The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A unified approach for process‐based hydrologic modeling: 2. Model implementation and case studies
Open accessAbstract
This work advances a unified approach to process‐based hydrologic modeling, which we term the “Structure for Unifying Multiple Modeling Alternatives (SUMMA).” The modeling framework, introduced in the companion paper, uses a general set of conservation equations with flexibility in the choice of process parameterizations (closure relationships) and spatial architecture. This second paper specifies the model equations and their spatial approximations, describes the hydrologic and biophysical process parameterizations currently supported within the framework, and illustrates how the framework can be used in conjunction with multivariate observations to identify model improvements and future research and data needs. The case studies illustrate the use of SUMMA to select among competing modeling approaches based on both observed data and theoretical considerations. Specific examples of preferable modeling approaches include the use of physiological methods to estimate stomatal resistance, careful specification of the shape of the within‐canopy and below‐canopy wind profile, explicitly accounting for dust concentrations within the snowpack, and explicitly representing distributed lateral flow processes. Results also demonstrate that changes in parameter values can make as much or more difference to the model predictions than changes in the process representation. This emphasizes that improvements in model fidelity require a sagacious choice of both process parameterizations and model parameters. In conclusion, we envisage that SUMMA can facilitate ongoing model development efforts, the diagnosis and correction of model structural errors, and improved characterization of model uncertainty.
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
The sensitivity of simulated streamflow to individual hydrologic processes across North America
Mai, J., Craig, J. R., Tolson, B. A., & Arsenault, R. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28010-7 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, M. P., Nijssen, B., Lundquist, J. D., Kavetski, D., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Freer, J. E., Gutmann, E. D., Wood, A. W., Gochis, D. J., Rasmussen, R. M., Tarboton, D. G., Mahat, V., Flerchinger, G. N., & Marks, D. G.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2515-2542
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1929945801
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: A unified approach for process‐based hydrologic modeling: 2. Model implementation and case studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2015wr017200
- The paper
- Clark, M. P., Nijssen, B., Lundquist, J. D., Kavetski, D., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Freer, J. E., Gutmann, E. D., Wood, A. W., Gochis, D. J., Rasmussen, R. M., Tarboton, D. G., Mahat, V., Flerchinger, G. N., & Marks, D. G. (2015). A unified approach for process‐based hydrologic modeling: 2. Model implementation and case studies. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr017200
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.