the PFT conversion problems

[niuhanlin]

In CLM, the PFT of cool grass was 13, and when converted to FATES, it was 11.
But it was identified as 10 in the simulation results. I wonder if this is correct?

[rosiealice]

Is the mismatch between 10 and 11 something to do with python zero indexing issues?

The conversion from CLM to fates parameters I expected, as they do not map 1:1, and instead are converted via the hlm_to_fates pft index. I'll try and find the exact name for it.

[rosiealice]

It's fates_hlm_pft_map

This is an array, so the area of one HLM pft can be mapped onto >1 fates PFTs, or vice versa.

[niuhanlin]

@rosiealice
Yes, I used fates_hlm_pft_map to determine the conversion of PFT from CLM to FATES.
The local grass is cool grass, which I set to 100% in the surface file. It all makes sense until I run it.

But in use_nl_clm I set the output variable: FATES_GPP_PF to try to discern the output pft result.
My expected PFT should be cool grass(C3), whose PFT in FATES is 11.
But the result is Arctic grass (PFT 10), as mentioned above in the picture below.