CORRECTION article
Front. Water
Sec. Water and Hydrocomplexity
Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/frwa.2025.1610405
This article is part of the Research TopicAdvances in Integrated Surface—Subsurface Hydrological ModelingView all 6 articles
Corrigendum: Subgrid channel formulation in an integrated surfacesubsurface hydrologic model
Provisionally accepted
- 1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States
- 2High Meadows Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States
- 3International Ground Water Modeling Center, High Meadows Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Corrigendum on: Peeples, A and Maxwell, R. M. ( 2025). Subgrid channel formulation in an integrated surface-subsurface hydrologic model. Frontiers in Water 6. doi: 10.3389/frwa. 2024.1520913 In the published article, there was an error. The model timestep was incorrectly stated to be 1 hour when it is was 0.1 hour.A correction has been made to Methods, Idealized test case, Paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated: "Four hours of spatially invariable rainfall are applied at the beginning of each simulation and then the simulation continues with hourly timesteps until outflow is approaching zero."The corrected sentence appears below: "Four hours of spatially invariable rainfall are applied at the beginning of each simulation and then the simulation continues with 0.1 hour timesteps until outflow is approaching zero."The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.In the published article, there was an error. The units for Manning's n were incorrectly reported as being s/m 1/3 when the values given were in min/m 1/3 . A correction has been made to Results, Coarse baseline model performance, Paragraph 3. This sentence previously stated: "Overall, the largest discrepancy in peak flow of 78.40% is seen in the scenario where channel width is 100 m, rainfall intensity is 0.5 cm/hr, Manning's n is 6e-3 s/m 1/3 , and bottom slope is 1e-4 m/m."The corrected sentence appears below: "Overall, the largest discrepancy in peak flow of 78.40% is seen in the scenario where channel width is 100 m, rainfall intensity is 0.5 cm/hr, Manning's n is 3.6e-1 s/m 1/3 , and bottom slope is 1e-4 m/m."The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.In the published article, there was an error in Table 2 as published. The units for Manning's n were incorrectly reported as being s/m 1/3 when the values given were in min/m 1/3 . The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.In the published article, there was an error in Figure 5 as published. The units for Manning's n were incorrectly reported as being s/m 1/3 when the values given were in min/m 1/3 . The corrected Figure 5 and its caption appear below.Figure 5 Percentage difference in peak flow between the coarse baseline and high-resolution baseline models. Here channel width is not an input in the coarse baseline model but instead is only used to define the domain resolution of the high-resolution model.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.In the published article, there was an error in Figure 6 as published. The units for Manning's n were incorrectly reported as being s/m 1/3 when the values given were in min/m 1/3 . The corrected Figure 6 and its caption appear below.Figure 6 Percentage difference in peak flow between the coarse subgrid formulation and highresolution baseline models. Here channel width is an input in the coarse subgrid model as well as used to define the domain resolution of the high-resolution model.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Keywords: channel flow, Integrated hydrologic model, Subgrid formulation, subgrid parameterization, ParFlow
Received: 11 Apr 2025; Accepted: 24 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Peeples and Maxwell. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Amelia Peeples, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, 08544, New Jersey, United States
Reed M Maxwell, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, 08544, New Jersey, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.