Skip to main content

Ecosystem modeling: model evaluation of current implementation in ECO3D 1.0

As I am preparing my defense, the first version of ECOSYSTEM 1.0 in my thesis was finally completed. Looking forward to the next chapter of my life, I thought it is time to evaluate the ECOSYSTEM 1.0 to see what it is capable of and what still needs to be improved or expanded in the near future.

First, here is a brief introduction of the ECOSYSTEM model:
ECOSYSTEM is a three-dimensional water and carbon cycle terrestrial ecosystem model. Within ECOSYSTEM model, water and carbon cycle are seamlessly coupled. The water cycle is developed based on the PRMS, and the carbon cycle is developed based on TEM. The core idea behind the coupling is that both water and carbon (potentially nitrogen and others) fluxes can flow in a three-dimensional domain, and that is exactly one of the reasons why dissolved organic carbon (DOC) can be observed in stream water.

A lot of improvements have been made upon the original PRMS and TEM models. For example, I have added a new litter pool to consider the carbon pool, DOC leaching from the litter.

Even though model calibration of such kind of watershed hydrology-alike ecosystem model takes much effort, my initial model evaluation based on stream discharge, snow cover, GPP/NPP and DOC has shown that the three-dimensional approach have great potential. A good example could be something like the Riparian zone. I am also observing significant differences in soil moisture due to lateral water flow.

The ECOSYSTEM model is completely developed using C++11 with OpenMP enabled. A preview of the model structure was introduced in one of my early posts. One of the advantages of using C++ is that it's relatively easy to manage based on model structure, especially for models with sophisticated data I/O and flow.

Moreover, when I designed the ECOSYSTEM, a plugin approach/concept is used, which means that new processes can be easily added following the structure. This is also the same concept used in MODFLOW and PRMS.

With ECOSYSTEM, we can answer quite a few questions, including but not limited to:
  1. How is surface hydrology responding to climate?
  2. How is surface hydrology responding to land-use and land-cover change (e.g., wildfire)?
  3. What is the role of lateral flow in soil moisture?
  4. What is the role of lateral flow in carbon cycle?
  5. What about DOC dynamics?
However, due to the time constrain, I haven't implemented some other important processes into the ECOSYSTEM model currently. And potentially I will keep working on this project and finish a newer version when time is right.

Here are a few processes that need to be added or improved in future development:
  1. Groundwater flow is currently improved but not as good as MODFLOW, but it may be unnecessary to actually implement MODFLOW within ECOSYSTEM;
  2. Soil water has different types of reservoirs, but the concept of layered model may improve vertical profile, which is also important for thermal process;
  3. Soil thermal is currently simplified, it could be coupled with soil water using algorithm from TEM or other similar model such as GIPL;
  4. Three-dimensional heat transport is missing, but with soil thermal (or even groundwater flow), it could be implemented;
  5. Snow model currently does not consider heat from soil. A better layered snow model such as Snowpack can replace the current one;
  6. A dynamical stream network may be added, which means the hydrology networks vary with  time;
  7. Carbon and nitrogen coupling;
  8. Thermokarst lake modeling is missing;
  9. With thermal and soil carbon module, a new permafrost carbon release module could be implemented.
Hopefully, the last list will be shorted or even gone within one year.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spatial datasets operations: mask raster using region of interest

Climate change related studies usually involve spatial datasets extraction from a larger domain.
In this article, I will briefly discuss some potential issues and solutions.

In the most common scenario, we need to extract a raster file using a polygon based shapefile. And I will focus as an example.

In a typical desktop application such as ArcMap or ENVI, this is usually done with a tool called clip or extract using mask or ROI.

Before any analysis can be done, it is the best practice to project all datasets into the same projection.

If you are lucky enough, you may find that the polygon you will use actually matches up with the raster grid perfectly. But it rarely happens unless you created the shapefile using "fishnet" or other approaches.

What if luck is not with you? The algorithm within these tool usually will make the best estimate of the value based on the location. The nearest re-sample, but not limited to, will be used to calculate the value. But what about the outp…

Numerical simulation: ode/pde solver and spin-up

For Earth Science model development, I inevitably have to deal with ODE and PDE equations. I also have come across some discussion related to this topic, i.e.,

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_does_one_mean_by_Model_Spin_Up_Time

In an attempt to answer this question, as well as redefine the problem I am dealing with, I decided to organize some materials to illustrate our current state on this topic.

Models are essentially equations. In Earth Science, these equations are usually ODE or PDE. So I want to discuss this from a mathematical perspective.

Ideally, we want to solve these ODE/PDE with initial condition (IC) and boundary condition (BC) using various numerical methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_value_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_value_problem

Because of the nature of geology, everything is similar to its neighbors. So we can construct a system of equations which may have multiple equation for each single grid cell. Now we have an array of equation…

Lessons I have learnt during E3SM development

I have been involved with the E3SM development since I joined PNNL as a postdoc. Over the course of time, I have learnt a lot from the E3SM model. I also found many issues within the model, which reflects lots of similar struggles in the lifespan of software engineering.

Here I list a few major ones that we all dislike but they are around in almost every project we have worked on.

Excessive usage of existing framework even it is not meant to Working in a large project means that you should NOT re-invent the wheels if they are already there. But more often, developers tend to use existing data types and functions even when they were not designed to do so. The reason is simple: it is easier to use existing ones than to create new ones. For example, in E3SM, there was not a data type to transfer data between river and land. Instead, developers use the data type designed for atmosphere and land to do the job. While it is ok to do so, it added unnecessary confusion for future development a…