Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 805

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improvements to the Community Land Model and their impact on the hydrological cycle

Open access
Oleson, K. W., Niu, G.‐Y., Yang, Z.‐L., Lawrence, D. M., Thornton, P. E., Lawrence, P. J., Stöckli, R., Dickinson, R. E., Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Dai, A., Qian, T.·2008·Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences

Abstract

The Community Land Model version 3 (CLM3) is the land component of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM). CLM3 has energy and water biases resulting from deficiencies in some of its canopy and soil parameterizations related to hydrological processes. Recent research by the community that utilizes CLM3 and the family of CCSM models has indicated several promising approaches to alleviating these biases. This paper describes the implementation of a selected set of these parameterizations and their effects on the simulated hydrological cycle. The modifications consist of surface data sets based on Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer products, new parameterizations for canopy integration, canopy interception, frozen soil, soil water availability, and soil evaporation, a TOPMODEL‐based model for surface and subsurface runoff, a groundwater model for determining water table depth, and the introduction of a factor to simulate nitrogen limitation on plant productivity. The results from a set of offline simulations were compared with observed data for runoff, river discharge, soil moisture, and total water storage to assess the performance of the new model (referred to as CLM3.5). CLM3.5 exhibits significant improvements in its partitioning of global evapotranspiration (ET) which result in wetter soils, less plant water stress, increased transpiration and photosynthesis, and an improved annual cycle of total water storage. Phase and amplitude of the runoff annual cycle is generally improved. Dramatic improvements in vegetation biogeography result when CLM3.5 is coupled to a dynamic global vegetation model. Lower than observed soil moisture variability in the rooting zone is noted as a remaining deficiency.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2007jg000563

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 805

Metadata

Authors
Oleson, K. W., Niu, G. ‐., Yang, Z. ‐., Lawrence, D. M., Thornton, P. E., Lawrence, P. J., Stöckli, R., Dickinson, R. E., Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Dai, A., & Qian, T.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
Published
2008-03
Volume
113
Issue
G1
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1988287636
Cited by
805
References
1
FWCI
43.32
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: Improvements to the Community Land Model and their impact on the hydrological cycle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2007jg000563
The paper
Oleson, K. W., Niu, G. ‐., Yang, Z. ‐., Lawrence, D. M., Thornton, P. E., Lawrence, P. J., Stöckli, R., Dickinson, R. E., Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Dai, A., & Qian, T. (2008). Improvements to the Community Land Model and their impact on the hydrological cycle. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jg000563

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.