Description and validation of the Simple, Efficient, Dynamic, Global, Ecological Simulator (SEDGES v.1.0)

Abstract. In this paper, we present a
simple dynamic global vegetation model whose primary intended use is
auxiliary to the land–atmosphere coupling scheme of a climate model,
particularly one of intermediate complexity. The model simulates and provides
important ecological-only variables but also some hydrological and surface
energy variables that are typically either simulated by land surface schemes
or else used as boundary data input for these schemes. The model formulations
and their derivations are presented here, in detail. The model includes some
realistic and useful features for its level of complexity, including a
photosynthetic dependency on light, full coupling of photosynthesis and
transpiration through an interactive canopy resistance, and a soil organic
carbon dependence for bare-soil albedo. We evaluate the model's performance
by running it as part of a simple land surface scheme that is driven by
reanalysis data. The evaluation against observational data includes net
primary productivity, leaf area index, surface albedo, and diagnosed
variables relevant for the closure of the hydrological cycle. In this setup,
we find that the model gives an adequate to good simulation of basic
large-scale ecological and hydrological variables. Of the variables analyzed
in this paper, gross primary productivity is particularly well simulated. The
results also reveal the current limitations of the model. The most
significant deficiency is the excessive simulation of evapotranspiration in
mid- to high northern latitudes during their winter to spring transition. The
model has a relative advantage in situations that require some combination of
computational efficiency, model transparency and tractability, and the
simulation of the large-scale vegetation and land surface characteristics
under non-present-day conditions.


Introduction
Simulation of the land surface is a critical component of models of the Earth climate system. In such models, heat, energy, 15 and moisture transfer between the land and atmosphere or ocean are calculated with information from the hydrological and vegetation components of these models. SEDGES simulates the gross properties of vegetation and large scale land surface characteristics, in a way as to be used by a land surface scheme in a climate or Earth system model. Models of similar complexity as SEDGES exist that simulate the vegetative if not also the hydrological and energy-transferring aspects of the land surface: VECODE (Brovkin et al., 1997(Brovkin et al., , 2002 and ENTS (Williamson et al., 2006). The purpose of these kinds of models 20 is to efficiently and reasonably simulate dynamic land surface characteristics and provide these to the atmospheric components of Earth system models of intermediate complexity. In such a framework, the need for sophisticated simulations of the land surface is obviated by the simplifications present in the other model components, by a desire to more easily understand the processes underlying experimental results, and by the computational burden that goes along with the increased complexity.
SEDGES is based on the original SimBA model (Kleidon, 2006b), which was coupled to the Planet Simulator (PlaSim) general circulation model (GCM) (Lunkeit et al., 2007) and even more strongly based on a later version of SimBA (Lunkeit et al., 2011), also coupled to PlaSim. Neither version of SimBA has been well-validated, although the earlier version has been used in a number of studies (e.g., Kleidon, 2006a, b;Dekker et al., 2010;Bowring et al., 2014). The SimBA model is based on a light and water-use-efficiency model for crops (Monteith et al., 1989) that was later adapted and expanded to forest 5 canopies (Dewar, 1997). SEDGES builds upon SimBA by improving most of its parameterizations, incorporating the effect of aerodynamic conductance on CO 2 uptake, and including plant regulation of canopy conductance under changing light and moisture conditions. This paper presents the SEDGES model's structure, equations, and ability to simulate ecological and hydrological variables.
The intended main use of SEDGES is to provide atmospheric general circulation models within Earth System models of 10 intermediate complexity a set of land surface variables that vary in line with large scale vegetative and soil properties. That said, SEDGES has been designed, in particular, for coupling with the Planet Simulator, and thus presupposes that the land surface scheme in which it is embedded be similar to that of PlaSim in its hydrology and scheme for surface evaporation.
SEDGES can also be forced offline with external data. The offline mode was used in combination with reanalysis climate data for the SEDGES model evaluation. The main purpose of this simple dynamic global vegetation model is to predict large-scale land surface properties, vegetative productivity, and biomass. This section presents, in detail, the SEDGES model formulations for its output ecological and land surface variables, including their derivations. 20 SEDGES is designed to couple with the Planet Simulator GCM, which uses a bulk aerodynamic formulation with a single tile (i.e. one surface type per grid cell). SEDGES handles sub-grid scale heterogeneity according to what is called the "average parameter" method (Giorgi and Avissar, 1997) or the "composite" approach (Li and Arora, 2012;Melton and Arora, 2014), in which land surface characteristics are aggregated to provide a single, representative value at the scale of the entire grid cell.

