## 3 Results
### Intercomparison between UTOPIA and NOAH Simulations Initialized with GLDAS
#### 3.3.4. Soil Temperature (TS)  
ST shows (Tables 21-23 and Supplementary Figures S18-S20) differences in the range of 1-4 \({}^{\circ}\)C for mean and median values and 1-5 \({}^{\circ}\)C for extremes, with UTOPIA generally warmer than NOAH, and also 1-3 \({}^{\circ}\)C for the range, with UTOPIA showing the largest. A difference exists between the two different boundary conditions: while the two models almost conserve their departure from each other, the GLDAS-2.1 initialization produces the coldest minima for NOAH, and these are the coldest values, while the GLDAS-2.0 produces minima compatible between the two models. Maxima and ranges are lower in EXP2b and EXP5, e.g., those initialized with GLDAS-2.0, while mean and median values are slightly larger. Considering also what we said in analyzing Tables 9 and 10, we can conclude that GLDAS initialization seems not influencing too much soil temperature, as well as the vegetation type, and that UTOPIA values, whose minima are lower than those of NOAH, seem more compatible with the data. A possible reason for this behavior may consist in the special scheme used by UTOPIA to represent the phenomenon of freezing water in the soil with negative temperatures [22].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **Median** & **Min** & **Max** & **Range** \\ \hline EXP2b & 13.2 & 8.8 & 13.5 & \(-\)2.9 & 29.9 & 32.8 \\ EXP4 & 11.3 & 8.5 & 11.2 & \(-\)4.4 & 27.5 & 31.9 \\ EXP3b & 14.9 & 7.2 & 15.3 & \(-\)1.3 & 27.9 & 29.2 \\ EXP5 & 14.2 & 7.0 & 14.2 & \(-\)1.7 & 26.5 & 28.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 21: TS (\({}^{\circ}\)C) (0–10 cm) simulated by UTOPIA and NOAH, initialized with GLDAS, at the CF station.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **Median** & **Min** & **Max** & **Range** \\ \hline EXP2b & 48.6 & 55.0 & 32.4 & \(-\)21.9 & 281.3 & 303.2 \\ EXP4 & 64.3 & 60.2 & 45.2 & \(-\)7.0 & 200.4 & 207.4 \\ EXP3b & 58.2 & 45.0 & 50.2 & \(-\)27.0 & 187.9 & 214.9 \\ EXP5 & 46.7 & 30.7 & 39.7 & \(-\)3.3 & 130.4 & 133.7 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 19: LHF (W m\({}^{-2}\)) simulated by UTOPIA and NOAH, initialized with GLDAS, at the CO station.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **Median** & **Min** & **Max** & **Range** \\ \hline EXP2b & 13.5 & 8.7 & 13.6 & \(-\)2.6 & 30.0 & 32.6 \\ EXP4 & 11.8 & 8.3 & 11.9 & \(-\)3.4 & 27.7 & 31.1 \\ EXP3b & 14.5 & 7.5 & 15.3 & \(-\)1.7 & 27.7 & 29.4 \\ EXP5 & 13.3 & 6.8 & 13.3 & \(-\)1.4 & 24.9 & 26.3 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 23: TS (\({}^{\circ}\)C) (0–10 cm) simulated by UTOPIA and NOAH, initialized with GLDAS, at the FU station.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **Median** & **Min** & **Max** & **Range** \\ \hline EXP2b & 48.6 & 55.0 & 32.4 & \(-\)21.9 & 281.3 & 303.2 \\ EXP4 & 64.3 & 60.2 & 45.2 & \(-\)7.0 & 200.4 & 207.4 \\ EXP3b & 58.2 & 45.0 & 50.2 & \(-\)27.0 & 187.9 & 214.9 \\ EXP5 & 46.7 & 30.7 & 39.7 & \(-\)3.3 & 130.4 & 133.7 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 19: LHF (W m\({}^{-2}\)) simulated by UTOPIA and NOAH, initialized with GLDAS, at the CO station.