Mauro Sulis

TL;DR: The use of process-based hydrological models has a long history dating back to the 1960s as mentioned in this paper, and a more nuanced view is that these tools are necessary in many situations and, in a certain class of problems, they are the most appropriate type of hydrologogical model.

TL;DR: An intercomparison study of seven coupled surface-subsurface models based on a series of benchmark problems shows 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.

TL;DR: In this paper, a highly modular and scale-consistent Terrestrial Systems Modeling Platform (TerrSysMP) is presented, which consists of an atmospheric model (Consortium for Small-Scale Modeling; COSMO), a land surface model (the NCARCommunityLand Model,version3.5), and a 3D variably saturated groundwater flow model (ParFlow).

TL;DR: In this article, the authors compare two physics-based numerical models that use a 3D Richards equation representation of subsurface flow, and find that the coupling between the land surface and the sub-surface is handled via an explicit exchange term resolved by continuity principles in the first model (a fullycoupled approach) and by special treatment of atmospheric boundary conditions in the second (a sequential approach).

TL;DR: The Integrated Hydrologic Model Intercomparison Project (IH-MIP2) as mentioned in this paper is the second phase of the MIP2 benchmarking project, which was initiated by the authors of the first phase, and consists of five models: ATS, Cast3M, CATHY, GEOtop, HydroGeoSphere, MIKE-SHE and ParFlow.