Overview of SEDGES
The framework for evapotranspiration (ET) is special, because it also qualifies as a simplified mosaic (or "mixed" (Li and 25 Arora, 2012)) approach, such that only surface conductance differs between the surface types (or tiles). This mosaic approach is also used to extend a "big leaf" formulation for vegetative CO 2 uptake (Appendix B of Raupach, 1998) to a mixed soilvegetation surface, enabling us to isolate the fraction of total ET that is due to transpiration and thus formulate vegetative control over water loss and CO 2 uptake. The SEDGES framework neglects evaporation from intercepted canopy water and thus only distinguishes between two tiles when snow is absent: bare soil and vegetation. When there is snow cover, there are 30 essentially three tiles: snow-free exposed bare soil, snow-covered surface, and snow-free exposed vegetation (see section 2.3.3 for more detail). Overall, SEDGES's handling of sub-grid scale heterogeneity is similar to that of the SLAM-1T configuration of the CHASM model (Desborough, 1999) and of the original MOSES land surface scheme (Cox et al., 1999).
The core driving variable in SEDGES is gross primary productivity (GP P ), which impacts the living biomass, which, in turn, heavily influences or determines the values of almost every other simulated land surface variable (listed in section 3).
Forest cover and leaf cover fractions and (implicitly) rooting depth are parameterized to increase with biomass using respective 5 relationships that are fixed. SEDGES (as well as SimBA) uses a simple single layer bucket for the soil hydrology and has essentially one plant functional type. Soil carbon is treated as a single homogeneous reservoir. Surface albedo depends on soil carbon content, snow depth, biomass, and leaf cover fraction. Surface roughness increase monotonically with biomass. Gross primary productivity and canopy resistance 1 are coupled through the vegetation's effort to conjointly minimize water loss and satisfy photosynthetic demand for CO 2 , as per the original Dewar (1997) model (see section 2.2.6). Table 2 Table 1 lists all parameters that are used in the paper, their values, and their units.

Vegetation Biomass
The most important SEDGES variable is biomass of live vegetation. This quantity is used to directly or indirectly derive almost 15 all the land surface variables. The prognostic equation for biomass is as follows: where C veg is the carbon in living biomass kgC m −2 , L is the litterfall and equals Cveg τveg , τ veg is the residence time of the vegetative carbon (see section 2.2.7) and equals 10 years, and N P P (net primary productivity) is approximated as 0.5GP P , where GP P is gross primary productivity. 20

Net Primary Productivity and Gross Primary Productivity
SEDGES uses a constant N P P/GP P = 0.5 approximation. This approximation is supported by the conservative nature of the ratio of mitochondrial respiration to gross photosynthesis and (hence) of the ratio of net photosynthesis to gross photosynthesis over a wide variety of conditions, on time scales of weeks or more (see the brief review in Van Oijen et al. (2010)). Since each model time step in SEDGES is much shorter than this, it thus might seem incorrect to hold N P P/GP P fixed for each time 25 step. It is appropriate to do so, however, because the NPP to GPP ratio in SEDGES only impacts biomass changes, and the latter occur on very long time scales. Finally, meta-analyses on previous studies have found a robust (DeLucia et al., 2007;Litton et al., 2007) linear or proportional relationship between NPP and GPP, with slope or proportionality constant of around 1 Canopy resistance and conductance are aggregated or "bulk" versions of, respectively, stomatal resistance and conductance, such that the entire canopy can be treated like a big leaf (e.g., see Jarvis and McNaughton, 1986;Raupach and Finnigan, 1988) (Sellers et al., 1996) 0.5 (Gifford, 2003;DeLucia et al., 2007;Litton et al., 2007), albeit with considerable variation in N P P/GP P across field sites (Amthor and Baldocchi, 2001;DeLucia et al., 2007;Litton et al., 2007).
GP P is calculated as the minimum of a light-limited rate, GP P L , and a water-limited rate, GP P W (Monteith et al., 1989;Dewar, 1997). That is, GP P = min(GP P L , GP P W .)

