You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
FATES currently uses two different ways to estimate crown depth, for different routines.
For calculating crown fires and snow occlusion of leaves, it uses the fates_fire_crown_depth_frac parameter, where:
crown_depth = crown_depth_frac * height
For hydraulics, it assumes the crown depth is the minimum of 1 meter and the height of the plant:
crown_depth = min(1.0, height)
Through efforts on #738, @JunyanDing and I tested the effects of unifying the scheme, so that hydraulics use the first approach. This change will be withheld from PR #738 , but we wanted to discuss these alternatives and if/how we should change. The differences in results between using the two schemes were noticeable. The following is a simple comparison at BCI, between master, and a version that migrates hydrualics to use the first formulation of crown depth. ST3 mode is also turned on.
FATES currently uses two different ways to estimate crown depth, for different routines.
For calculating crown fires and snow occlusion of leaves, it uses the fates_fire_crown_depth_frac parameter, where:
For hydraulics, it assumes the crown depth is the minimum of 1 meter and the height of the plant:
Through efforts on #738, @JunyanDing and I tested the effects of unifying the scheme, so that hydraulics use the first approach. This change will be withheld from PR #738 , but we wanted to discuss these alternatives and if/how we should change. The differences in results between using the two schemes were noticeable. The following is a simple comparison at BCI, between master, and a version that migrates hydrualics to use the first formulation of crown depth. ST3 mode is also turned on.
rootdepth-v3-st3_plots.pdf
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: