Goal: simplified biogeochemical model that is capable of simulating GHG balance, including soil carbon,
Start as simple as possible, add complexity as needed. When new features are considered, they should be evaluated alongside other possible model improvements that have been considered, and the overall list of project needs.
Model state is updated in the following order:
- Calculate fluxes — compute the model's native fluxes
- Process events — convert events to per‑day fluxes and accumulate into fluxes.
- Update pools — pools are updated from the accumulated fluxes and pool‑specific updates.
This document provides an overview of the SIPNET model’s structure. It was written to
- Consolidate the descriptions from multiple papers (notably Braswell et al 2005 and Zobitz et al 2008).
- Provide enough detail to support the addition of agronomic events, CH4, and N2O fluxes.
- Focus on features currently in regular use.
There are multiple ways to configure the model structure, and not all model structures or components are listed. Implementation in source code (sipnet.c) is annotated with references to specific publications.
- The general approach used to define variables and subscripts is defined in Notation.
- Specific parameter, flux, and state definitions are documented in Model States and Parameters.
-
$\mathfrak{Fraktur Font}$ is used to identify features that have not been implemented. This font will be removed as features are implemented.
SIPNET can be run with or without a separate litter pool (LITTER_POOL=1 or 0). Equations in this document assume LITTER_POOL=1 unless otherwise noted.
When LITTER_POOL=0:
- Carbon fluxes that would go to the litter pool (
$F^C_\text{litter}$ ) are routed directly to the soil carbon pool - This affects carbon routing from harvest events, organic matter additions, plant senescence, and other processes
involving
$F^C_\text{litter}$ - All decomposition occurs in the soil pool
- All nitrogen cycle modeling is off (consequently, NITROGEN_CYCLE=1 requires LITTER_POOL=1)
\begin{equation} \text{GPP}{\text{max}} = A{\text{max}} \cdot A_d + R_{leaf,0} \label{eq:Braswell_A6} \end{equation}
This is equation (A6) from Braswell et al. (2005).
The daily maximum gross photosynthetic rate $(\text{GPP}{\text{max}})$ represents the maximum potential GPP under
optimal conditions. It is modeled as the leaf-level maximum net assimilation rate $(A{\text{max}})$ multiplied by a
scaling factor
\begin{equation} \text{GPP}{\text{pot}} = \text{GPP}{\text{max}} \cdot D_{\text{temp}} \cdot D_{\text{VPD}} \cdot D_{\text{light}} \label{eq:Braswell_A7} \end{equation}
This is equation (A7) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
The potential gross primary production $(\text{GPP}{\text{pot}})$ is calculated by reducing $\text{GPP}{\text{max}}$ by temperature, vapor pressure deficit, and light.
\begin{equation} \text{GPP} = \text{GPP}{\text{pot}} \cdot D{\text{water}} \label{eq:Braswell_A17} \end{equation}
This is equation (A17) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
The total adjusted gross primary production (GPP) is the product of potential GPP $(\text{GPP}{\text{pot}})$ and the water stress factor $D{\text{water,}A}$.
The water stress factor
Note that nitrogen limitation can further reduce GPP; see Sec. Nitrogen Limitation.
\begin{equation} \text{NPP} = \text{GPP} - R_A \label{eq:npp} \end{equation}
Net primary productivity
To make explicit what contributes to autotrophic respiration, we decompose
\begin{equation} R_A = R_\text{leaf} + R_\text{wood} + R_\text{fine_root} + R_\text{coarse_root} +\ R_\text{growth} \label{eq:ra_components} \end{equation}
Here,
Note that
\begin{equation} \frac{dC_{\text{plant,}i}}{dt} = \alpha_i \cdot \overline{\text{NPP}}
- F^C_{\text{harvest,removed,}i}
- F^C_{\text{litter,}i} \label{eq:Zobitz_3} \end{equation}
This is equation (3) from Zobitz, et al. (2008), augmented with the harvest and litter terms. Summing over all plant pools shows that NPP is partitioned into biomass growth, removed harvest, and litter production.
