Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of DevelopmentActivities/ORCHIDEE-hydraulicArch

10/09/21 15:39:47 (8 months ago)



  • DevelopmentActivities/ORCHIDEE-hydraulicArch

    v1 v1  
     1= Hydraulic architecture improvements = 
     3== Meeting the 07 October 2021: comparison of Julien and Yitong schemes =  
     5The purpose of the meeting was to compare Yitong Yao’s model with Julien Alléon’s one in order to : 
     6 - Understand the differences between both models ; 
     7 - Prepare a strategy in order to implement only one “mixed” model in ORCHIDEE_trunk. 
     8The meeting was organised around the presentation of the two models (see slides for more details) and the discussion on the advantages/drawbacks of each model. 
     9Summary of the differences: 
     10Model   YItong’s        Julien’s 
     11Starting point  Emilie Joetzjer’s previous version of the hydraulic architecture in the module hydraulic_arch.f90. 
     13This previous version was more a proof about the necessity of introducing and hydraulic architecture than a properly implemented model as ORCHIDEE would need.  New model based on ORCHIDEE_trunk version of May 2020. 
     15The model does not rely on the previous work on the hydraulic architecture. It is composed by new subroutines introduced in hydrol module. 
     16Overall scheme  Both scheme rely on the description of the water transport from soil/root interface towards leaves thanks to a resistance/capacitance scheme. 
     17Root absorption Rely on a development by Emily which, in addition to a soil/root resistance based on soil conductivity and root biomass, adds a weighting of the absorption according to the amount of water present in each layer. The idea is to weight more by the amount of water than by the root biomass. Two ways to model root absorption: 
     18-       Radial resolution of Richards’ equation around a fictive root which have the length of the total amount of roots in each layer; 
     19-       Classic root absorption scheme relying on a dynamic resistance 
     20Transport through canopy        Resistances : 
     21Dynamic resistances linked to the water potential at each stage 
     23Capacitances : 
     24Fixed values.   Resistances : 
     25Fixed values. 
     27Capacitances : 
     28Dynamic values linked to the water potential of each storage pool. 
     29Stomatal conductance    Two decoupled stomatal conductances for assimilation and water control. Only the one that controls water is linked to leaf water potential      One stomatal conductance calculated thanks to the leaf water potential. The conductance controls assimilation and water supply. 
     30Resolution method       Global method: 
     31The scheme calculates transpiration demand and supply. If the supply does not reach the demand, energy budget is recalculated (mleb has to iterate to converge towards the supply). 
     33Inside the model: 
     34Iteration process in order to converge towards the fluxes at each stages. Uses minpack package for the resolution       Resolution without iterations based on prediction/correction schemes for differential equations and estimation/corrections for non differential equations. 
     36•       Causes instabilities. 
     38Main advantage  Dynamic resistances     Resolution method 
     39Main drawback   Resolution method       Instability 
     41Discussion : 
     42Both models answer to a precise need which led to the previous choices. 
     43Both models seem to have good results on the site studied. 
     44Several options are possible in ORCHIDEE, one would be a flag to activate one scheme or the other. This, at the end, should be avoid in order to have only one working model. 
     45The best option would be to implement a mixed version of both models keeping a resolution without iterations and introducing the dynamic resistances. 
     46Looking at the previous table: 
     47•       Root absorption: Best option would be to activate a flag to choose between the three models; 
     48•       Transport: Best option would be to have oth dynamic resistances and capacitances ; 
     49•       Stomatal conductance: Best option would be to have only one stomatal conductance (this option leads to instabilities as mentioned in Julien’s model; 
     50•       Resolution method: Best option would be to avoid iterations as much as possible. Moreover, recalculating the energy budget has to be avoid in order to remove iterations in mleb. 
     51To avoid instability, several options were given: 
     52•       Look more precisely at the storage pools that should act as a buffer; 
     53•       Look at Krinner et al. (2005) were a method to smooth the curves is described; 
     54•       Improve the estimation method. 
     55Dynamic resistances are crucial for the mortality calculation (which is wanted in the next version of the trunk. 
     56Organisation : 
     57Yitong is entering the final stretch of her PHD and will not have that much time to allocate to the project before March 2022. It would be interesting that she only does a simulation with a precise configuration in order to look at the time calculation added by the iterations. This can be done over Hesse. 
     58Julien will look closer on how to implement the model and compare th