Initial soil condition

[hannah0304]

Hello,

I am currently running a single-point run for the US-Myb(Mayberry wetland) site with CLM-FATES.
Even though the site is defined as a permanent wetland(AmeriFlux), the model result shows very little surface water on the site.



This is the plot of seasonal volumetric soil water at the site by layer.



In creating surface dataset, I have specified the percent clay(13%) and sand(35%) as given in the literature(https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006251),
and set baseflow_scalar = 0 and use_bedrock=.true.

I believe somehow all the water may be draining from the site so the site is not being inundated as it should be.
I would like to check the initial soil condition but I am not sure where and what to check.
Or, if there is any other suggestions regarding this issue, I would really appreciate them.

The main problem I would like to solve is to simulate the site as a permanent wetland with sufficient surface water.


Thank you.

 

[oleson]

It would be useful to know what version of CLM/CTSM/FATES you are using.
For CTSM, initial soil water is set in WaterStateType.F90, I assume it's the same for CTSM-FATES.
Although you have use_bedrock set to true, I wonder what zbedrock is set to in your surface dataset. That will dictate how shallow the soil is. See here also for some discussion on use_bedrock for CTSM-FATES:

FATES not recognizing changes to zbedrock · Issue #1888 · ESCOMP/CTSM

Hi FATES folks. I’m helping my lab group to set up some experiments using FATES where we want to change the depth to bedrock. After playing around, I’ve noticed that when I change zbedrock in the s...

github.com

I will also check with the FATES people here.

 

[oleson]

From one of our hydrology experts:

"local precip may not be enough to keep it wet relative to ET. Setting fmax to zero would help reduce surface runoff."

 

[hannah0304]

From one of our hydrology experts:

"local precip may not be enough to keep it wet relative to ET. Setting fmax to zero would help reduce surface runoff."

Thank you for your answer.

I have downloaded CESM 2.2.0 and updated its CLM component to CTSM science version 5.1 series.

I modified
fmax = 0 and zbedrock = 3.5m (just testing the sensitivity. Initially, it was too deep to about 40m) with
use_bedrock = .true. and baseflow_scalar = 0.

Yet, since there is no change to results for soil moisture and surface water, I suspect FATES do not recognize the bedrock change.
I can see in the GitHub discussion that you shared (FATES not recognizing changes to zbedrock · Issue #1888 · ESCOMP/CTSM), FATES did recognize the bedrock depth change.

I am now checking 'WaterStateType.F90'.

If there are any further suggestions, please let me know.
Maybe I can move this to the FATES discussion board(Discussions · NGEET/fates) for more help.

 

[oleson]

You can check "nbedrock" in the history output to see if your setting worked.

 

[Chengyun]

Hello,

Sorry to bother you.I try to simulate GPP from 1980 to 2010 and the future GPP(SSP585) from 2020 to 2050 using CLM5-FATES to run compset I2000Clm50FatesGs and res f05_g16. Here is my confusion about the steps.

(1) First creat a spin-up case (I2000Clm50Fates_spinup) to evaluate the model's equilibrium and change CLM_ACCELERATED_SPINUP=on, CLM_FORCE_COLDSTART=on.
The query I have is to carry on such an experiment do I require to Spin-up the model for over 600 years? Would it be sufficient to recycle 30 times form 1960 to 1979 for spinup in I2000Clm50FatesGs, then is it reasonable to use the 600-year spunup file as initial file to simulate GPP for 1980-2010(I2000)?

(2) Then creat a common case (I2000Clm50Fates)finidat in user_nl_clm as the output of spin-up case.
Is this the right approach for simulating GPP from 1980 to 2010? The CLM-FATES model doesnot have IHISTClm50Ftates--compset, and the CO2 is constant. I wonder to know whether I need to change the amount of co2 to simulate the history GPP?

(3) When I try to simulate the future GPP(SSP585) from 2020 to 2050 using CLM5-FATES to run compset I2000Clm50FatesGs and res f05_g16, I am not sure how to choose the surfacedata, domain data, and finiidat.
So at first, I want to build a case ISSP585Clm ISSP585Clm50BgcCrop, The ISSP585 compset would give domain, surface, and finidar data containing transient landcover, CO2, aerosol and nitrogen deposition, year-specific atmospheric forcing, etc. Then I want to use the inputdata from compset ISSP585ClmBgcCrop to compset I2000Clm50FatesGs to simulate the future GPP(SSP585).

