not-yet-known not-yet-known not-yet-known unknown Land surface models (LSMs) are used to simulate water and energy fluxes between the land surface and atmosphere. These simulations are useful for water resources management, drought and flood prediction, and numerical climate/weather prediction. However, the usefulness of LSMs are dependent by their ability to reproduce states and fluxes realistically. Accurate measurements of water storage are useful to calibrate and validate LSMs outputs. Geological Weighing Lysimeters (GWLs) are instruments that can provide field-scale estimates of integrated total water storage within a soil profile. We use field estimates of total water storage and subsurface storage to critically evaluate two different land surface models: the Modélisation Environnementale communautaire - Surface Hydrology (MESH) which uses the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS), and the Structure for Unifying Multiple Modeling Alternatives: (SUMMA). These models have differences in how the processes and properties of the land surface are represented. We attempted to parameterize each model in an equivalent manner, to minimize model differences. Both models were able to reproduce observations of total water storage and subsurface storage reasonably well. However, there were inconsistencies in the simulated timing of snowmelt; depth of soil freezing; total evapotranspiration; partitioning of evaporation between soil evaporation and evaporation of intercepted water; and soil drainage. No one model emerged as better overall, though each model had specific strengths and weaknesses that we describe. Insights from this study can be used to improve model physics and performance.

Using data from five long-term field sites measuring soil moisture, we show the limitations of using soil moisture observations alone to constrain modelled hydrological fluxes. We test a land surface model, MESH/CLASS, with two configurations: one where the soil hydraulic properties are determined using a pedotransfer function (the texture-based calibration) and one where they are assigned directly (the hydraulic properties-based calibration). The hydraulic properties-based calibration outperforms the texture-based calibration in terms of reproducing changes in soil moisture storage within a 1.6 m deep profile at each site, but both perform reasonably well, especially in the summer months. When the models are constrained using observations of changes in soil moisture, the predicted hydrological fluxes are subject to very large uncertainties associated with equifinality. The uncertainty is larger for the hydraulic properties-based calibration, even though the performance was better. We argue that since the pedotransfer functions constrain the model parameters in the texture-based calibrations in an unrealistic way, the texture-based calibration underestimates the uncertainty in the fluxes. We recommend that reproducing observed cumulative changes in soil moisture storage should be considered a necessary but insufficient criterion of model success. Additional sources of information are needed to reduce uncertainties, and these could include improved estimation of the soil hydraulic properties and direct observations of fluxes, particularly evapotranspiration.