Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 741

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The land surface‐atmosphere interaction: A review based on observational and global modeling perspectives

Betts, Alan K., Ball, John H., Beljaars, Anton C. M., Miller, Martin J., Viterbo, Pedro A.·1996·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

This review discusses the land‐surface‐atmosphere interaction using observations from two North American field experiments (First International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project Field Experiment (FIFE) and Boreal Ecosystem Atmosphere Study (BOREAS)) and the application of research data to the improvement of land surface and boundary layer parameterizations in the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) global forecast model. Using field data, we discuss some of the diurnal and seasonal feedback loops controlling the net surface radiation and its partition into the surface sensible and latent heat fluxes and the ground heat flux. We consider the impact on the boundary layer evolution and show the changes in the diurnal cycle with soil moisture in midsummer. We contrast the surface energy budget over the tropical oceans with that over both dry and wet land surfaces in summer. Results from a new ECMWF model with four predicted soil layers illustrate the interaction between the soil moisture reservoir, evaporation and precipitation on different timescales and space scales. An analysis of an ensemble of 30‐day integrations for July 1993 (the month of the Mississippi flood) showed a large sensitivity of the monthly precipitation pattern (and amount) to different initial soil moisture conditions. Short‐range forecasts with old and new land surface and boundary layer schemes showed that the new scheme produced much better precipitation forecasts for the central United States because of a more realistic thermodynamic structure, which in turn resulted from improved evaporation in an area that is about 1‐day upstream. The results suggest that some predictability exists in the extended range as a result of the memory of the soil moisture reservoir. We also discuss briefly the problem of soil moisture initialization in a global forecast model and summarize recent experience with nudging of soil moisture at ECMWF and improvements in the surface energy budget coming from the better prediction of clouds.

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 · 10.1029/95jd02135

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.

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 741

Metadata

Authors
Betts, A. K., Ball, J. H., Beljaars, A. C. M., Miller, M. J., & Viterbo, P. A.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
1996-03
Volume
101
Issue
D3
Pages
7209-7225
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1980210658
Cited by
741
References
0
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: The land surface‐atmosphere interaction: A review based on observational and global modeling perspectives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/95jd02135
The paper
Betts, A. K., Ball, J. H., Beljaars, A. C. M., Miller, M. J., & Viterbo, P. A. (1996). The land surface‐atmosphere interaction: A review based on observational and global modeling perspectives. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/95jd02135

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.