| Abstract: | In 1988, the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (FIPR) funded project to develop an advanced hydrologic model for shallow water table systems. The FIPR hydrologic model (FHM) was developed to provide an improved predictive capability of the interactions of surface water and ground water using its component models, HSPF and MODFLOW. The Integrated Surface and Ground Water (ISGW) model was developed from an early version of FHM and the two models were developed relatively independently in the late 1990s. Hydrologic processes including precipitation, interception, evapotranspiration, runoff, recharge, streamflow, and base flow are explicitly accounted for in both models. Considerable review of FHM and ISGW and their applications occurred through a series of projects. One model evolved, known as the Integrated Hydrological Model IHM. This model more appropriately describes hydrologic processes, including evapotranspiration fluxes within small distributed land‐based discretization. There is a significant departure of many IHM algorithms from FHM and ISGW, especially for soil water and evapotranspiration (ET). In this paper, the ET concepts in FHM, ISGW, and IHM will be presented. The paper also identifies the advantages and data costs of the improved methods. In FHM and IHM, ground water ET algorithms of the MODFLOW ET package replace those of HSPF (ISGW used a different model for ground water ET). However, IHM builds on an improved understanding and characterization of ET partitioning between surface storages, vadose zone storage, and saturated ground water storage. The IHM considers evaporative flux from surface sources, proximity of the water table to land surface, relative moisture condition of the unsaturated zone, thickness of the capillary zone, thickness of the root zone, and relative plant cover density. The improvements provide a smooth transition to satisfy ET demand between the vadose zone and deeper saturated ground water. While the IHM approach provides a more sound representation of the actual soil profile than FHM, and has shown promise at reproducing soil moisture and water table fluctuations as well as field measured ET rates, more rigorous testing is necessary to understand the robustness and/or limitations of this methodology. |