Is it reasonale for I to use the inputdata from ISSP585ClmBgcCrop to run compset I2000Clm50FatesGs using CLM5-FATES model?
If it works, what should I pay attention to? If it doesnot, What should I do to simulate the future GPP?

Any suggestions will be appreciated! Thanks in advance.

 

[hannah0304]

Hello,

Sorry to bother you.I try to simulate GPP from 1980 to 2010 and the future GPP(SSP585) from 2020 to 2050 using CLM5-FATES to run compset I2000Clm50FatesGs and res f05_g16. Here is my confusion about the steps.

(1) First creat a spin-up case (I2000Clm50Fates_spinup) to evaluate the model's equilibrium and change CLM_ACCELERATED_SPINUP=on, CLM_FORCE_COLDSTART=on.
The query I have is to carry on such an experiment do I require to Spin-up the model for over 600 years? Would it be sufficient to recycle 30 times form 1960 to 1979 for spinup in I2000Clm50FatesGs, then is it reasonable to use the 600-year spunup file as initial file to simulate GPP for 1980-2010(I2000)?

(2) Then creat a common case (I2000Clm50Fates)finidat in user_nl_clm as the output of spin-up case.
Is this the right approach for simulating GPP from 1980 to 2010? The CLM-FATES model doesnot have IHISTClm50Ftates--compset, and the CO2 is constant. I wonder to know whether I need to change the amount of co2 to simulate the history GPP?

(3) When I try to simulate the future GPP(SSP585) from 2020 to 2050 using CLM5-FATES to run compset I2000Clm50FatesGs and res f05_g16, I am not sure how to choose the surfacedata, domain data, and finiidat.
So at first, I want to build a case ISSP585Clm ISSP585Clm50BgcCrop, The ISSP585 compset would give domain, surface, and finidar data containing transient landcover, CO2, aerosol and nitrogen deposition, year-specific atmospheric forcing, etc. Then I want to use the inputdata from compset ISSP585ClmBgcCrop to compset I2000Clm50FatesGs to simulate the future GPP(SSP585).

Is it reasonale for I to use the inputdata from ISSP585ClmBgcCrop to run compset I2000Clm50FatesGs using CLM5-FATES model?
If it works, what should I pay attention to? If it doesnot, What should I do to simulate the future GPP?

Any suggestions will be appreciated! Thanks in advance.

Hello,
I am not an expert user of clm so I think it is better to post your questions as a new post to get help from more experienced users/experts, especially about your inquiries regarding spin-up.

Yet, here are some info on my simulations.
- My case is a single-point run, not global. So I created a domain and surface file of my own.
- I am doing a 'start-up' run and not considering 'spinup' for now. From my simulation results, it took about 70 years for GPP to be stabilized.

- From my experience, I believe it would be fine to use the same atmospheric input data for both FATES and BGC compset, if this is what you mean.

Regards,
Hannah.

 

[Chengyun]

Hello,
I am not an expert user of clm so I think it is better to post your questions as a new post to get help from more experienced users/experts, especially about your inquiries regarding spin-up.

Yet, here are some info on my simulations.
- My case is a single-point run, not global. So I created a domain and surface file of my own.
- I am doing a 'start-up' run and not considering 'spinup' for now. From my simulation results, it took about 70 years for GPP to be stabilized.
View attachment 3262
- From my experience, I believe it would be fine to use the same atmospheric input data for both FATES and BGC compset, if this is what you mean.

Regards,
Hannah.

Thanks a lot, I will post my questions as a new post.

 

[lucia]

Hello,

I am currently running a single-point run for the US-Myb(Mayberry wetland) site with CLM-FATES.
Even though the site is defined as a permanent wetland(AmeriFlux), the model result shows very little surface water on the site.

View attachment 3071 View attachment 3072

This is the plot of seasonal volumetric soil water at the site by layer.
View attachment 3073


In creating surface dataset, I have specified the percent clay(13%) and sand(35%) as given in the literature(https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006251),
and set baseflow_scalar = 0 and use_bedrock=.true.

I believe somehow all the water may be draining from the site so the site is not being inundated as it should be.
I would like to check the initial soil condition but I am not sure where and what to check.
Or, if there is any other suggestions regarding this issue, I would really appreciate them.

The main problem I would like to solve is to simulate the site as a permanent wetland with sufficient surface water.


Thank you.

Hello, I have encountered the same problem, may I ask if you have solved it? Can you give me any advice