Kalyn-Ben 2020-08-10

[kdorheim]

Creating an issue as a temp place to hold things to discuss and work on.

In process work on the action items listed in #74 Viz_met_data.pdf

up next would like to look at the GCB paper code to get a better understanding of what output variables we want to look at how we should process them to be consistent.

[kdorheim]

PFT in ED

• 10 - Temperate broadleaf, mid-successional
• 11 - Temperate broadleaf, late successional
• 6 - Northern North American pines
• 9 - Temperate broadleaf, early successional

but we are going to want to know how they map to FoRTE inventory data

[kdorheim]

@cmgough could you take a look at the following table and let me know if the mapping of the PFT to the FoRTE inventory data is correct?

Many thanks

10 - Temperate broadleaf, mid-successional
FAGR
ACSA
11 - Temperate broadleaf, late successional
QURU
TSCA
6 - Northern North American pines
PIST
PIRE
9 - Temperate broadleaf, early successional
AMEL
POGR
BEPA
ACRU
ACPE
BEAL
POTR

[atkinsjeff]

That tracks with me. ACRU could go either way as early or mid. I think of it as more mid but maybe that's an east coast bias thing?

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:34 AM Kalyn R. Dorheim notifications@github.com wrote:

@cmgough https://github.com/cmgough could you take a look at the following table and let me know if the mapping of the PFT to the FoRTE inventory data is correct?

Many thanks

10 - Temperate broadleaf, mid-successional FAGR ACSA 11 - Temperate broadleaf, late successional QURU TSCA 6 - Northern North American pines PIST PIRE 9 - Temperate broadleaf, early successional AMEL POGR BEPA ACRU ACPE BEAL POTR

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FoRTExperiment/FoRTE-mgmt/issues/75#issuecomment-671392835, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB7XVVOXBRUQKI6TOTTMKLDSAAAOVANCNFSM4PK3VARQ .

-- Jeff Atkins, PhD Post-Doctoral Fellow Department of Biology Virginia Commonwealth University atkinsjeff.github.io he/his/him

[cmgough]

For our system (FoRTE and most of the surrounding secondary forest), ACRU and ACPE are mid-successional. Some of the richer sites/reps may have supported ACRU and ACSA at an early successional stage.

[kdorheim]

Meeting Notes and TODO

KRD

• [x] Determine if SLA is responsive in deciduous forests and confirm
• [ ] Determine what are the ed parameters needed

[atkinsjeff]

Just to clarify, TCSA goes under temperate broadleaf late?

--jeff

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:42 AM Chris Gough notifications@github.com wrote:

For our system (FASET and most of the surrounding secondary forest), AGRU and ACPE are mid-successional.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FoRTExperiment/FoRTE-mgmt/issues/75#issuecomment-671432231, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB7XVVNULMQXC6QYHNMTSNTSAAIO5ANCNFSM4PK3VARQ .

-- Jeff Atkins, PhD Post-Doctoral Fellow Department of Biology Virginia Commonwealth University atkinsjeff.github.io he/his/him

[cmgough]

Good catch, hemlock doesn't really fit in any category above. It's not a pine, but is in the Family Pinaceae. You could modify "Northern North American pines" to "North American conifers" or "North American evergreen needleleaf"

[ashiklom]

Chiming in here: IMHO, the best place for TSCA is the "Late Conifer" PFT, which should be ED's number 8. I omitted it from the GCB paper, but I've used it in other analyses in the midwest and northeast.

[cmgough]

Yes, sounds right. It's a late successional conifer.

[atkinsjeff]

That was my thought on it. I just wanted to make sure that operationally there wasn't something I was missing.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:09 PM Chris Gough notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes, sounds right. It's a late successional conifer.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FoRTExperiment/FoRTE-mgmt/issues/75#issuecomment-672253545, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB7XVVP2AMDZGGH5NBWMVR3SAGQPNANCNFSM4PK3VARQ .

-- Jeff Atkins, PhD Post-Doctoral Fellow Department of Biology Virginia Commonwealth University atkinsjeff.github.io he/his/him

[kdorheim]

Determine if SLA is responsive in deciduous forests and confirm

It is not clear from the documentation but after talking with @ashiklom it turns out that out of the box ED does not model dynamic traits for all of the pfts, just the tropical ones. For the BGC paper he had to make changes to the source code to get it to work. We weren't planning on implementing the trait plasticity for the ED paper but were thinking about something along those lines for the work with @lisahaber

[kdorheim]

Chiming in here: IMHO, the best place for TSCA is the "Late Conifer" PFT, which should be ED's number 8. I omitted it from the GCB paper, but I've used it in other analyses in the midwest and northeast.

