-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
parameter optimisaion via factorial #22
Comments
Actual soil evaporation is equal to potential evaporation up to a specified limit u (stage I) after which the evaporation rate becomes proportional to the square root of time (stage II): Methodology in soil-water-solute balance modelling: An evaluation of the APSIM-SoilWat and SWIMv2 models |
A conservative estimate of 2 is recommended for U as a modelling parameter. This is lower than most values commonly in use (3-8), however in agreement with recommendations from Yunusa et al. (1994) for Australian conditions. ConA - winter: 3.0(±1.3) to 3.7(±1.4) SOIL EVAPORATION – HOW MUCH WATER IS LOST FROM NORTHERN CROP SYSTEMS AND DO AGRONOMIC MODELS ACCURATELY REPRESENT THIS LOSS? |
In New Zealand ES occurred when the SWC content of the top layer was greater than the lower limit. from Richard's thesis |
How to calculate Evaporation? water balance? How can I check if the simulation use the correct values? |
2430 simulations if using a setup like the snapshot |
[Soil].SoilWater.SummerU = 1 to 9 step 1 Seems we can remove the combination below simulation ID 2000 Seems ok to remove 3000 U ranges from 1 to 9 The mismatch in the red circle could be caused by
|
with an arbitrary combination parameters: lower the U and cona during winter definitely improve that funny bit in the red circle. change the summer definition from 1-Nov to 1-Sep |
U
andConA
Base.apsimx
gsmax
andR50
need to be included or not.gsmax
andR50
Base.apsimx
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: