-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
SIP325 document proposed C and N limited leaf-on events #332
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 13 commits
68ff0d6
3b84e15
698a064
1b5df36
fe5cf23
3ec397f
f89e3ca
c77e458
cdb0b90
7946073
95f04d2
98b1388
c9939a3
a1eec02
55c7731
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@ | ||||||||||||||
| # Model Structure | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Goal: simplified biogeochemical model that is capable of simulating GHG balance, including soil carbon, $CO_2$, $CH_4$, | ||||||||||||||
| and $N_2O$ flux. Key validation criteria is the ability to correctly capture the response of these pools and fluxes to | ||||||||||||||
| changes in agronomic management practices, both current and future. | ||||||||||||||
| SIPNET is designed to be a simplified biogeochemical model that is capable of simulating GHG balance, including soil carbon, $CO_2$, $CH_4$, | ||||||||||||||
| and $N_2O$ flux in managed and unmanaged ecosystems. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| ### Design approach: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
@@ -128,6 +127,10 @@ Net primary productivity $(\text{NPP})$ is the total carbon gain of plant bioma | |||||||||||||
| pools in proportion to their allocation parameters $\alpha_i$. As in Zobitz, et al. (2008), plant growth is a determined | ||||||||||||||
| by the running five-day mean NPP, $\overline{\text{NPP}}$. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Negative NPP is valid as a diagnostic net flux when autotrophic respiration exceeds GPP. Leaf, wood, and root creation | ||||||||||||||
| from the five-day mean NPP are non-negative in the current allocation code; when the mean NPP is negative, those | ||||||||||||||
| creation fluxes are set to zero rather than creating negative biomass. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| To make explicit what contributes to autotrophic respiration, we decompose $R_A$ into maintenance and optional growth | ||||||||||||||
| components: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
@@ -144,9 +147,9 @@ are part of $R_A$, their costs are subtracted from GPP before calculating NPP an | |||||||||||||
| Note that $\alpha_i$ are specified input parameters and $\sum_i{\alpha_i} = 1$. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| \frac{dC_{\text{plant,}i}}{dt} = \alpha_i \cdot \overline{\text{NPP}} - F^C_{\text{harvest,removed,}i} - F^C_{\text{litter,}i} | ||||||||||||||
| \frac{dC_{\text{plant,}i}}{dt} | ||||||||||||||
| = \alpha_i \cdot \overline{\text{NPP}} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| - F^C_{\text{harvest,removed,}i} | ||||||||||||||
| - F^C_{\text{litter,}i} | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:Zobitz_3} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
@@ -155,11 +158,6 @@ Note that $\alpha_i$ are specified input parameters and $\sum_i{\alpha_i} = 1$. | |||||||||||||
| This is equation (3) from Zobitz, et al. (2008), augmented with the harvest and litter terms. Summing over all plant | ||||||||||||||
| pools shows that NPP is partitioned into biomass growth, removed harvest, and litter production. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| ### Plant Death | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Plant death is implemented as a harvest event with the fraction of biomass transferred to | ||||||||||||||
| litter, $f_{\text{harvest,transfer,}i}$ set to 1. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| ### Wood Carbon | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| As stated above, SIPNET uses a five-day averaged NPP when allocating gained carbon to plant growth. To implement this, | ||||||||||||||
|
|
@@ -209,7 +207,126 @@ This is equation (A2) from Braswell, et al. (2005) | |||||||||||||
| The change in plant leaf carbon $(C_\text{leaf})$ over time is given by the balance of leaf production $(L)$ and leaf | ||||||||||||||
| litter production $(F^C_\text{litter,leaf})$. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| **TODO:** explain $L$ in terms of $\alpha_\text{leaf}\cdot \overline{NPP}$ and leaf on/leaf off mechanics. | ||||||||||||||
| #### Leaf On {#leaf-on} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Leaf-on events define the timing of leaf emergence. Leaf-on requests a transfer of carbon to the leaf pool, and the | ||||||||||||||
| amount transferred is limited by available carbon and nitrogen: | ||||||||||||||
|
Comment on lines
+212
to
+213
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Isn't F*C_{demand,leaf,on} the same as the Delta_C param? I can't find where we define that F term.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah this is pretty confusing and should be re-written. Goal is:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| F^C_{\text{leaf,on}} = | ||||||||||||||
| f_{\text{leaf,on}} \cdot F^C_{\text{demand,leaf,on}} | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_creation} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| where $0 \le f_{\text{leaf,on}} \le 1$. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| A minimal limiter combines carbon and nitrogen constraints: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| f_{\text{leaf,on}} = | ||||||||||||||
| \min(f^C_{\text{limit}}, f^N_{\text{limit}}) | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_limiter} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
dlebauer marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| with $0 \le f^C_{\text{limit}} \le 1$ and $0 \le f^N_{\text{limit}} \le 1$. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Carbon available for leaf growth at leaf-on comes from a fraction of the perennial wood and coarse root biomass pools: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| C_{\text{realloc}} = | ||||||||||||||
| f^C_{\text{realloc}} \cdot | ||||||||||||||
| (C_{\text{wood}} + C_{\text{coarse root}}) | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_realloc_c} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| where $0 \le f^C_{\text{realloc}} \le 1$. Leaf-on reallocation uses structural perennial biomass only. It does not draw | ||||||||||||||
|
dlebauer marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||||||||||
| from $C_{\text{wood,storage}}$, because the storage pool is a bookkeeping buffer for recent carbon allocation lag rather than a carbon pool available for reallocation. | ||||||||||||||
|
dlebauer marked this conversation as resolved.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah, I like this. Note that this is making me feel more strongly about resolving whether the storage pool should be included for calcs of wood resp, wood turnover, and harvest.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Actually, how about renaming the "storage" pool to something to indicate that it is an accounting tool rather than a biological representation, like
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thinking about this more, I'm actually not sure I totally agree. The storage pool is a buffer used to track carbon entering and leaving the system without any associated nitrogen. We need it to balance nitrogen, since we have fixed C:N ratios. Thinking of it as just a allocation lag tracker doesn't feel right when that pool is negative.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That's not to say I don't favor renaming it (apologies for the double negative, it's a real failing of mine 😂)
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah, the key point was
I'll leave naming to those more qualified!
