This page should describe Verification and Unit Tests performed for this stand alone feature and should provide links to all the result pages.

Summary

The E3SM Developers test suite was used to make unit testing without PHS on compy in /compyfs/d3m045/e3sm_scratch/. All passed.

Unit Testing

Unit Testing: short-desciption-of-testing-here

Date last modified: 03 Jul 2019

Contributors: Yilin Fang

Provenance: (Run provenance Link, Code Tag, etc:)

Results: (link to results, data and plots)

Point case model setup was from Kennedy et al. (2019) under the ambient condition. Model parameters in Table 1 of Kennedy et al. (2019). Model results were compared using ve

Spinup results without PHS on compy in /compyfs/d3m045/land_runs_verification/v1.ICLM45.compy.intel.Ca54ad57/run
Spinup results with PHS on compy in /compyfs/d3m045/land_runs_verification/v1.ICLM45.compy.intel.Ca54ad57/run_phs
Post spinup results without PHS on compy in /compyfs/d3m045/land_runs_ver_rst/v1.ICLM45.compy.intel.Ca54ad57/run
Post spinup results with PHS on compy in /compyfs/d3m045/land_runs_ver_rst/v1.ICLM45.compy.intel.Ca54ad57/run_phs

Plant water stress factor was calculated using soil moisture stress (SMS) parameterization before plant hydraulics stress (PHS) scheme was implemented.

Volumetric soil water content at 50 cm depth with soil moisture stress (SMS) parameterization (middle column in the following table) using ELM differs from those simulated by CLM5 (Figure (a) in the third column 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. However, similar to CLM5 (Figure a,c in the third column), ELM-PHS simulates wetter soil in the dry season (Figure in the first column) compared to ELM-SMS (Figure in the second column).

Soil Water Content simulated by ELM PHS	Soil Water Content simulated by ELM SMS	Soil Water Content simulated by CLM5

The two figures in the table below show stress factor (BTRAN) comparison with (second column) and without PHS (first column) in Sep, Oct and Nov of 2003. They are higher compared to the Kennedy paper (solid line in the third column in 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

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 right panel), root water potential is higher than the others and there is almost no discrepancy among stem, leaves.

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

Verification Test 1

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

Date last modified: 03 Jul 2019

Contributors: Yilin Fang

Some functions such as PLC (vulnerability curve) were verified using excel.

Provenance: (Run provenance Link, Code Tag, etc.)

Results: The complete package passed the E3SM Developer's Test Suite.

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

Browser not supported