...

Volumetric soil water content at 50 cm depth with soil moisture stress (SMS) parameterization (middle panel in the following table) using ELM differs from those simulated by CLM5 (Figure (a) in the third panel in the following table) in Kennedy et al.  The discrepancy in soil water simulation between ELM and CLM5 will result in model discrepancy when using plant hydraulic stress (PHS) in ELM.

Soil Water Content simulated by ELM PHS	Soil Water Content simulated by ELM PHS	Soil Water Content simulated by CLM5
Image Modified	Image Modified	Image Modified

The following two figure shows stress factor (BTRAN) comparison with (left) and without PHS (middle) in Sep, Oct and Nov of 2003.  They are higher compared to the Kennedy paper (solid line in the third panel the the table below).  The discrepancy may be caused by the Medlyn photosynthesis model and soil water calculation in CLM5.

BTRAN simulated by ELM SMS	BTRAN simulated by ELM PHS	BTRAN simulated by CLM5
Image Modified	Image Modified	Image Modified

As the soil moisture simulations don't match between the models, the match between ELM and CLM5 in terms of plant organ water potentials is not expected.  However, similar to CLM5 simulation (Figure (a) in the bottom panel), root water potential is higher than the others and there is almost no discrepancy among stem, leaves (top figure below).

Plant water potential simulated by ELM PHS	Plant water potential simulated by CLM5
Image Modified	Image Modified

Verification Test 1

Verification Test 1: short-desciption-of-testing-here

...

Results: (link to results, data and plots)

Point simulations were compared to results with plant hydraulics turned off as well as those from Kennedy et al. paper.  Model produce reasonable results.