An idealized study with two land surface models (LSMs): TERRA-Multi Layer (TERRA-ML) and Community Land Model (CLM) alternatively coupled to the same atmospheric model COSMO (Consortium for Small-Scale Modeling), reveals differences in the response of the LSMs to initial soil moisture. The bulk parameterization of evapotranspiration pathways, which depends on the integrated soil moisture of active layers rather than on each discrete layer, results in a weaker response of the surface energy flux partitioning to changes in soil moisture for TERRA-ML, as compared to CLM. The difference in the resulting surface energy flux partitioning also significantly affects the model response in terms of the state of the atmospheric boundary layer. For vegetated land surfaces, both models behave quite differently for drier regimes. However, deeper reaching root fractions in CLM align both model responses with each other. In general, differences in the parameterization of the available root zone soil moisture, evapotranspiration pathways, and the soil-vegetation structure in the two LSMs are mainly responsible for the diverging tendencies of the simulated land atmosphere coupling responses.Water 2020, 12, 46 2 of 16 to different LSMs. In another effort, a multiple combination of LSMs and ABL schemes was used to diagnose the land-atmosphere coupling over the southern great plains (SGP) for dry (<25% volumetric soil moisture) and wet (near saturation) extremes using diurnal scale simulations [5]. They found that CLM generally simulated the evaporative fluxes in wet regimes better, which, however did not translate into better coupling metrics, as the land surface influence is diminished relative to the ABL during wet regimes. In the continuing effort to add more physically based processes, the inclusion of CLM and a 3-D groundwater model led to slight improvements in the simulated diurnal surface fluxes over Western Germany [6]. Further, the inclusion of CLM with a 3-D groundwater model in a regional simulation over Europe attenuated the land-atmosphere coupling for the simulated heat wave of 2003 via controls on the root zone soil moisture [7]. This was also found to have stronger dependence on the uncertainty in representation of sub-surface heterogeneity. In another study, the skills of two different generations of LSMs (coupled to the same atmospheric model) were evaluated using convection-permitting seasonal scale simulations over Western Germany. Although, both configurations systematically underestimated the seasonal average diurnal cycle of evapotranspiration for five stations, the third generation LSM (CLM) with the inclusion of a 3D-groundwater model had a lower bias. However, this study also could not identify any clear change in the spatial and temporal variation of precipitation like the earlier study [4].The studies above demonstrate the importance of sophisticated LSMs in the simulated land atmosphere interactions, although uncertainty persists about their feedbacks on cloud and precipitation. However, the nature and ...