Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
Hi all, I am almost sure this is a small bug. To confirm it:
This means when there is irrPaddy, the soil evaporation of irrNonPaddy was not taken into account. To fix it, in the soil.py, I tried the following things:
self.var.potBareSoilEvap = np.maximum(0.,self.var.potBareSoilEvap - self.var.openWaterEvap[No])
self.var.actBareSoilEvap[No] = np.minimum(self.var.potBareSoilEvap,np.maximum(0.,self.var.w1[No] - self.var.wres1[No])) with
Please correct me if I am wrong. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Dear all,
I am trying to add additional landcover to CWatM by adding some codes. During the processes, I found one place is confusing in soil.py, the line 257:
self.var.potBareSoilEvap = np.maximum(0.,self.var.potBareSoilEvap - self.var.openWaterEvap[No])
This will execute when the coverType is 'irrPaddy'. This line updates the potBareSoilEvap, which means for 'irrPaddy', some potBareSoilEvap is zero. This make sense for now. However, for 'irrNonPaddy', some potBareSoilEvap is also zero. Because in the landcoverType.py, the soil process is calculated for irrPaddy before irrNonPaddy. This means when calculating the soil process for irrNonPaddy, the model use this updated potBareSoilEvap. From the results, the actBareSoilEvap is zero for irrNonPaddy where the irrPaddy has a larger open water evaporation. It seems does not make sense. Is this a bug?
Best,
Han Su
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions