructing GRACE data. Geophys Res Lett 48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1029/ 2021g l0934 92 Lo MH, Famiglietti JS, Yeh PJF, Syed TH (2010) Improving parameter estimation and water table depth simulation in a land surface model using GRACE water storage and estimated base flow data. Water Resources Res 46 Löcher A, Kusche J (2020) A hybrid approach for recovering high-resolution temporal gravity fields from satellite laser ranging. J Geodesy 95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s0019002001460-x Long D, Scanlon BR, Longuevergne L, Sun AY, Fernando DN, Save H (2013) GRACE satellite monitoring of large depletion in water storage in response to the 2011 drought in Texas. Geophys Res Lett 40:3395–3401. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ grl. 50655