Plant death is implemented as a harvest event with the fraction of biomass transferred to
litter,
As stated above, SIPNET uses a five-day averaged NPP when allocating gained carbon to plant growth. To implement this, the current timestep's net primary production (adjusted GPP - autotrophic respiration) is added to the wood carbon pool where it acts as a storage pool, and all allocations from the averaged NPP are deducted from that pool.
Starting in SIPNET v2.1, to support mass balance tracking, this storage is explicitly tracked as a separate pool called
\begin{equation} \frac{dC_{\text{wood,storage}}}{dt} = (GPP - R_a) - \overline{\text{NPP}}_\text{alloc} \end{equation}
where
The total wood carbon is the sum of the structural wood carbon and the storage pool:
\begin{equation} C_{\text{wood,total}} = C_{\text{wood}} + C_{\text{wood,storage}} \end{equation}
Thus, changes to (non-storage) wood carbon over time are determined by:
\begin{equation} \frac{dC_\text{wood}}{dt} = \alpha_\text{wood} \cdot \overline{\text{NPP}} - F^C_\text{litter,wood} \label{eq:Braswell_A1} \end{equation}
where
This is equation (A1) from Braswell, et al. (2005), modified to explicitly track the storage component.
\begin{equation} \frac{dC_\text{leaf}}{dt} = L - F^C_\text{litter,leaf} \label{eq:Braswell_A2} \end{equation}
This is equation (A2) from Braswell, et al. (2005)
The change in plant leaf carbon
TODO: explain
Both fine and coarse root carbon change in the same way as leaf carbon. Change in carbon for these pools is determined as follows, applied separately to fine and coarse roots:
\begin{equation} \frac{dC_\text{i}}{dt} = \alpha_\text{i} \cdot \overline{NPP} - F^C_\text{i,root loss} \label{eq:root_carbon} \end{equation}
for
\begin{equation} F^C_\text{i,root loss} = k_\text{i,turnover} \cdot C_\text{i} \label{eq:root_loss} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} R_\text{leaf,opt} = k_\text{leaf} \cdot A_{\text{max}} \cdot C_\text{leaf} \label{eq:Braswell_A5} \end{equation}
Where
\begin{equation} R_\text{leaf} = R_\text{leaf,opt} \cdot D_{\text{temp,Q10}} \label{eq:Braswell_A18} \end{equation}
This is equation (A18) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
Actual foliar respiration
\begin{equation} R_\text{wood} = K_\text{wood} \cdot C_\text{wood} \cdot D_{\text{temp,Q10}_v} \label{eq:Braswell_A19} \end{equation}
This is equation (A19) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
Wood maintenance respiration
As with wood maintenance respiration, root respiration is calculated as
\begin{equation} R_\text{i} = K_\text{} \cdot C_\text{i} \cdot D_{\text{temp,Q10}_v} \label{eq:Zobitz_root_resp} \end{equation}
for
This is from Zobitz, et al. (2008), Sec. 5.4.2.
The change in the litter carbon pool over time is defined by the input of new litter and losses due to decomposition and methane production:
\begin{equation} \frac{dC_\text{litter}}{dt} = F^C_\text{litter} - F^C_{\text{decomp}} - F^C_{\text{CH}_4\text{,litter}} \end{equation}
Where
\begin{equation} F^C_\text{litter} = \sum_{i} K_{\text{plant,}i} \cdot C_{\text{plant,}i} + \left( \sum_{i} F^C_{\text{harvest,transfer,}i} + F^C_\text{fert,org} \right) \label{eq:litter_flux} \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small i \in {\text{leaf, wood}} \end{equation*}
Where
\begin{equation} F^C_{\text{decomp}} = K_\text{litter} \cdot C_\text{litter} \cdot D_{\text{temp}} \cdot D_{\text{water},R_H} \cdot D_{CN} \cdot D_{tillage} \label{eq:decomp_rate} \end{equation}
The total litter decomposition flux is partitioned between heterotrophic respiration and transfer of carbon to the soil pool, satisfying the mass-balance relationship:
\begin{equation} R_{\text{litter}} + F^C_{\text{soil,litter}} = F^C_{\text{decomp}} \label{eq:decomp_carbon} \end{equation}
Where
\begin{equation} R_{\text{litter}} = f_{\text{litter}} \cdot F^C_{\text{decomp}} \label{eq:r_litter} \end{equation}
The remainder of the decomposed litter carbon is transferred to the soil pool:
\begin{equation} F^C_{\text{soil,litter}} = (1 - f_{\text{litter}}) \cdot F^C_{\text{decomp}} \label{eq:soil_carbon} \end{equation}
The change in the soil organic carbon (SOC) pool over time is determined by: (i) inputs of carbon transferred from litter during decomposition, (ii) direct inputs from belowground plant turnover, and (iii) losses of carbon due to heterotrophic respiration and methane production:
\begin{equation} \frac{dC_\text{soil}}{dt} = F^C_{\text{soil}} - R_{\text{soil}} - F^C_{\text{CH}_4\text{,soil}} \label{eq:Braswell_A3} \end{equation}
where
This is equation (A3) from Braswell, et al. (2005), with the addition of the methane flux.
