Skip to content

Enable DBH initialization to "full FATES" on coldstarts#1558

Open
rgknox wants to merge 10 commits intoNGEET:mainfrom
rgknox:fullfates-dbhinit
Open

Enable DBH initialization to "full FATES" on coldstarts#1558
rgknox wants to merge 10 commits intoNGEET:mainfrom
rgknox:fullfates-dbhinit

Conversation

@rgknox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rgknox rgknox commented Apr 20, 2026

Description:

This enables FATES to use DBH to specify initial conditions for a cold-start run with full fates. This does so by making an equal area assumption of all cohorts. Like with nocomp, it also assumes that plants on the patch fill up a single canopy layer.

Collaborators:

Expectation of Answer Changes:

Description of generative AI usage (as necessary)

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
  • Describe use of generative AI (if 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:

@mvdebolskiy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rgknox are we going with this option or the #1550 ?

mvdebolskiy and others added 2 commits April 27, 2026 09:05
Co-authored-by: Gregory Lemieux <7565064+glemieux@users.noreply.github.com>
@rgknox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

rgknox commented May 4, 2026

@mvdebolskiy, lets do both? They offer different things. Do you see any reason not to?

@mvdebolskiy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rgknox I don't mind. Then there should be a check removed on the ClmBuildNamelist side. And in the parameter reading routine. I would #1550 should come first and then the guard rails should be lifted here.

@glemieux glemieux self-requested a review May 4, 2026 18:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Under Review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants