Possible typo in surface flux documentation?

[seleneonowe]

In equation 5.134 of the CLM 5.0 docs, which gives the updated transpiration flux, defined here, on line 1179 of CLM50_Tech_Note_Fluxes.rst, the last term is the sensible heat conductance for vegetation divided by the sum of the latent heat conductances for air, vegetation and the ground.

The issue is: I was expecting all of the conductances in this term to be for latent heat, such that this term would be a normalised latent heat conductance for vegetation. That is to say, is the c_{v}^{h} written in the docs correct, or should it be replaced with c_{v}^{w} ?

It may well be correct, modelling plants is not at all my field! I just thought this equation looked odd whilst reading the docs to try to understand this component of the CLM, and reckoned it was worth opening an issue to check whether it's okay.

I had quick look in the code to see if I could find out by just checking what is actually done in the model, but not being at all familiar with the code I didn't find it. I presume it is in CanopyFluxesMod.F90 somewhere.

[olyson]

I think this is correct as written. I admit it looks a bit odd.

which is wtlq in the code

which is wtl in the code

So these are related by

which is rpp in the code.
So, wtl = wtlq/rpp

The code that corresponds to Equation 5.134 is:

qflx_tran_veg(p) = efpot*rppdry

where

            efpot = forc_rho(c)*wtl*(wtgaq*(qsatl(p)+qsatldT(p)*dt_veg(p)) &
                 -wtgq0*qg(c)-wtaq0(p)*forc_q(c))

Note that efpot uses wtl here, so this is consistent with Equation 5.134.
efpot could also be written as

        efpot = forc_rho(c)*(wtlq/rpp)*(wtgaq*(qsatl(p)+qsatldT(p)*dt_veg(p)) &
             -wtgq0*qg(c)-wtaq0(p)*forc_q(c))