Total carbon input to the soil includes both (i) carbon transferred from the litter pool during decomposition \eqref{eq:soil_carbon} and (ii) inputs from root turnover:
\begin{equation} F^C_{\text{soil}} = F^C_{\text{soil,litter}} + F^C_{\text{soil,roots}} \label{eq:soil_carbon_flux} \end{equation}
Soil heterotrophic respiration is modeled as a first-order process proportional to soil organic carbon content and modified by environmental and management factors:
\begin{equation} R_{\text{soil}} = K_{dec} \cdot C_{\text{soil}} \cdot D_{\text{temp}} \cdot D_{\text{water},R_H} \cdot D_{CN} \cdot D_{\text{tillage}} \label{eq:r_soil} \end{equation}
SIPNET assumes no loss of SOC to leaching or erosion.
Total heterotrophic respiration,
\begin{equation} R_H = R_{\text{soil}} + R_{\text{litter}} \label{eq:rh} \end{equation}
Where the litter and soil components are defined above in \eqref{eq:r_litter} and \eqref{eq:r_soil}.
For the soil pool,
For the litter pool, litter decomposition
\begin{equation} F^C_{\text{CH}4\text{,}j} = K{\text{CH}4\text{,}j} \cdot C\text{j} \cdot D_{\text{water,CH}4} \cdot D\text{temp} \label{eq:ch4} \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small j \in {\text{soil, litter}} \end{equation*}
The calculation of methane flux $(F^C_{\text{CH}4})$ for soil and litter is analogous to that of $R_H$. It uses the same carbon pools as substrate and temperature dependence but has specific rate parameters $(K{\text{CH}_4\text{,}j})$, a moisture dependence function based on oxygen availability \eqref{eq:water_ch4}, and no direct dependence on tillage.
The carbon and nitrogen cycle are tightly coupled by the C:N ratios of plant and organic matter pools. The C:N ratio of plant biomass pools is fixed, while the C:N ratio of soil organic matter and litter pools is dynamic.
Plant biomass pools have a fixed CN ratio and are thus stoichiometrically coupled to carbon:
\begin{equation} N_i = \frac{C_i}{CN_{i}} \label{eq:cn_stoich} \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small i \in {\text{leaf, wood, fine root, coarse root}} \end{equation*}
Where
Soil organic matter and litter pools have dynamic CN that is determined below.
In SIPNET, the C:N ratio of soil and litter pools is calculated directly from the carbon and nitrogen pools.
