| 2 | |
| 3 | We diagnosed the reason why the results obtained with r1118 with CWRR are very different that those obtained with r1013_choisnel (see Ticket #91). [[BR]] |
| 4 | Indeed, the bare soil evaporation is very different between r1013_choisnel and r1118_cwrr. |
| 5 | The vbeta4 term that is calculated differently in the 2 versions and that impacts on the evaporation calculation has also values that differ strongly bewteen r1013choisnel and r1118_cwrr. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | As a test, an alternative simulation (to r1118_cwrr) has been done, in which vbeta4 is reduced by changing the following lines in hydrol.f90: |
| 8 | |
| 9 | {{{ |
| 10 | IF ((evapot(ji).GT.min_sechiba) .AND. & |
| 11 | (tmc_litter(ji,jst).GT.(tmc_litter_wilt(ji,jst)))) THEN |
| 12 | evap_bare_lim_ns(ji,jst) = evap_bare_lim_ns(ji,jst) / evapot(ji) |
| 13 | ELSEIF((evapot(ji).GT.min_sechiba).AND. & |
| 14 | (tmc_litter(ji,jst).GT.(tmc_litter_res(ji,jst)))) THEN |
| 15 | evap_bare_lim_ns(ji,jst) = un/deux * evap_bare_lim_ns(ji,jst) / evapot(ji) |
| 16 | END IF |
| 17 | }}} |
| 18 | by |
| 19 | {{{ |
| 20 | IF ((evapot(ji).GT.min_sechiba) THEN |
| 21 | evap_bare_lim_ns(ji,jst) = 0.15*evap_bare_lim_ns(ji,jst) / evapot(ji) |
| 22 | ENDIF |
| 23 | }}} |
| 24 | This constitutes the simulation r1118cwrr_corr |
| 25 | Overall, this simulation leads to a much better agreement with the observations, especially for DBF sites. |