Skip to content

Increase max patches and nocomp PFTs per landuse for pasture and rangeland from one to two#1542

Merged
glemieux merged 1 commit intomainfrom
ckoven-patch-2
Mar 24, 2026
Merged

Increase max patches and nocomp PFTs per landuse for pasture and rangeland from one to two#1542
glemieux merged 1 commit intomainfrom
ckoven-patch-2

Conversation

@ckoven
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ckoven ckoven commented Mar 10, 2026

When I was running global historical simulations, I had noticed that in some edge cases, with only a single nocomp PFT for landuse types pasture and rangeland, there could sometimes be more biomass per area on those land use types than on primary. I realized that this was because there were some gridcells where it would actually make all the area in those land uses forest. Upping the max number of nocomp PFTs, and correspondingly, patches to two each removed that behavior. So I did that on my simulations but hadn't in the default file. I suggest we do that in the default file as well.

Description:

Collaborators:

Expectation of Answer Changes:

Checklist

If this is your first time contributing, please read the CONTRIBUTING document.

All checklist items must be checked to enable merging this pull request:

Contributor

  • The in-code documentation has been updated with descriptive comments
  • The documentation has been assessed to determine if updates are necessary

Integrator

  • FATES PASS/FAIL regression tests were run
  • Evaluation of test results for answer changes was performed and results provided
  • FATES-CLM6 Code Freeze: satellite phenology regression tests are b4b

If satellite phenology regressions are not b4b, please hold merge and notify the FATES development team.

Documentation

Test Results:

CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) test hash-tag:

CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) baseline hash-tag:

FATES baseline hash-tag:

Test Output:

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@glemieux glemieux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ckoven gave me the background on the email discussion about this. Looks straightforward.

@glemieux glemieux self-assigned this Mar 12, 2026
@glemieux glemieux moved this from Finding Reviewers to Final Testing in FATES Pull Request Planning and Status Mar 12, 2026
@glemieux
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Regression testing on derecho underway

JessicaNeedham pushed a commit to JessicaNeedham/fates that referenced this pull request Mar 18, 2026
@glemieux
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

glemieux commented Mar 23, 2026

All expected tests pass B4B against fates-sci.1.91.1_api.43.1.0-ctsm5.4.026. Note that the failing FatesColdHydro test is per ESCOMP/CTSM#3798 and hasn't yet been added to the expected failure list.

Results: /glade/u/home/glemieux/ctsm/tests_0318-145148de

@glemieux glemieux moved this from Final Testing to Ready to Integrate in FATES Pull Request Planning and Status Mar 23, 2026
@rgknox rgknox self-requested a review March 23, 2026 18:08
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rgknox rgknox left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Straight forward, those extra patches are needed.

@glemieux glemieux merged commit 85f997b into main Mar 24, 2026
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants