% 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{Sulis:837563,
      author       = {Sulis, Mauro and Williams, John L. and Shrestha, Prabhakar
                      and Diederich, Malte and Simmer, Clemens and Kollet, Stefan
                      and Maxwell, Reed M.},
      title        = {{C}oupling {G}roundwater, {V}egetation, and {A}tmospheric
                      {P}rocesses: {A} {C}omparison of {T}wo {I}ntegrated
                      {M}odels},
      journal      = {Journal of hydrometeorology},
      volume       = {18},
      number       = {5},
      issn         = {1525-7541},
      address      = {Boston, Mass.},
      publisher    = {AMS},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-06451},
      pages        = {1489 - 1511},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {This study compares two modeling platforms, ParFlow.WRF
                      (PF.WRF) and the Terrestrial Systems Modeling Platform
                      (TerrSysMP), with a common 3D integrated
                      surface–groundwater model to examine the variability in
                      simulated soil–vegetation–atmosphere interactions.
                      Idealized and hindcast simulations over the North
                      Rhine–Westphalia region in western Germany for clear-sky
                      conditions and strong convective precipitation using both
                      modeling platforms are presented. Idealized simulations
                      highlight the strong variability introduced by the
                      difference in land surface parameterizations (e.g., ground
                      evaporation and canopy transpiration) and atmospheric
                      boundary layer (ABL) schemes on the simulated
                      land–atmosphere interactions. Results of the idealized
                      simulations also suggest a different range of sensitivity in
                      the two models of land surface and atmospheric
                      parameterizations to water-table depth fluctuations. For
                      hindcast simulations, both modeling platforms simulate net
                      radiation and cumulative precipitation close to observed
                      station data, while larger differences emerge between
                      spatial patterns of soil moisture and convective rainfall
                      due to the difference in the physical parameterization of
                      the land surface and atmospheric component. This produces a
                      different feedback by the hydrological model in the two
                      platforms in terms of discharge over different catchments in
                      the study area. Finally, an analysis of land surface and ABL
                      heat and moisture budgets using the mixing diagram approach
                      reveals different sensitivities of diurnal atmospheric
                      processes to the groundwater parameterizations in both
                      modeling platforms.},
      cin          = {IBG-3 / NIC},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118 / I:(DE-Juel1)NIC-20090406},
      pnm          = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
                      (POF3-255) / Evaluating the influence of subsurface
                      hydrodynamics on atmospheric processes $(hbn33_20150501)$},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255 / $G:(DE-Juel1)hbn33_20150501$},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000405926000016},
      doi          = {10.1175/JHM-D-16-0159.1},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/837563},
}