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. To get back to your original point
If we aren't going to consider this a true storage pool, it should not be included in wood respiration, wood turnover, harvest, or leaf-on reallocation. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| If structural biomass is greater than zero, carbon is transferred to leaf carbon. | ||||||||||||||
| Carbon is taken from the source pools in proportion to their size: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| F^C_{\text{source,}j} = | ||||||||||||||
| F^C_{\text{leaf,on}} | ||||||||||||||
| \frac{C_j}{C_{\text{wood}} + C_{\text{coarse root}}} | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_source_c} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation*} | ||||||||||||||
| \small j \in \{\text{wood, coarse root}\} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation*} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| This makes the source-pool debit auditable: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| \sum_j F^C_{\text{source,}j} + F^C_{\text{leaf,on}} = 0 | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_source_c_sum} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
dlebauer marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
dlebauer marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||||||||||
| If the source biomass is zero, realized leaf-on growth is zero. If the source biomass is zero and there are no leaves, | ||||||||||||||
| the plant will never regrow leaf biomass. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| The carbon-side limiter is: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| f^C_{\text{limit}} = | ||||||||||||||
| \min\left(1, \frac{C_{\text{realloc}}}{F^C_{\text{demand,leaf,on}}}\right) | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_c_limiter} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| and the nitrogen-side limiter is: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| f^N_{\text{limit}} = | ||||||||||||||
| \min\left(1, \frac{F^N_{\text{supply,leaf,on}}}{F^N_{\text{demand,leaf,on}}}\right) | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_n_limiter} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| where $F^N_{\text{supply,leaf,on}}$ includes plant N storage, mineral uptake, and fixation. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| #### Leaf Off {#leaf-off} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Leaf-off events define the timing of leaf senescence. | ||||||||||||||
| A leaf-off event transfers leaf biomass carbon out of the leaf pool. | ||||||||||||||
| The leaf-off carbon transfer is controlled by the leaf fall | ||||||||||||||
| fraction parameter, $f_{\text{fall}}$. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| F^C_{\text{senescing,leaf}} = f_\text{fall} \cdot C_\text{leaf} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| When the litter pool is enabled, leaf litter enters the litter pool; | ||||||||||||||
| otherwise, leaf litter is routed to soil carbon. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| At leaf-off, a fraction of nitrogen from senescing leaves is resorbed | ||||||||||||||
| into a plant storage pool before the rest is transferred to litter or soil. | ||||||||||||||
| The resorption flux is: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| F^N_{\text{storage,in}} = | ||||||||||||||
| f^N_{\text{resorb}} \cdot F^N_{\text{senescing,leaf}} | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_n_resorb} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
dlebauer marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||||||||||
| where | ||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| F^N_{\text{senescing,leaf}} = F^C_{\text{senescing,leaf}} \cdot CN_\text{leaf} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| F^N_{\text{litter,leaf,residual}} = | ||||||||||||||
| (1 - f^N_{\text{resorb}}) \cdot F^N_{\text{senescing,leaf}} | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_n_litter_residual} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| where $0 \le f^N_{\text{resorb}} \le 1$. The plant nitrogen storage pool balance is: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| \frac{dN_{\text{plant,storage}}}{dt} = | ||||||||||||||
| F^N_{\text{storage,in}} - F^N_{\text{storage,use}} | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:plant_n_storage} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Stored nitrogen contributes to satisfying plant growth nitrogen demand, including leaf-on demand (indicated as $F^N_{\text{storage,use}}$). | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| ### Root Carbon | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
@@ -611,11 +728,27 @@ drainage. | |||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| ### Plant Nitrogen Demand $F^{N}_{\text{demand}}$ | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Plant N demand is the amount of N required to support plant growth. This is calculated as the sum of carbon creation fluxes divided by their respective C:N ratios: | ||||||||||||||
| Plant N demand is the amount of N required to support plant growth. This is calculated as the sum of carbon creation fluxes divided by their respective C:N ratios. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| For leaf-on reallocation, source-pool nitrogen contributes according to the source-pool C:N ratio. Net leaf-on N demand | ||||||||||||||
