Articles | Volume 14, issue 6
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021

Model evaluation paper 03 Jun 2021

Model evaluation paper | 03 Jun 2021

Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements

Anna B. Harper et al.

Data sets

The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data (https://fluxnet.org/data/fluxnet2015-dataset/) G. Pastorello et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0534-3

Model code and software

JULES branch for soil moisture stress JPEG evaluation paper K. Williams https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/jules/browser/main/branches/dev/karinawilliams/r9227_add_gpp_unstressed_diagnostic

JULES suite for FLUXNET2015 and LBA sites K. Williams, A. B. Harper, P. McGuire, C. Duran Rojas, and F. Otu-Larbi https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/roses-u/browser/a/l/7/5/2/u-al752-jpegpaper?rev=168493

Taylor diagram for Python Y. Copin https://gist.github.com/ycopin/3342888

Download
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.