% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Kollet:828745,
      author       = {Kollet, Stefan and Sulis, Mauro and Maxwell, Reed M. and
                      Paniconi, Claudio and Putti, Mario and Bertoldi, Giacomo and
                      Coon, Ethan T. and Cordano, Emanuele and Endrizzi, Stefano
                      and Kikinzon, Evgeny and Mouche, Emmanuel and Mügler,
                      Claude and Park, Young-Jin and Refsgaard, Jens C. and
                      Stisen, Simon and Sudicky, Edward},
      title        = {{T}he integrated hydrologic model intercomparison project,
                      {IH}-{MIP}2: {A} second set of benchmark results to diagnose
                      integrated hydrology and feedbacks},
      journal      = {Water resources research},
      volume       = {53},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {0043-1397},
      address      = {[New York]},
      publisher    = {Wiley},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-02611},
      pages        = {867 - 890},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {Emphasizing the physical intricacies of integrated
                      hydrology and feedbacks in simulating connected, variably
                      saturated groundwater-surface water systems, the Integrated
                      Hydrologic Model Intercomparison Project initiated a second
                      phase (IH-MIP2), increasing the complexity of the benchmarks
                      of the first phase. The models that took part in the
                      intercomparison were ATS, Cast3M, CATHY, GEOtop,
                      HydroGeoSphere, MIKE-SHE, and ParFlow. IH-MIP2 benchmarks
                      included a tilted v-catchment with 3-D subsurface; a
                      superslab case expanding the slab case of the first phase
                      with an additional horizontal subsurface heterogeneity; and
                      the Borden field rainfall-runoff experiment. The analyses
                      encompassed time series of saturated, unsaturated, and
                      ponded storages, as well as discharge. Vertical cross
                      sections and profiles were also inspected in the superslab
                      and Borden benchmarks. An analysis of agreement was
                      performed including systematic and unsystematic deviations
                      between the different models. Results show generally good
                      agreement between the different models, which lends
                      confidence in the fundamental physical and numerical
                      implementation of the governing equations in the different
                      models. Differences can be attributed to the varying level
                      of detail in the mathematical and numerical representation
                      or in the parameterization of physical processes, in
                      particular with regard to ponded storage and friction slope
                      in the calculation of overland flow. These differences may
                      become important for specific applications such as detailed
                      inundation modeling or when strong inhomogeneities are
                      present in the simulation domain.},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
                      (POF3-255)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000394911200051},
      doi          = {10.1002/2016WR019191},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/828745},
}