How to manage crop areas in FATES-SP mode.

[rosiealice]

In FATES-SP mode, we currently do not consider crop areas in the assertion of LAI/SAI/HTOP etc. This means that in comparison with CLM5-SP runs, we under-predict the LAI where there are/should be crops.

My workaround for this so far has been to simply modify the surface dataset to add the crop area to the NAT_VEG area. I did this to facilitate direct comparison and identify biases between CLM5-SP and FATES-SP, but it's obviously the wrong approach in the long run.

I'm not sure how we should handle this as in general, though. FATES currently runs only on the NAT_VEG landunit/column. Solutions to this include

1. Run FATES (SP) on both the NAT_VEG and CROP land units.
2. Introduce some FATES-SP specific logic that expands the NATVEG area to include the crop area and PFTs and then just run FATES once.

I'm not really sure how exactly to implement the first, but it seems like potentially the more elegant thing to do. Does anyone have any thoughts/potential other solutions/pointer on how to active FATES on a crop column?

@dlawrenncar @danicalombardozzi @lawrencepj1 @wwieder @glemieux @ckoven @rgknox @aldivi @ekluzek @olyson ?

[rgknox]

In the long run, don't we also want the existing crop model to run simultaneously with fates, each on their own columns? Would this facilitate direct comparisons?

[rosiealice]

I guess you could have the CLM5 crop model running in native CLM5-SP mode in parallel? Right?

[rosiealice]

I also just realized that irrigation pertains to SP mode (whereas most of the crop model does not), so if we had SP-crops-in-FATES, they would need irrigating?

[rgknox]

I guess you could have the CLM5 crop model running in native CLM5-SP mode in parallel? Right?

That is what I was thinking

[wwieder]

I don't think the crop model runs in SP mode, because it needs N management and active BGC. For CLM5-SP I'm assuming we're using the generic crop, which I guess could still be irrigated? I'm fuzzy on the details here...

…

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:08 AM Ryan Knox ***@***.***> wrote: I guess you could have the CLM5 crop model running in native CLM5-SP mode in parallel? Right? That is what I was thinking — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#760 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB5IWJAJUMFZLU7EMKFZK33TVRZFVANCNFSM47UT6E5Q> .

[lawrencepj1]

Hi Rosie, Ryan and Will Yes Will the SP crops can still be irrigated so they are on their own crop land unit / soil column. best Peter -- Dr Peter Lawrence Terrestrial Science Section National Center for Atmospheric Research 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder Colorado 80305 Work: 1-303-497-1727 Cell: 1-303-956-6932

…

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:14 AM will wieder ***@***.***> wrote: I don't think the crop model runs in SP mode, because it needs N management and active BGC. For CLM5-SP I'm assuming we're using the generic crop, which I guess could still be irrigated? I'm fuzzy on the details here... On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:08 AM Ryan Knox ***@***.***> wrote: > I guess you could have the CLM5 crop model running in native CLM5-SP mode > in parallel? Right? > > That is what I was thinking > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#760 (comment)>, or > unsubscribe > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB5IWJAJUMFZLU7EMKFZK33TVRZFVANCNFSM47UT6E5Q > > . > — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#760 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC3OJOIK4YMTFCFH53X2HITTVRZ2XANCNFSM47UT6E5Q> .

[rosiealice]

Righto. So the generic SP crop sits on its own land unit doing SP things and potentially being irrigated? Right?

[ckoven]

seems like your option (1) is the best plan, as it would be a first step towards a full FATES w/ crops implementation.

[lawrencepj1]

But in standard SP without irrigation the crop land unit is not generated. ! Crop settings and consistency checks if (use_crop) then numpft = mxpft ! actual # of patches (without bare) numcft = 64 ! actual # of crops else numpft = numveg ! actual # of patches (without bare) numcft = 2 ! actual # of crops end if ! For arrays containing all Patches (natural veg & crop), determine lower and upper bounds ! for (1) Patches on the natural vegetation landunit (includes bare ground, and includes ! crops if create_crop_landunit=false), and (2) CFTs on the crop landunit (no elements ! if create_crop_landunit=false) if (create_crop_landunit) then natpft_size = (numpft + 1) - numcft ! note that numpft doesn't include bare ground -- thus we add 1 cft_size = numcft else natpft_size = numpft + 1 ! note that numpft doesn't include bare ground -- thus we add 1 cft_size = 0 end if

…

-- Dr Peter Lawrence Terrestrial Science Section National Center for Atmospheric Research 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder Colorado 80305 Work: 1-303-497-1727 Cell: 1-303-956-6932

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:57 AM Charlie Koven ***@***.***> wrote: seems like your option (1) is the best plan, as it would be a first step towards a full FATES w/ crops implementation. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#760 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC3OJOIF2KZ4Z5VEHV6DYMDTVR653ANCNFSM47UT6E5Q> .