Light-limited Gross Primary Productivity
GP P L uses a light-use efficiency (LUE) formulation (e.g. see Yuan et al. (2007)). The equation is as follows: where max is a globally-constant maximum LUE parameter = 5.0 × 10 −10 kgC J −1 ; 5 f 1 (CO 2 ) is a CO 2 fertilization function (described below); f 2 (T sf c ) is a temperature limitation function (described below); f AP AR is the fraction of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) that is absorbed by green vegetation (see below); and SW ↓ is the downward flux of shortwave radiation just above the canopy surface (in W m −2 ).
In Eq.
(2), the first term on the right hand side, max , is the LUE with respect to the total short wave broadband radiation that 10 is absorbed by the photosynthetic parts of the vegetation. This constant term is the maximum efficiency with which incident short wave radiation can be used to synthesize vegetative carbon at the reference (360ppmv) CO 2 level (also see explanation of f AP AR , below).
The second term in Eq.
(2), f 1 (CO 2 ), increases productivity with increasing CO 2 and is taken directly from Eq. 5 of Franks et al. (2013). For CO 2 > CO 2comp , we have where c a is the atmospheric CO 2 concentration (ppmv), CO 2comp = 40ppmv is the light compensation point in the absence of dark respiration, and Otherwise, f 1 (CO 2 ) = 0. This fertilization function replaces an earlier "beta" factor approach used in SimBA (Lunkeit et al., 2011).
The third term in Eq.
(2) is f 2 (T sf c ). f 2 (T sf c ) is a ramp function, reducing productivity linearly from a surface temperature of T crit ≡ 20 • C to 0 • C, with f 2 (T sf c ) = 0 for below-0 • C temperatures. The 20 • C value is the critical temperature below which productivity drops. See appendix A for more discussion.
The fourth term in Eq.
(2) is f AP AR . "f AP AR " refers to the fraction of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) that is absorbed by photosynthesizing parts (i.e. green leaves) of plants. PAR is the portion (≈ 50 %) of incoming solar radiation that 5 is in wavelengths usable for photosynthesis. We approximate f AP AR as follows: where k veg is a light extinction coefficient (set to 1 for horizontal leaves), Ω c is the clumping index (or factor) and is set to 0.7, a near-mean value for natural land cover types (Pisek et al., 2010;He The simplifications made in the last paragraph allow us to interchange f AP AR and the vegetative (or leaf) cover fraction, f veg . Thus, we can rewrite Eq. (4) as follows: where f veg is the areal fraction of view that is covered by photosynthesizing plant parts when looking directly down on the 25 land surface. That is, f veg = 1-the gap fraction from the nadir.
2 While spherical leaf angle distribution is commonly assumed for unmeasured canopies, measurements of 58 temperate and boreal broadleaf tree species showed planophile (tending toward horizontal) leaf angle distributions in 30 and spherical distributions in just 5 (Pisek et al., 2013). Moreover, a modeling study (Hikosaka and Hirose, 1997) used game theoretical arguments to show how a horizontal leaf angle distribution is to be evolutionarily expected, in general (save for canopies with high LAI and high self-shading). Thus, globally applying a horizontal canopy leaf distribution is not unreasonable.

Water-limited Gross Primary Productivity
Most land plants take up the CO 2 they need for photosynthesis through tiny pores in their leaves called "stomata". Water is also lost (transpired) through these same openings. Water loss in excess of water uptake can lead to cavitation, hydraulic system collapse (e.g., see discussion in Sperry et al., 2002), and/or permanent reduction in photosynthetic capacity (Lawlor and Cornic, 2002). To prevent and mitigate such occurrences in both the present and future, most land plants adjust their 5 stomatal openings in such a way as to balance the short and long term costs of transpiration with the photosynthetic gain from increased CO 2 intake (Cowan and Farquhar, 1977;Medlyn et al., 2011;Buckley and Schymanski, 2014;Prentice et al., 2014).
Thus, water limitation in most land plants is closely tied to CO 2 limitation on photosynthesis. For this reason, we refer to this CO 2 -limited rate in SEDGES as the "water-limited rate of GPP". This rate is given as follows: 10 where r c is the canopy resistance (see section 2.2.6); r a is the aerodynamic resistance; is the surface air density, where p sf c is the surface pressure and R d is the gas constant for dry air; co2conv = 4.15 × 10 −7 kgC kgair −1 ppmv −1 ; 15 c i represents a "bulk leaf" intercellular concentration of CO 2 (ppmv); and ci ca is set to 0.80. 3 Equation (6) is essentially the bulk aerodynamic formula for CO 2 in appendix B of Raupach (1998), except that we have multiplied their right hand side by f veg to generalize from their big leaf approach to the simplified mosaic framework (as mentioned in section 2.1), and we have multiplied by the ratio of the molar masses of carbon and CO 2 to convert the flux into 20 carbon units. In addition, we neglect the contribution of leaf mitochondrial respiration for simplicity. (It can be shown that including daytime leaf mitochondrial respiration in the formulation of GP P W multiplies its current form by a factor of 1 1−X , where X is the ratio of leaf mitochondrial respiration under light to gross photosynthesis.) The above bulk aerodynamic formulation for GP P W in SEDGES is more realistic than the diffusive scheme used in earlier versions of SimBA and in the Dewar (1997) model. The latter scheme works well at the canopy level only if r c >> r a . This 25 condition is likely to be satisfied for aerodynamically rough canopies and when using daily-averaged environmental conditions, such as in Dewar (1997). However, early diagnostic tests of SEDGES coupled with PlaSim showed that the condition was often not satisfied, thus motivating our implementation of the bulk aerodynamic formulation for CO 2 uptake. Implementing the new formulation led to higher daytime values of r c for moist areas. These values were more in line with reported maximum surface conductances for various vegetation types (Kelliher et al., 1995).

