Corrections concerning the CWRR scheme have been done in the trunk version (see revision r1118) by Aurélien Campoy and Josefine Ghattas. In between r1013 and r1118, changes in the phenology scheme have been commited on the trunk that we don't want evaluate here. So, the results presented here have been obtained with revision r1101 except for the files modified by the revision r1118, that have been updadted.

Evaluation of the changes induced by these corrections has been done at Fluxnet sites and results compared with the former revision r1013 with and without CWRR activated.

In general, these changes induce a much better agreement with observation (in comparison of the results obtained with r1013 with CWRR). This is true for water and carbon fluxes. Before the changes, bare soil evaporation was counted twice in the soil water budget. This tended to limit the growing of the vegetation (due to water stress). Vegetation fraction (veget) was consequently reduced to the benefit of the bare soil fraction and transpiration reduced to the benefit of the bare soil evaporation. This constitutes a positive feedback that amplified the impact of the double counted of the bare soil evaporation.

r1118cwrr vs r1013cwrr

r1118cwrr vs r1013choisnel

Last modified 8 years ago Last modified on 03/20/13 14:15:50