Merge pull request #958 from mpaiao/mpaiao-pr-drgt-decid

Drought deciduous phenology updates
NGEET · Jun 30, 2023 · b8ad811 · b8ad811
2 parents d20b78c + 516c7e8
commit b8ad811
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 27 changed files with 4,597 additions and 1,295 deletions.
diff --git a/biogeochem/EDCanopyStructureMod.F90 b/biogeochem/EDCanopyStructureMod.F90
@@ -2196,7 +2196,7 @@ subroutine UpdateCohortLAI(currentCohort, canopy_layer_tlai, total_canopy_area)
 
    if (hlm_use_sp .eq. ifalse) then
       currentCohort%treesai = tree_sai(currentCohort%pft, currentCohort%dbh, currentCohort%crowndamage, &
-                                       currentCohort%canopy_trim, &
+                                       currentCohort%canopy_trim, currentCohort%efstem_coh, &
                                        currentCohort%c_area, currentCohort%n, currentCohort%canopy_layer, &
                                        canopy_layer_tlai, currentCohort%treelai , &
                                        currentCohort%vcmax25top,4)

diff --git a/biogeochem/EDCohortDynamicsMod.F90 b/biogeochem/EDCohortDynamicsMod.F90
diff --git a/biogeochem/EDMortalityFunctionsMod.F90 b/biogeochem/EDMortalityFunctionsMod.F90
@@ -166,7 +166,13 @@ subroutine mortality_rates( cohort_in,bc_in,cmort,hmort,bmort,frmort,smort,asmor
        ! Carbon Starvation induced mortality.
        if ( cohort_in%dbh  >  0._r8 ) then
 
-          call bleaf(cohort_in%dbh,cohort_in%pft,cohort_in%crowndamage,cohort_in%canopy_trim,target_leaf_c)
+          ! We compare storage with leaf biomass if plant were fully flushed, otherwise
+          ! mortality would be underestimated for plants that lost all leaves and have no
+          ! storage to flush new ones.
+          ! MLO. Why isn't this comparing with storage allometry (i.e., accounting for
+          !      cushion)?
+          call bleaf(cohort_in%dbh,cohort_in%pft,cohort_in%crowndamage,cohort_in%canopy_trim, &
+               1.0_r8, target_leaf_c)
           store_c = cohort_in%prt%GetState(store_organ,carbon12_element)
 
           call storage_fraction_of_target(target_leaf_c, store_c, frac)

diff --git a/biogeochem/EDPhysiologyMod.F90 b/biogeochem/EDPhysiologyMod.F90
diff --git a/biogeochem/FatesAllometryMod.F90 b/biogeochem/FatesAllometryMod.F90
diff --git a/biogeophys/FatesPlantHydraulicsMod.F90 b/biogeophys/FatesPlantHydraulicsMod.F90
@@ -982,7 +982,7 @@ subroutine UpdatePlantHydrLenVol(ccohort,csite_hydr)
     ! Lets also avoid super-low targets that have very low trimming functions
 
     call bleaf(ccohort%dbh,ccohort%pft,ccohort%crowndamage, &
-         max(ccohort%canopy_trim,min_trim),leaf_c_target)
+         max(ccohort%canopy_trim,min_trim),ccohort%efleaf_coh, leaf_c_target)
 
     if( (ccohort%status_coh == leaves_on) .or. ccohort_hydr%is_newly_recruited ) then
        ccohort_hydr%v_ag(1:n_hypool_leaf) = max(leaf_c,min_leaf_frac*leaf_c_target) * &
@@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ subroutine UpdatePlantHydrLenVol(ccohort,csite_hydr)
 
     ! calculate the sapwood cross-sectional area
     call bsap_allom(ccohort%dbh,ccohort%pft,ccohort%crowndamage, &
-         ccohort%canopy_trim,a_sapwood_target,sapw_c_target)
+         ccohort%canopy_trim, ccohort%efstem_coh, a_sapwood_target,sapw_c_target)
 
     ! uncomment this if you want to use
     ! the actual sapwood, which may be lower than target due to branchfall.
@@ -2980,7 +2980,7 @@ subroutine UpdatePlantKmax(ccohort_hydr,ccohort,csite_hydr)
 
   ! Get the cross-section of the plant's sapwood area [m2]
   call bsap_allom(ccohort%dbh,pft,ccohort%crowndamage, &
-       ccohort%canopy_trim,a_sapwood,c_sap_dummy)
+       ccohort%canopy_trim, ccohort%efstem_coh, a_sapwood,c_sap_dummy)
 
   ! Leaf Maximum Hydraulic Conductance
   ! The starting hypothesis is that there is no resistance inside the

diff --git a/biogeophys/FatesPlantRespPhotosynthMod.F90 b/biogeophys/FatesPlantRespPhotosynthMod.F90
@@ -413,8 +413,11 @@ subroutine FatesPlantRespPhotosynthDrive (nsites, sites,bc_in,bc_out,dtime)
                       ft = currentCohort%pft
                       cl = currentCohort%canopy_layer
 
+                      ! MLO. Assuming target to be related to leaf biomass when leaves are fully
+                      ! flushed. But unsure whether this call is correct or not, shouldn't we get
+                      ! the target value directly from the bstore_allom?
                       call bleaf(currentCohort%dbh,currentCohort%pft,&
-                           currentCohort%crowndamage,currentCohort%canopy_trim,store_c_target)
+                           currentCohort%crowndamage,currentCohort%canopy_trim,1.0_r8,store_c_target)
                       !                     call bstore_allom(currentCohort%dbh,currentCohort%pft, &
                       !                                       currentCohort%canopy_trim,store_c_target)
 

diff --git a/main/EDInitMod.F90 b/main/EDInitMod.F90
diff --git a/main/EDMainMod.F90 b/main/EDMainMod.F90
@@ -531,11 +531,12 @@ subroutine ed_integrate_state_variables(currentSite, bc_in, bc_out )
 
              ! Conduct Maintenance Turnover (parteh)
              if(debug) call currentCohort%prt%CheckMassConservation(ft,3)
-             if(any(currentSite%dstatus == [phen_dstat_moiston,phen_dstat_timeon])) then
+             if(any(currentSite%dstatus(ft) == [phen_dstat_moiston,phen_dstat_timeon])) then
                 is_drought = .false.
              else
                 is_drought = .true.
              end if
+
              call PRTMaintTurnover(currentCohort%prt,ft,is_drought)
 
              ! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------