Check for consistency in PFT and CFT parameters?

[wwieder]

As we explore the CLM6 parameter space should maintain consistency in some PFT and CFT parameters? For example it looks like in CLM5 CFTs inherited some of the FUN parameter for C4 grasses (I'm assuming this would make corn very N limited). If we're relaxing this assumption in the native C4 pfts, should we be consistent with C4 crops? it seems like it, but there may be many other cases where this would neeed to be investigated. @samsrabin @linniahawkins

[samsrabin]

Good point, and I'm glad you raised it before I started reparameterizing the crops! Do we need to sit down to go through all the parameters for which this might be the case?

[samsrabin]

@linniahawkins Now would be a convenient time for me to do this, in terms of my work. Would it make sense for your work too, do you think?

[linniahawkins]

Thanks for raising this @samsrabin. We have made changes to C4 grasses recently so it would be good to test those. I believe the C3 grasses are still set to a 5.1 era 'default' so I'm not sure if that still matches the C3 managed crop parameterization or not.

Here is the most up to date parameter file we are using in CLM6 (Issue 91):
/glade/u/home/linnia/ctsm6_ppe/gen_ensembles/jobscripts/test/gen_paramfiles/ctsm5.3.012.Nfix_params.v13.c250221.nc

It's probably a good time to test how these C3/C4 grass parameter settings look for crops. Thanks!