+Missing Pointers for Benthic Fluxes in Direct Sinking of Phytoplankton P

[yichengt900]

As @charliestock suggested, now the pointers for the benthic fluxes for the direct sinking of phytoplankton P are set correctly in generic_COBALT_update_from_bottom subroutine. This PR is to solve #18.

@charliestock , While reviewing the generic_COBALT_update_from_bottom subroutine, I noticed that pointers for the benthic fluxes for the direct sinking of phytoplankton Fe are also turned off. Below is an example for diazotroph Fe:

https://github.com/NOAA-CEFI-Regional-Ocean-Modeling/ocean_BGC/blob/01f7a0cff3270d6ef076be301b9417a0c1e3f83f/generic_tracers/generic_COBALT.F90#L7707-L7708

Could you confirm if this was done intentionally?

[charliestock]

Thanks Yi-Cheng, In answer to your question about the iron, this was indeed intentional. The iron flux to the sediment is removed. The flux from the sediment is then set using a published relationship:

https://github.com/NOAA-CEFI-Regional-Ocean-Modeling/ocean_BGC/blob/bfa02118f1bda46cc230d18074401e6d782a8e74/generic_tracers/generic_COBALT.F90#L9903-L9906

[yichengt900]

Thanks Yi-Cheng, In answer to your question about the iron, this was indeed intentional. The iron flux to the sediment is removed. The flux from the sediment is then set using a published relationship:

https://github.com/NOAA-CEFI-Regional-Ocean-Modeling/ocean_BGC/blob/bfa02118f1bda46cc230d18074401e6d782a8e74/generic_tracers/generic_COBALT.F90#L9903-L9906

Thanks @charliestock . I believe the relationship is from Dale et al. 2015, is that correct? I will add more detailed inline documentation to highlight this.

[yichengt900]

Thanks for implementing this Yi-Cheng. It looks good to me. If we could run just confirm conservation in the 1D case, that would be great.

@charliestock . Thanks. I can confirm with this fix, the total P is conservative in the 1D case by checking wc_vert_int_p:

[yichengt900]

This PR passed the CI test and has proven mass conservation for P in the 1D case. Merge now.