match forest activity fluxes to McCauley Robles and Woolley

[sbassett]

Their assumptions are very different than ours for activity pool changes, fluxes and post-treatment productivity.

It would be neat to see how their assumptions change our results.

I don;t know that their assumptions are any better than ours, but it would give us grounds to evaluate our [and their] assumptions for suitability and reality.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-ecosystem-carbon-TEC-as-output-from-LANDIS-II-for-the-four-climate-models_fig2_334630893

Changing these VegCuptake_frac values for thinning (and partial cut) to 1.5, and for prescribed fire to 1.25)

• [x] Colorado
• [x] New Mexico

[sbassett]

From a cursory review of the McCauley et al, 2019, the biggest difference is in post-treatment changes in productivity. In the most recent run we assumed no change in productivity following treatment. Without additional data, this seems like a defensible assumption. Some studies in commercial timber harvest areas, post-treatment productivity has increased. Based on a cursory review of the available studies, productivity has increased by some measures by up to 150% to 200%.

NWLAND\raw_data\lc_params_nm.xls > forest_manage > VegCuptake_frac

Changing these VegCuptake_frac values for thinning (and partial cut) to 1.5, and for prescribed fire to 1.25). I'm assuming the increased productivity is a a function of increased water available which is a function of decreased evapotranspiration which is partially a function of the proportion of vegetation removed during treatment. Because thinning would likely remove more vegetation than prescribed fire, I'm assuming the increased productivity is higher in thinning than prescribed fire.

[sbassett]

The effects of treatment on post-treatment burn severities also seems important, but I can't find any studies that easily populate these assumptions.