The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Surface‐subsurface model intercomparison: A first set of benchmark results to diagnose integrated hydrology and feedbacks
Open accessAbstract
There are a growing number of large-scale, complex hydrologic models that are capable of simulating integrated surface and subsurface flow. Many are coupled to land-surface energy balance models, biogeochemical and ecological process models, and atmospheric models. Although they are being increasingly applied for hydrologic prediction and environmental understanding, very little formal verification and/or benchmarking of these models has been performed. Here we present the results of an intercomparison study of seven coupled surface-subsurface models based on a series of benchmark problems. All the models simultaneously solve adapted forms of the Richards and shallow water equations, based on fully 3-D or mixed (1-D vadose zone and 2-D groundwater) formulations for subsurface flow and 1-D (rill flow) or 2-D (sheet flow) conceptualizations for surface routing. A range of approaches is used for the solution of the coupled equations, including global implicit, sequential iterative, and asynchronous linking, and various strategies are used to enforce flux and pressure continuity at the surface-subsurface interface. The simulation results show good agreement for the simpler test cases, while the more complicated test cases bring out some of the differences in physical process representations and numerical solution approaches between the models. Benchmarks with more traditional runoff generating mechanisms, such as excess infiltration and saturation, demonstrate more agreement between models, while benchmarks with heterogeneity and complex water table dynamics highlight differences in model formulation. In general, all the models demonstrate the same qualitative behavior, thus building confidence in their use for hydrologic applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Closed‐form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils
van Genuchten, M. T. (1980) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x · Cited by 27,578
Cited by
Divergent effects of climate change on future groundwater availability in key mid-latitude aquifers
Wu, W.-Y., Lo, M.-H., Wada, Y., Famiglietti, J. S., Reager, J. T., Yeh, P. J.-F., Ducharne, A., & Yang, Z.-L. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17581-y · Cited by 404
Physically based modeling in catchment hydrology at 50: Survey and outlook
Paniconi, C., & Putti, M. (2015) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1002/2015wr017780 · Cited by 374
Self-citationTransit times—the link between hydrology and water quality at the catchment scale
Hrachowitz, M., Benettin, P., van Breukelen, B. M., Fovet, O., Howden, N. J. K., Ruiz, L., van der Velde, Y., & Wade, A. J. (2016) · WIREs Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1155 · Cited by 346
Muñoz‐Vega, E., Bogena, H. R., Richard‐Cerda, J. C., Maxwell, R. M., & Schulz, S. (2025) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2025wr040785 · Cited by 2
Self-citationQiu, H. (2023) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-375-ac5
Metadata
- Authors
- Maxwell, R. M., Putti, M., Meyerhoff, S., Delfs, J., Ferguson, I. M., Ivanov, V., Kim, J., Kolditz, O., Kollet, S. J., Kumar, M., Lopez, S., Niu, J., Paniconi, C., Park, Y., Phanikumar, M. S., Shen, C., Sudicky, E. A., & Sulis, M.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1531-1549
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1990920554
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surface‐subsurface model intercomparison: A first set of benchmark results to diagnose integrated hydrology and feedbacks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2013wr013725
- The paper
- Maxwell, R. M., Putti, M., Meyerhoff, S., Delfs, J., Ferguson, I. M., Ivanov, V., Kim, J., Kolditz, O., Kollet, S. J., Kumar, M., Lopez, S., Niu, J., Paniconi, C., Park, Y., Phanikumar, M. S., Shen, C., Sudicky, E. A., & Sulis, M. (2014). Surface‐subsurface model intercomparison: A first set of benchmark results to diagnose integrated hydrology and feedbacks. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013wr013725
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.