[danicalombardozzi]

Hi Everyone, Happy to think about this more after the holiday. The crop model should probably be separate from the FATES model as the new code will have more sophisticated, crop-specific phenology and allocation. They should be run simultaneously though. As Peter mentioned, there is an irrigated land fraction in both SP and BGC modes in CLM. To run without irrigation, the irrigation flag must be turned off. Danica On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:23 AM Peter Lawrence ***@***.***> wrote:

But in standard SP without irrigation the crop land unit is not generated. ! Crop settings and consistency checks if (use_crop) then numpft = mxpft ! actual # of patches (without bare) numcft = 64 ! actual # of crops else numpft = numveg ! actual # of patches (without bare) numcft = 2 ! actual # of crops end if ! For arrays containing all Patches (natural veg & crop), determine lower and upper bounds ! for (1) Patches on the natural vegetation landunit (includes bare ground, and includes ! crops if create_crop_landunit=false), and (2) CFTs on the crop landunit (no elements ! if create_crop_landunit=false) if (create_crop_landunit) then natpft_size = (numpft + 1) - numcft ! note that numpft doesn't include bare ground -- thus we add 1 cft_size = numcft else natpft_size = numpft + 1 ! note that numpft doesn't include bare ground -- thus we add 1 cft_size = 0 end if -- Dr Peter Lawrence Terrestrial Science Section National Center for Atmospheric Research 1850 Table Mesa Drive <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1850+Table+Mesa+Drive+%0D%0D%0ABoulder+Colorado+80305?entry=gmail&source=g> Boulder Colorado 80305 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1850+Table+Mesa+Drive+%0D%0D%0ABoulder+Colorado+80305?entry=gmail&source=g> Work: 1-303-497-1727 Cell: 1-303-956-6932 On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:57 AM Charlie Koven ***@***.***> wrote: > seems like your option (1) is the best plan, as it would be a first step > towards a full FATES w/ crops implementation. > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#760 (comment)>, or > unsubscribe > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC3OJOIF2KZ4Z5VEHV6DYMDTVR653ANCNFSM47UT6E5Q > > . > — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#760 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGHW2QOBTN2G2RGURURV3FLTVSB7TANCNFSM47UT6E5Q> .

-- Dr. Danica Lombardozzi she/her/hers Terrestrial Sciences Section Climate and Global Dynamics National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO 80305 email: ***@***.*** office: (303) 497-1777

[rosiealice]

Thanks all. That's interesting @lawrencepj1 that the crop land unit doesn't occur at all without irrigation. Which means either we
a) keep make the NATVEG single instance of FATED to account of generic crops PFTs.

Doing only this would make FATES-SP incompatible with irrigation. To remedy that I suppose we could do either
b) Run another instance of FATES-SP on the irrigated landunit
Or
c) Run the CLM5-SP crop model on the irrigated landunit.

I'm not sure which is harder out of b and c. I suspect b) might be more straightforward and give cleaner answers. (Noting that this is just for SP mode, wherein I don't think the crop-model specific terms have an impact, right?

Either way, making a) work is on the critical path I think...

[dlawrenncar]

Actually, I think @lawrencepj1 is wrong about the crop landunit. The new default is for the crop landunit to be created in all configurations unless you explicitly set it not to be (not even sure it is easy to not create the crop landunit anymore?). When in SP mode, only the generic crops and their CFT parameters are used. Irrigation is set by the surface dataset (i.e., non-zero weights in the irrigated PFT - I think PFT 17) and irrig = .true. on namelist. I think if irrig = .false., then even the irrigated CFT area is not irrigated. So, I think there are really two use cases that we need to consider and they probably need to be considered separately. For SP mode, it seems like it is as simple as telling FATES to run for the crop landunit (irrigated and unirrigated), I think this is Rosie's option B and I think this is the one that would be preferred. As long as there are parameters for the crop CFTs, then I think this should be pretty straightforward. For BGC mode, it's a significantly bigger topic since the crop model has its own phenology and allocation schemes. Maybe for now, in terms of this specific issue of crops in SP mode in FATES, we should defer that conversation. I suggest that we have a quick discussion, and review of the code, about this at our next CTSM-software meeting. I think that would be the most efficient way forward on the critical path.

…

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:12 AM Rosie Fisher ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks all. That's interesting @lawrencepj1 <https://github.com/lawrencepj1> that the crop land unit doesn't occur at all without irrigation. Which means either we a) keep make the NATVEG single instance of FATED to account of generic crops PFTs. Doing only this would make FATES-SP incompatible with irrigation. To remedy that I suppose we could do either b) Run another instance of FATES-SP on the irrigated landunit Or c) Run the CLM5-SP crop model on the irrigated landunit. I'm not sure which is harder out of b and c. I suspect b) might be more straightforward and give cleaner answers. (Noting that this is just for SP mode, wherein I don't think the crop-model specific terms have an impact, right? Either way, making a) work is on the critical path I think... — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#760 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFABYVFLZO4N7MFP4RLKFL3TWGVVPANCNFSM47UT6E5Q> .

[ekluzek]

Note, the CTSM issue about using the CTSM crop landunit is here. This issue is different but related to this one here.

ESCOMP/CTSM#1046

This would use the CTSM big-leaf code to runs crops, which could also be done for FATES-SP mode.

[billsacks]

Summary from ctsm-software discussion:

Can we have FATES handle crops in SP mode similarly to what's done in non-FATES – i.e., treating crops as grasses, but with a different subgrid structure – one crop per column? This way crops can use the same physics as natural veg in SP mode.

We may need to use Ryan's new column-level logical flag in more places.

Need to check some other subgrid setup (e.g., initSubgridMod, subgridMod) and set up of filters, as well as any new idiosyncracies that are coming in with the FATES-SP PR.

Need to double check that there are no assumptions in FATES that there is only one column that it's operating on, particularly in terms of subgrid weights.

[rosiealice]

Thanks @billsacks

On your first point, I think it broadly makes most sense to use the FATES physiology for crops in FATES-SP mode. Most of the crop model is downstream of GPP, as far as I remember, but is there anything special about what it does with Vcmax? (that is an input parameter in the default carbon-only FATES).

How does the sub grid structure work in CLM5-SP for crops? Is it -not- one column per crop type?

I agree it would be super useful to check on the sub-grid setup, filters etc. This is the part I am foggiest on wrt making this work. Thanks :)