\begin{equation} CN_j = \frac{C_j}{N_j}. \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small j \in {\text{soil, litter}} \end{equation*}
This is used to calculate C:N-dependency
To represent the influence of substrate quality on decomposition rate, we add a simple dependence function
\begin{equation} D_{CN} = \frac{k_{CN}}{k_{CN}+ CN} \label{eq:cn_dep} \end{equation}
Here,
Similar to the stoichiometric coupling of litter fluxes, the change in plant biomass N over time is stoichiometrically coupled to plant biomass C:
\begin{equation} \frac{dN_{\text{plant,}i}}{dt} = \frac{dC_{\text{plant,}i}}{dt} / CN_{\text{plant,}i} \label{eq:plant_n} \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small i \in {\text{leaf, wood, fine root, coarse root}} \end{equation*}
The change in litter nitrogen over time,
\begin{equation} \frac{dN_{\text{litter}}}{dt} = \sum_{i} F^N_{\text{litter,}i} + F^N_\text{fert,org} - F^N_\text{litter,min} - F^N_\text{soil} \label{eq:litter_dndt} \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small i \in {\text{leaf, wood}} \end{equation*}
Here,
The change in soil nitrogen
\begin{equation} \frac{dN_\text{org,soil}}{dt} = \sum_{j} F^N_{\text{soil,}j} + F^N_\text{soil} - F^N_\text{soil,min} \label{eq:org_soil_dndt} \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small j \in {\text{fine root, coarse root}} \end{equation*}
The soil mineral nitrogen pool
\begin{equation} \frac{dN_\text{min}}{{dt}} = F^N_\text{litter,min} + F^N_\text{soil,min} + F^N_\text{fert,min} - F^N_\text{vol} - F^N_\text{leach} - F^N_\text{uptake} \label{eq:mineral_n_dndt} \end{equation}
Mineralization and fertilization add to the mineral nitrogen pool. Losses include volatilization, leaching, and plant uptake, described below. Fixed N enters the plant pool directly (\eqref{eq:n_fix_demand}).
Total nitrogen mineralization is proportional to the total heterotrophic respiration from soil and litter pools, divided
by the C:N ratio of the pool. The effects of temperature, moisture, tillage, and C:N ratio on mineralization rate are
captured in the calculation of
\begin{equation} F^N_\text{min} = \sum_j \left( \frac{R_{H\text{j}}}{CN_{\text{j}}} \right) \label{eq:n_min} \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small j \in {\text{soil, litter}} \end{equation*}
The simplest way to represent
The simplest way to represent
Because we expect
A new parameter
\begin{equation} F^N_\text{vol} = K_\text{vol} \cdot N_\text{min} \cdot D_{\text{temp}} \cdot D_{\text{water},N_\text{vol}} \label{eq:n_vol} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} F^N_\text{leach} = N_\text{min} \cdot F^W_{drainage} \cdot f_{N leach} \label{eq:n_leach} \end{equation}
Where
Plant N demand is the amount of N required to support plant growth. This is calculated as the sum of carbon creation fluxes divided by their respective C:N ratios:
\begin{equation} F^N_{\text{demand,}leafOn} = \frac{F^C_{\text{creation,}leafOn}}{CN_{\text{leaf}}} - \frac{F^C_{\text{creation,}leafOn}}{CN_{\text{wood}}} \label{eq:leaf_on_n_demand} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} F^N_{\text{demand,}creation} = \sum_{i} \frac{F^C_{\text{creation,}i}}{CN_{\text{i}}} \label{eq:creation_n_demand} \end{equation}
\begin{equation*} \small i \in {\text{wood, leaf, fine root, coarse root}} \end{equation*}
\begin{equation} F^N_{\text{demand,}total} = F^N_{\text{demand,}leafOn} + F^N_{\text{demand,}creation} \label{eq:plant_n_demand} \end{equation}
Each term in the sum is calculated according to \eqref{eq:plant_n}. Total plant N demand
TODO: possibly include more context about leaf on events
For N-fixing plants, symbiotic nitrogen fixation is represented as supplying a fraction of plant nitrogen demand, and is inhibited by high soil mineral N. Plant N demand is defined in \eqref{eq:plant_n_demand}.
The fraction of plant N demand met by biological N fixation is defined as:
\begin{equation} f_\text{fix} = f_{\text{fix,max}} \cdot D_{N_\text{min}} \label{eq:f_fix} \end{equation}
where:
-
$f_{\text{fix,max}}$ is the maximum fraction of plant N demand that can be met by fixation under low soil N ( dimensionless,$0 \le f_{\text{fix,max}} \le 1$ ), and -
$D_{N_\text{min}}$ represents inhibition of N fixation by soil mineral N ( dimensionless,$0 \le D_{N_\text{min}} \le 1$ ).