Evapotranspiration and Transpiration
While SEDGES does not directly calculate evapotranspiration (ET), it provides a surface wetness factor to be used by the bulk aerodynamic formulation of the land surface scheme of the coupled atmospheric model, which calculates ET externally.
SEDGES presupposes that the saturation specific humidity of the air at the surface is homogeneous throughout the grid cell: 4 5 where ET is the evapotranspiration in units of volumetric liquid water m 3 m −2 s−1, ρ w is the density of liquid water, ∆q ≡ qsat sf c − q, qsat sf c is the temperature-(T sf c ) and pressure-(p sf c ) dependent saturation specific humidity of the air at the surface, q is the specific humidity of the air at the lowest atmospheric model level, and 10 C w is a surface "wetness" factor that reduces evapotranspiration from the potential rate by incorporating the effects of canopy resistance and soil resistance. C w ranges from 0 to 1, where "1" gives the potential ET rate.
Although the above framework for ET is required in order for SEDGES to operate as designed, there is no stipulation that the coupled land surface model calculate qsat sf c or r a in any preset way. That said, it is desirable for the calculation of r a to depend, in some way, on the surface roughness length that is output by SEDGES 2.3.3.

15
Under snow-free conditions, SEDGES derives the key ET variable, the surface wetness factor, as follows: where g a is the aerodynamic conductance (= 1 ra ) 5 , and r ss is the soil surface resistance, whose formulation is taken from the JULES model (Best et al., 2011), except for the use of the 20 lower minimum soil resistance from van de Griend and Owe (1994). This reduction was made to compensate for the absence of evaporation from ponded surface water in SEDGES. Soil surface resistance is formulated as follows: r ss = min r ss max, r ss min β ss , where 4 In this paper, we define evapotranspiration (ET) and transpiration (T) as positive when there is a net water vapor flux from surface to atmosphere. In the actual SEDGES code, ET and T are defined as negative when the flux is from surface to atmosphere. In our exposition, we have reversed the sign convention to aid interpretation of the model equations. 5 An important requirement for the aerodynamic conductance formulation is that the surface roughness for moisture be the same as that for momentum.
See section 2.3.3 for more discussion.
r ss min is the minimum soil surface resistance of 10 s m −1 (van de Griend and Owe, 1994), r ss max is the maximum soil surface resistance (a very large number), and β ss limits evaporation from the soil surface and is considered a "water stress factor". This factor is formulated according to Best et al. (2011), except that SEDGES uses the entire soil hydrological layer instead of just the top of several layers. The water stress factor for the soil surface in SEDGES is as follows: where the soil wetness fraction, W f rac , is given as follows: where W max is the the biomass-dependent soil "bucket" depth and W soil is the water content (as depth) within the bucket.
The SimBA model used a general water stress factor that was a ramp function, reducing ET linearly from a soil wetness fraction 10 of 0.5 to 0. In SimBA, C w was equal to this water stress factor. In this way, no distinction was made between soil moisture's impact on soil evaporation and its impact on transpiration.
Examining Eq. (8), we see that C w is comprised of a vegetation term and a bare soil term (since 1 − f veg is the bare soil fraction). The vegetation term involves loss of water only due to transpiration; canopy interception and evaporation are neglected for simplicity. Under snow-free conditions, ET is partitioned into transpiration and bare soil evaporation, respectively, 15 by replacing C w in Eq. (7) with the vegetation term, fveg 1+rcga or with the bare soil term, 1−fveg 1+rssga . Doing so with the vegetation term yields the following equation for transpiration: From the above formulations, one can see that we weight the contributions to evapotranspiration from transpiration and bare soil evaporation, respectively, by the fractional coverages of vegetation and bare soil. 20 In the presence of snow cover, the surface is treated as a mosaic of different types, with each type sharing the same aerodynamic conductance, soil hydrology, and surface temperature as before (section 2.1) The parts of the grid cell that are snowcovered evaporate at the potential rate. The snow-free portion is comprised of vegetation parts that protrude above the snow pack and are snow-free, the exposed bare soil, and the exposed, low-lying leaf cover. In these snow-free portions of the grid cell, transpiration is 0, and bare soil evaporation occurs (Eqs. (7), (8), and (9)). The final equation for C w in the presence of 25 snow in the grid cell is as follows: where f f or is the forest cover fraction (Eq. 20), f snowf lat is the fraction of the flat portion of the grid cell that is covered by snow (see Eq. 24 and nearby text), and f snowf or ≡ 0.12 is the snow-covered fraction of the vegetation cover that protrudes above the snow pack (i.e. of the forest cover). 6

