% 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{Batelis:887702,
author = {Batelis, Stamatis‐Christos and Rahman, Mostaquimur and
Kollet, Stefan and Woods, Ross and Rosolem, Rafael},
title = {{T}owards the representation of groundwater in the {J}oint
{UK} {L}and {E}nvironment {S}imulator},
journal = {Hydrological processes},
volume = {34},
number = {13},
issn = {1099-1085},
address = {New York, NY},
publisher = {Wiley},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-04359},
pages = {2843 - 2863},
year = {2020},
abstract = {Groundwater is an important component of the hydrological
cycle with significant interactions with soil hydrological
processes. Recent studies have demonstrated that
incorporating groundwater hydrology in land surface models
(LSMs) considerably improves the prediction of the
partitioning of water components (e.g., runoff and
evapotranspiration) at the land surface. However, the Joint
UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), an LSM developed in
the United Kingdom, does not yet have an explicit
representation of groundwater. We propose an implementation
of a simplified groundwater flow boundary parameterization
(JULES‐GFB), which replaces the original free drainage
assumption in the default model (JULES‐FD). We tested the
two approaches under a controlled environment for various
soil types using two synthetic experiments: (1)
single‐column and (2) tilted‐V catchment, using a
three‐dimensional (3‐D) hydrological model (ParFlow) as
a benchmark for JULES’ performance. In addition, we
applied our new JULES‐GFB model to a regional domain in
the UK, where groundwater is the key element for runoff
generation. In the single‐column infiltration experiment,
JULES‐GFB showed improved soil moisture dynamics in
comparison with JULES‐FD, for almost all soil types
(except coarse soils) under a variety of initial water table
depths. In the tilted‐V catchment experiment, JULES‐GFB
successfully represented the dynamics and the magnitude of
saturated and unsaturated storage against the benchmark. The
lateral water flow produced by JULES‐GFB was about $50\%$
of what was produced by the benchmark, while JULES‐FD
completely ignores this process. In the regional domain
application, the Kling‐Gupta efficiency (KGE) for the
total runoff simulation showed an average improvement from
0.25 for JULES‐FD to 0.75 for JULES‐GFB. The mean bias
of actual evapotranspiration relative to the Global Land
Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) product was improved
from −0.22 to −0.01 mm day−1. Our new JULES‐GFB
implementation provides an opportunity to better understand
the interactions between the subsurface and land surface
processes that are dominated by groundwater hydrology.},
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:000526174200001},
doi = {10.1002/hyp.13767},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/887702},
}