We use a simple down-regulation function with increasing soil mineral N:
\begin{equation} D_{N_\text{min}} = \frac{{K_N}}{{K_N} + N_\text{min}} \label{eq:n_fix_supp_demand} \end{equation}
where
Nitrogen fixation and soil N uptake are then partitioned from total plant N demand
\begin{equation} F^N_\text{fix} = f_\text{fix} \cdot F^N_\text{demand} \label{eq:n_fix_demand} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} F^N_\text{uptake} = (1 - f_\text{fix}) \cdot F^N_\text{demand} \label{eq:n_uptake_demand} \end{equation}
Fixed N (
We do not consider free-living nonsymbiotic N fixation, which is approximately two orders of magnitude smaller (less than 2 kg N ha$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$, Cleveland et al. 1999) than crop N demand and typical N fertilization rates.
Nitrogen limitation occurs when plant nitrogen demand exceeds the supply of available mineral nitrogen. Plant nitrogen demand is diagnosed from potential biomass growth derived from five-day averaged NPP.
If this demand is greater than available mineral nitrogen, nitrogen limitation reduces plant growth.
Nitrogen limitation is applied during the flux calculation stage of the model update sequence, prior to carbon allocation to plant biomass pools and before any pool updates occur. N limitation is implemented as follows:
-
Calculate the amount by which plant N demand exceeds available supply 1.
-
Calculate the fraction by which biomass growth must be reduced so that N demand equals supply.
-
Reduce biomass growth accordingly by scaling carbon allocation to plant biomass pools.
-
Calculate nitrogen uptake as the amount of N required to support the realized plant growth, based on fixed
-
stoichiometry.
-
Carbon associated with the unmet growth demand is subtracted from potential GPP to maintain mass balance \eqref{eq: Braswell_A17} 2.
\begin{equation} \frac{dW_{\text{soil}}}{dt} = (1 - f_{\text{intercept}}),F^W_{\text{precip}}
- F^W_{\text{irrig,soil}}
- F^W_{\text{drainage}}
- F^W_{\text{trans}} \label{eq:Braswell_A4} \end{equation}
This is equation (A4) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
The term
Under well-drained conditions, drainage occurs when soil water content
\begin{equation} F^W_{\text{drainage}} = f_\text{drain} \cdot \max(W_{\text{soil}} - W_{\text{WHC}}, 0) \label{eq:drainage} \end{equation}
This is adapted from the original SIPNET formulation (Braswell et al 2005), adding a new parameter that controls the drainage rate.
We define
\begin{equation} F^W_{\text{precip,soil}} = (1 - f_{\text{intercept}}),F^W_{\text{precip}} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} ET = E + T \end{equation}
Evapotranspiration (
There are two components of evaporation: (1) immediate evaporation from intercepted precipitation or canopy irrigation and (2) soil surface evaporation.
Interception (Immediate Evaporation)
\begin{equation} F^W_{\text{intercept,evap}} = f_{\text{intercept}},(F^W_{\text{precip}} + F^W_{\text{irrig,canopy}}) \end{equation}
If LEAF_WATER is enabled (CLI: --leaf-water), SIPNET limits immediate evaporation from canopy interception
using an LAI-scaled cap on the interception-evaporation flux. In calcPrecip(), potential interception evaporation is:
\begin{equation} E_{\text{int,pot}} = f_{\text{intercept}} \cdot F^W_{\text{precip}} \end{equation}
and is capped by an LAI-scaled maximum interception-evaporation flux:
\begin{equation} E_{\text{int,max}} = LAI \cdot WHC_{\text{leaf}} \end{equation}
so that:
\begin{equation} E_{\text{int}} = \min(E_{\text{int,pot}}, E_{\text{int,max}}) \end{equation}
Any rainfall not evaporated immediately becomes throughfall to the soil.