|
dlebauer marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||||||||||
| is the additional nitrogen needed to satisfy leaf stoichiometry: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| F^N_{\text{source,leaf,on}} = | ||||||||||||||
| \sum_j \frac{F^C_{\text{source,}j}}{CN_j} | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_source_n} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation*} | ||||||||||||||
| \small j \in \{\text{wood, coarse root}\} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation*} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| \begin{equation} | ||||||||||||||
| F^N_{\text{demand,}leafOn} = \frac{F^C_{\text{creation,}leafOn}}{CN_{\text{leaf}}} - | ||||||||||||||
| \frac{F^C_{\text{creation,}leafOn}}{CN_{\text{wood}}} | ||||||||||||||
| F^N_{\text{demand,leaf,on}} = | ||||||||||||||
| \max\left(0, | ||||||||||||||
| \frac{F^C_{\text{leaf,on}}}{CN_{\text{leaf}}} - | ||||||||||||||
| F^N_{\text{source,leaf,on}} | ||||||||||||||
| \right) | ||||||||||||||
| \label{eq:leaf_on_n_demand} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
@@ -637,8 +770,6 @@ F^N_{\text{demand,}creation} | |||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Each term in the sum is calculated according to \eqref{eq:plant_n}. Total plant N demand $F^N_{\text{demand,}total}$ is then partitioned between fixation and soil N uptake using \eqref{eq:n_fix_demand} and \eqref{eq:n_uptake_demand}. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| **TODO:** possibly include more context about leaf on events | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| ### Nitrogen Fixation and Uptake $F^N_\text{fix}, F^N_\text{uptake}$ | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| For N-fixing plants, symbiotic nitrogen fixation is represented as supplying a fraction of plant nitrogen demand, and is | ||||||||||||||
|
|
@@ -1156,31 +1287,15 @@ f_{\text{intercept}} \, F^W_{\text{irrig}}, & I_{\text{irrigation}} = 0 \\ | |||||||||||||
| \label{eq:irrig_evap} | ||||||||||||||
| \end{equation} | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Alomir marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||||||||||
| ### Leaf On/Leaf Off | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Leaf on and leaf off events define the timing of leaf emergence and senescence, respectively. These events directly | ||||||||||||||
| specify the amount of carbon added to the leaf carbon pool on the leaf on date, and the fraction of carbon removed from | ||||||||||||||
| the leaf carbon pool on the leaf off date. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| When a leaf on event occurs, an amount of carbon (specified by the `leafGrowth` parameter) is transferred from the wood | ||||||||||||||
| carbon pool to the leaf carbon pool. As leaf C:N is usually lower than wood C:N, the excess nitrogen | ||||||||||||||
| implied by the static C:N ratios is included as part of the plant nitrogen demand. If there is insufficient nitrogen | ||||||||||||||
| available for this lump-sum move, nitrogen limitation will occur. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| When a leaf off event occurs, a fraction of the leaf carbon (specified by the `fracLeafFall` parameter) is transferred | ||||||||||||||
| from the leaf carbon pool to the litter pool (or soil pool, if the litter pool is not being used). The corresponding | ||||||||||||||
| nitrogen (calculated from the leaf C:N ratio) is also transferred to the litter or soil nitrogen pool. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| **Event parameters:** | ||||||||||||||
| ### Leaf On/Leaf Off Events | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| | Parameter | Value | Description | | ||||||||||||||
| | --------- | -------------------- | ----------------- | | ||||||||||||||
| | Year | integer | Year | | ||||||||||||||
| | Day | integer | Day of year | | ||||||||||||||
| | Type | `leafon` / `leafoff` | The type of event | | ||||||||||||||
| Leaf-on and leaf-off may be triggered either by explicit `leafon` / `leafoff` records in `events.in` or by calculated phenology. | ||||||||||||||
| Explicit leaf events specify timing only and take no additional event-file parameters. | ||||||||||||||
| Calculated leaf-on timing is controlled by `gdd`, `soil-phenol` runtime options, or the `leafOnDay` parameter, depending on configuration; calculated | ||||||||||||||
| leaf-off timing is controlled by `leafOffDay`. | ||||||||||||||
| Leaf on/off specified as events are incompatible with temperature (GDD or soil) or parameter based leaf timing. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| There are no other parameters needed for these events, as the amount of transfer is determined by the parameters | ||||||||||||||
| mentioned above. | ||||||||||||||
| Once triggered, leaf-on and leaf-off use the same dynamics described in [Leaf On](#leaf-on) and [Leaf Off](#leaf-off). | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
dlebauer marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||||||||||
| <!-- | ||||||||||||||
| **Flooding** increases soil water to water holding capacity and then adds water equivalent to the depth of flooding. Subsequent irrigation events maintain flooding by topping off water content. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.