r1118cwrr vs r1013choisnel
In general, results are comparable.
One may not say that CWRR gives better results than Choisnel.
Here below are the 2 main differences:
- Many coniferous sites (all the CA-NSx sites) are not so well modeled with r1118_cwrr. This is especially true for C-related variables (such as GPP). However this observed biases might be obtained for good reasons because in-situ measured Precipitations are probably underestimated and that these underestimated Precip may induce water stresses only 'seen' by CWRR but not by Choisnel.
- There are also large discrepancies for LH and SH fluxes, especially at daily and monthly time scales, for DBF sites. LH is overestimated for Winter months during which there is no vegetation (and so no transpiration - it is bare soil evaporation that only occurs) and consequently SH is under-estimated.
CRO sites
all sites
DBF sites
all sites
EBF sites
all sites
ENF sites
all sites
GRA sites
all sites
WSA sites
all sites