Soil Evaporation
Soil evaporation is computed as:
\begin{equation} F^W_{\text{soil,evap}} = \frac{\rho C_p}{\gamma}\frac{1}{\lambda} \frac{\text{VPD}\text{soil}}{r_d + r{\text{soil}}} \end{equation}
where:
\begin{equation*} r_d = \frac{\text{rdConst}}{u}, \qquad r_{\text{soil}} = \exp!\left(r_{\text{soil},1} - r_{\text{soil},2}\frac{W_{\text{soil}}}{W_{\text{WHC}}}\right) \end{equation*}
Negative (condensation) values are clipped to zero. If snow > 0 then
Total evaporation is calculated as the sum of intercepted water, soil evaporation, and sublimation:
\begin{equation} E = F^W_{\text{intercept,evap}} + F^W_{\text{soil,evap}} + F^W_{\text{sublim}} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \text{WUE} = \frac{K_{\text{WUE}}}{\text{VPD}} \label{eq:Braswell_A13} \end{equation}
This is equation (A13) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
Water Use Efficiency (WUE) is defined as the ratio of a constant
\begin{equation} F^W_{\text{trans,pot}} = \frac{\text{GPP}_{\text{pot}}}{\text{WUE}} \label{eq:Braswell_A14} \end{equation}
This is equation (A14) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
Potential transpiration
\begin{equation} F^W_\text{trans} = \min(F^W_\text{trans, pot}, f \cdot W_\text{soil}) \label{eq:Braswell_A15} \end{equation}
This is equation (A15) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
Actual transpiration
Metabolic processes including photosynthesis, autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration, decomposition, nitrogen volatilization, and methanogenesis are modified directly by temperature, soil moisture, and / or vapor pressure deficit.
Below is a description of these functions.
Photosynthesis has a temperature optimum in the range of observed air temperatures as well as maximum and minimum
temperatures of photosynthesis
\begin{equation} D_\text{temp,A}=\max\left(\frac{(T_\text{max} - T_\text{air})(T_\text{air} - T_\text{min})}{\left(\frac{T_\text{max} - T_\text{min}}{2}\right)^2}, 0\right) \label{eq:Braswell_A9} \end{equation}
This is equation (A9) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
Where
Because the function is symmetric around
The temperature response of autotrophic
\begin{equation} D_{\text{temp,Q10}} = Q_{10}^{\frac{(T-T_\text{opt})}{10}} \label{eq:Braswell_A18b} \end{equation}
This is from equation (A18) from Braswell, et al. (2005)
The exponential function is a simplification of the Arrhenius function in which
We assume
This function provides two ways to reduce the number of parameters in the model. Braswell et al (2005) used two
Moisture dependence functions are typically based on soil water content as a fraction of water holding capacity, also
referred to as soil moisture or fractional soil wetness. We will represent this fraction of soil wetness
as
\begin{equation} f_{\text{WHC}} = \frac{W_{\text{soil}}}{W_{\text{WHC}}} \end{equation}
Where
-
$W_{\text{soil}}$ : Soil water content -
$W_{\text{WHC}}$ : Soil water holding capacity
For moisture dependency functions (heterotrophic respiration, volatilization, and methanogenesis), SIPNET uses
\begin{equation} D_{\text{water,}A} = \frac{F^W_{\text{trans}}}{F^W_{\text{trans, pot}}} \label{eq:Braswell_A16} \end{equation}
This is equation (A16) from Braswell, et al. (2005).
The water stress factor
Aerobic water availability (dry limitation)
\begin{equation} D_\text{aer}(f_{\text{WHC}}) = \frac{f_{\text{WHC}}}{f_a}, \text{clipped to } [0, 1] \end{equation}
Anaerobic index (oxygen limitation proxy)
\begin{equation} A(f_{\text{WHC}}) = \frac{f_{\text{WHC}} − f_a}{1 - f_a}, \text{clipped to } [0, 1] \end{equation}
where
These two diagnostics partition moisture effects into water limitation at low moisture and oxygen limitation at high moisture.
