Canopy Model Complexity

Comparisons of vegetation canopy model complexities
LSM
Paper
Author

Yujie Wang

Published

September 30, 2021

Modified

December 5, 2023

A fundamental tradeoff during model design is the model complexity: more complex models are supposed to be more accurate but computational expensive. Given that the models with different complexities have different assumptions (or simplifications), it is not recommended to mix and use these models.

Here we summarize the commonly used canopy model complexity from one layer to multiple layers, and from big leaf to two leaves and leaf angular distributions. We refer the readers to Wang and Frankenberg (2022) for more details about how canopy model complexity impacts simulated carbon/water/energy fluxes and solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence. Please contact Yujie Wang through Github Issues if you find mistakes in this table or you want to add a new item to the list.

Wang, Y., and C. Frankenberg. 2022. “On the Impact of Canopy Model Complexity on Simulated Carbon, Water, and Solar-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence Fluxes.” Biogeosciences 19 (1): 29–45.

Complexity

  • 1C-1BL
    • One canopy layer
    • One single big leaf without sunlit and shaded fractions
  • 1C-1L
    • One canopy layer
    • One leaf without sunlit or shaded fractions (not big leaf!)
  • 1C-2BL
    • One canopy layer
    • Two big leaves are categorized as sunlit and shaded fractions
  • 1C-2L
    • One canopy layer
    • Two leaves for sunlit and shaded fractions (not big leaves!)
  • KC-1L
    • Multilple canopy layer
    • One leaf without sunlit or shaded fractions for each layer (not big leaf!)
  • KC-2L Multilple layer scheme with sunlit and shaded fractions
    • Multilple canopy layer
    • Two leaves for sunlit and shaded fractions per layer (not big leaves!)
  • KC-IJL
    • Multiple canopy layers
    • Sunlit and shaded fractions per layer
    • Leaf angular distribution for sunlit fractionmat (NetCDF),

Models

Model Verion & Option Complexity Reference Documentation
CliMA Land 0.1 Default KC-IJL Wang et al. (2021)
0.1 1X 1C-1L Wang et al. (2021)
0.1 2X 1C-2L Wang et al. (2021)
0.1 KX KC-1L Wang et al. (2021)
0.1 2KX KC-2L Wang et al. (2021)
CLM 4.0 1C-2L Bonan et al. (2011) CLM 4.0 Tech Notes
4.5 1C-2L Lawrence et al. (2019) CLM 4.5 Tech Notes
5.0 1C-2L Lawrence et al. (2019) CLM 5.0 Tech Notes
ml KC-2L Bonan et al. (2018)
ISBA A-gs KC-2L Carrer et al. (2013)
MEB KC-2L Boone et al. (2017)
JULES 6.1 can_rad_mod 1 1C-1BL Jogireddy et al. (2006) JULES 6.1 User Guide
6.1 can_rad_mod 4 KC-IJL Clark et al. (2011) JULES 6.1 User Guide
6.1 can_rad_mod 5 KC-2L Clark et al. (2011) JULES 6.1 User Guide
6.1 can_rad_mod 6 KC-2L Clark et al. (2011) JULES 6.1 User Guide
ORCHIDEE CAN v1 KC-1L Ryder et al. (2016)
SCOPE 1.7 KC-IJL van der Tol et al. (2009) SCOPE Documentation
2.0 lite off KC-IJL Yang et al. (2021) SCOPE Documentation
2.0 lite on KC-2L Yang et al. (2021) SCOPE Documentation
Wang, Y., P. Köhler, L. He, R. Doughty, R. K. Braghiere, J. D. Wood, and C. Frankenberg. 2021. “Testing Stomatal Models at the Stand Level in Deciduous Angiosperm and Evergreen Gymnosperm Forests Using CliMA Land (V0.1).” Geoscientific Model Development 14 (11): 6741–63.