Thanks! Because we would like to keep as much of the ED set up constant with your paper for the second ED FoRTE paper I will talk to @bpbond about adding that PFT to our runs. Although I am curious @ashiklom, because I am sure there is a good reason, why it was excluded from the fortebasline runs? Also are there any other PFTs that were excluded from the GCB paper?

[ashiklom]

we would like to keep as much of the ED set up constant with your paper for the second ED FoRTE paper

I probably wouldn't make this a priority. For one, a key result of the GCB paper was essentially that my setup was bad, since it couldn't get to realistic forests. Also, the objective was somewhat different. That paper was pretty theoretical, but here, you're actually trying to generate realistic predictions of the response, starting from observed initial conditions (...right? At least, that's what I would probably do).

I am sure there is a good reason, why it was excluded from the fortebasline runs

Don't be so sure --- there wasn't really a great reason. I just sort-of guessed that new hemlocks wouldn't really become major players in those forests in just 100 years.

Also are there any other PFTs that were excluded from the GCB paper?

ED has 17 PFTs in total, so strictly speaking, yes, most of them. Here's the full table (from the ED2IN file):

   ! 1 - C4 Grass                                                                          !
   ! 2 - Tropical broadleaf, early successional                                            !
   ! 3 - Tropical broadleaf, mid-successional                                              !
   ! 4 - Tropical broadleaf, late successional                                             !
   ! 5 - Temperate C3 grass                                                                !
   ! 6 - Northern North American pines                                                     !
   ! 7 - Southern North American pines                                                     !
   ! 8 - Late-successional North American conifers                                         !
   ! 9 - Temperate broadleaf, early successional                                           !
   ! 10 - Temperate broadleaf, mid-successional                                            !
   ! 11 - Temperate broadleaf, late successional                                           !
   ! 12 - (Beta) Tropical broadleaf, early successional (thick bark)                       !
   ! 13 - (Beta) Tropical broadleaf, mid-successional (thick bark)                         !
   ! 14 - (Beta) Tropical broadleaf, late successional (thick bark)                        !
   ! 15 - Araucaria                                                                        !
   ! 16 - Tropical/subtropical C3 grass                                                    !
   ! 17 - (Beta) Lianas                                                                    !

In practice, though, I think early, mid, and late hardwood + northern pine + late conifer pretty much covers everything you're likely to encounter at UMBS, at least that ED can simulate.

[bpbond]

Don't be so sure --- there wasn't really a great reason. I just sort-of guessed

Ha! But seriously, that's a good guess, simplifying and defensible.

[kdorheim]

Also are there any other PFTs that were excluded from the GCB paper?

🤦‍♀️ In complete thought, are there any other umbs relevant PTFs that were excluded from the GCB paper?

[cmgough]

Looks good to me -- I think you've included the primary ED2 PFTs. (No lianas at UMBS...yet.)

[atkinsjeff]

you want lianas, we can get lianas.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:11 PM Chris Gough notifications@github.com wrote:

Looks good to me -- I think you've included the primary ED2 PFTs. (No lianas at UMBS...yet.)

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FoRTExperiment/FoRTE-mgmt/issues/75#issuecomment-673568686, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB7XVVK7EFQGJRZAFXFWDJDSAQGBNANCNFSM4PK3VARQ .

-- Jeff Atkins, PhD Post-Doctoral Fellow Department of Biology Virginia Commonwealth University atkinsjeff.github.io he/his/him

[kdorheim]

Creating an issue as a temp place to hold things to discuss and work on.

In process work on the action items listed in #74 Viz_met_data.pdf

up next would like to look at the GCB paper code to get a better understanding of what output variables we want to look at how we should process them to be consistent.

@lisahaber the viz met data pdf has more info on met data

Met Data List Name
• dlwrf — downward long wave radiation (W m-2)
• nbdsf — near infrared beam downward solar radiation (W m-2)
• nddsf — near IR diffuse downward solar radiation (W m-2)
• vbdsf — visible beam downward solar radiation (W m-2)
• vddsf — visible diffuse downward solar radiation (W m-2)
• prate — precipitation rate (kgH2O m-2 s-1)
• pres — atmospheric pressure (Pa)
• hgt — geopotential height (m)
• ugrd — zonal wind (m s-1)
• vgrd — meridional wind (m s-1)
• sh — specific humidity (kgH2O kgAir-1)
• tmp — air temperature (K)