The default heterotrophic respiration moisture dependence is a power-law of relative soil water content when soils are
above freezing. With the default exponent
\begin{equation} D_{\text{water},R_H} = \begin{cases} 1, & \text{if } T_{\text{soil}} \lt 0 \ (f_{\text{WHC}})^b, & \text{if } T_{\text{soil}} \ge 0 \end{cases} \label{eq:water_rh} \end{equation}
where
If the command-line option ANAEROBIC is on, the dependency is represented as a partition
between aerobic and anaerobic pathways:
\begin{equation} D_{\text{water},R_H} = (1 - A) D_\text{aer} + \eta A \label{eq:water_rh_2} \end{equation}
where
The volatilized nitrogen flux (treated as N2O-dominated in the absence of explicit speciation) is assumed to peak at intermediate redox conditions, where aerobic and anaerobic processes overlap:
\begin{equation} D_{\text{water},N_{vol}} = 0.05 + 3.8 A (1-A) \label{eq:water_nvol} \end{equation}
where 0.05 represents baseline aerobic volatilization and the factor 3.8 scales the quadratic term so that the maximum value is 1, and
\begin{equation} D_{\text{water},\text{CH}_4} = A^p \label{eq:water_ch4} \end{equation}
where
This represents a collapsed redox ladder (i.e.,
All management events are specified in the events.in. Each event is a separate record that includes the
date of the event, the type of event, and associated parameters.
Additions of Mineral N, Organic N, and Organic C are added directly to their respective pools via the
fluxes events.in configuration file.
Event parameters specified in the events.in file:
- Organic N added
$(F^N_{\text{fert,org}})$ - Organic C added
$(F^C_{\text{fert,org}})$ - Mineral N added
$(F^N_{\text{fert,min}})$
Mineral N includes fertilizer supplied as NO3, NH4, and Urea-N. Urea-N is assumed to hydrolyze to ammonium and bicarbonate rapidly and is treated as a mineral N pool. This is a common model assumption because of the fast conversion of Urea to ammonium, and is consistent with the DayCent formulation (Parton et al, 2001). Only relatively recently did DayCent explicitly model Urea-N to NH4 in order to represent the impact of urease inhibitors (Gurung et al 2021) that slow down the rate.
To represent the effect of tillage on decomposition rate, we define the tillage dependency function
\begin{equation} D_{\textrm{till}}(t) = 1 + f_{\textrm{till}}\cdot e^{-t/30} \label{eq:till} \end{equation}
events.in file, and
A value of
If multiple tillage events at times
\begin{equation} D_{\textrm{till}}(t) = 1 + \sum_{z} f_{\textrm{till,}z}, e^{-(t-t_{z})/30},\quad t\ge t_{z} \end{equation}
A planting event is defined by its emergence date and directly specifies the amount of carbon added to each of four plant carbon pools: leaf, wood, fine root, and coarse root. On the emergence date, the model initializes the plant pools with the amounts of carbon specified in the events file.
Following carbon addition, nitrogen for each pool is computed using the corresponding C:N stoichiometric ratios \eqref{eq:cn_stoich}.
A harvest event is specified by its date, the event type "harv", and the fractions of above and belowground carbon that is either removed from the system or transferred to litter or soil.
Because a harvest event only specifies the fraction of above and belowground carbon that is removed or transferred, assume that the above terms apply to leaf + wood, and below terms apply to fine root + coarse root.
The removed fraction is calculated as follows:
\begin{equation} F^C_{\text{harvest,removed}} = f_{\text{remove,above}} \cdot C_{\text{above}} + f_{\text{remove,below}} \cdot C_ {\text{root}} \label{eq:harvest_removed} \end{equation}
The fraction transferred to litter is calculated as follows:
\begin{equation} F^C_{\text{harvest,litter}} = f_{\text{transfer,above}} \cdot C_{\text{above}} \label{eq:harvest_litter} \end{equation}
This amount is then added to the litter flux in \eqref{eq:litter_flux}.
Finally, the fraction transferred to soil is calculated as follows:
\begin{equation} F^C_{\text{harvest,soil}} = f_{\text{transfer,below}} \cdot C_{\text{below}} \label{eq:harvest_soil} \end{equation}
Belowground harvest transfers are routed directly to the soil carbon pool and are therefore included in
the total soil carbon input flux
Event parameters:
- Irrigation rate
$(F^W_{\text{irrigation}})$ , cm/day - Irrigation type indicator
$(I_{\text{irrigation}}\in {0,1})$ :- Canopy irrigation (0): Water applied to the canopy.
- Soil irrigation (1): Water directly added to the soil.
The irrigation that reaches the soil water pool is:
\begin{equation} F^W_{\text{irrig,soil}} = \begin{cases} (1 - f_{\text{intercept}}) , F^W_{\text{irrig}}, & I_{\text{irrigation}} = 0 \ F^W_{\text{irrig}}, & I_{\text{irrigation}} = 1 \end{cases} \label{eq:irrig_soil} \end{equation}
Irrigation that is immediately evaporated:
\begin{equation} F^W_{\text{irrig,evap}} = \begin{cases} f_{\text{intercept}} , F^W_{\text{irrig}}, & I_{\text{irrigation}} = 0 \ 0, & I_{\text{irrigation}} = 1 \end{cases} \label{eq:irrig_evap} \end{equation}
Braswell, Bobby H., William J. Sacks, Ernst Linder, and David S. Schimel. 2005. Estimating Diurnal to Annual Ecosystem Parameters by Synthesis of a Carbon Flux Model with Eddy Covariance Net Ecosystem Exchange Observations. Global Change Biology 11 (2): 335–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00897.x.
Gutschick, V.P., 1981. Evolved strategies in nitrogen acquisition by plants. Am. Nat. 118, 607–637. https://doi.org/10.1086/283858
Libohova, Z., Seybold, C., Wysocki, D., Wills, S., Schoeneberger, P., Williams, C., Lindbo, D., Stott, D. and Owens, P.R., 2018. Reevaluating the effects of soil organic matter and other properties on available water-holding capacity using the National Cooperative Soil Survey Characterization Database. Journal of soil and water conservation, 73(4), pp.411-421.
Manzoni, Stefano, and Amilcare Porporato. 2009. Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Mineralization: Theory and Models across Scales. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41 (7): 1355–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.02.031.
Oleson, K.W., Lawrence, D.M., Bonan, G.B., Flanner, M.G., Kluzek, E., Lawrence, P.J., Levis, S., Swenson, S.C., Thornton, P.E., Dai, A. and Decker, M., 2010. Technical description of version 4.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM). National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA.
Parton, W. J., E. A. Holland, S. J. Del Grosso, M. D. Hartman, R. E. Martin, A. R. Mosier, D. S. Ojima, and D. S. Schimel. 2001. Generalized Model for NOx and N2O Emissions from Soils. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 106 (D15): 17403–19. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900101.
Rastetter, E.B., Vitousek, P.M., Field, C., Shaver, G.R., Herbert, D., Gren, G.I., 2001. Resource optimization and symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Ecosystems 4, 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0018-z
Wang H, Yan Z, Ju X, Song X, Zhang J, Li S and Zhu-Barker X (2023) Quantifying nitrous oxide production rates from nitrification and denitrification under various moisture conditions in agricultural soils: Laboratory study and literature synthesis. Front. Microbiol. 13:1110151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1110151
Zobitz, J. M., D. J. P. Moore, W. J. Sacks, R. K. Monson, D. R. Bowling, and D. S. Schimel. 2008. “Integration of Process-Based Soil Respiration Models with Whole-Ecosystem CO2 Measurements.” Ecosystems 11 (2): 250–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9120-1.
Footnotes
-
Nitrogen limitation is evaluated after accounting for biological nitrogen fixation and before mineral nitrogen uptake or nitrogen fertilization. Any nitrogen fertilizer inputs alleviate N limitation in subsequent time steps. ↩
-
Under nitrogen limitation, excess carbon is prevented from entering the system by down-regulating GPP. This is consistent with SIPNET's use of GPP as an effective ecosystem scale input rather than instantaneous leaf-level assimilation. ↩