5
In SimBA, C w = 1 when there is snow cover. The formulation was changed in SEDGES when it was discovered that it led to excessive ET when snow was present. The original MOSES and its progenitor UKMO scheme also set their equivalent C w to 1 when there is snow cover, which also leads to excessive ET under those conditions (Essery, 1998;Cox et al., 1999).

Canopy Resistance
Canopy resistance, r c , is determined at each time step in accordance with the supply/demand principle in the original Dewar

10
(1997) paper. That is, the plants attempt to adjust r c so that CO 2 uptake exactly matches the light-limited rate of canopy photosynthesis, GP P L . (GP P L is the rate of gross carbon uptake in the absence of any CO 2 limitation.) However, r c must also be sufficiently high to prevent transpiration from exceeding the maximum rate suppliable by the roots (the "supply rate").
If the r c value that would be needed to satisfy the CO 2 demand would cause the transpiration to exceed the supply rate, then water/CO 2 limitation occurs, and r c takes on the value that would yield transpiration at the supply rate. In the derivation of the 15 equation for canopy resistance, the unconstrained adjustment of r c is the first step. The second step is the calculation of the minimum possible value of r c that satisfies the supply constraint on transpiration. If needed, the unconstrained r c is raised to this minimum value. r c is also constrained to not exceed a maximum possible value, r c max. Details on the mechanics of the formulation are given in appendix B. The original SimBA model did not explicitly consider canopy resistance.

20
The overall modeling framework for soil carbon is the same as that for the land surface component (ENTS) of the GENIE model (Williamson et al., 2006). In this simple framework, soil carbon is treated as a single homogeneous reservoir (in which litter is included) that has a single, temperature-dependent residence time. Soil respiration (see below) depends only on temperature.
The prognostic equation for soil carbon is given by 25 where C soil is the soil carbon (kgC m −2 ), L is the litterfall (Eq. 1), and R soil is the rate of soil respiration (kgC m −2 s −1 ). 6 The value of 0.12 is a crude estimate that is obtained by assuming an albedo transition for forest vegetation from snow-free vegetation albedo to deep and cold snow albedo (0.80) that is linear with f snowf or . Depending on whether one uses values of 0.30 and 0.12 for the values of snow-covered forest and snow-free vegetation, respectively, or values taken from Betts and Ball (1997), one ends up with f snowf or values ranging from ≈ 0.04 to 0.26.
Soil respiration is modeled according to the following equation: where T soil is the soil temperature at ≈0.10 m depth, τ soil is the residence time (42 years) of the soil carbon at 10 • C, The above formulation is based on that of ENTS (Williamson et al., 2006), except that we replace its temperature dependency (Lloyd and Taylor, 1994) with that from the RothC soil carbon model (Jenkinson et al., 1990), since the latter's temperature function reduces a negative soil carbon bias in the high Arctic. In addition, we use c 8 as a normalizing constant to make the 10 soil carbon residence time, C soil R soil , at 10 • C the same as in the original SimBA formulation. Moreover, for strictly numerical purposes, 256.1K is used as the cut off temperature, below which soil respiration is set to 0. In the current version of SEDGES, it is tacitly assumed, for simplicity, that all respired soil carbon is emitted directly to the atmosphere.

Leaf Area Index and Leaf Cover Fraction
Leaf area index (LAI) is typically defined as "the one-sided leaf area per unit ground area", or else, for conifers, as the projected 15 area of the needle leaves (Monson and Baldocchi, 2014, p. 246). In SEDGES (as well as in SimBA), LAI is based on a moist soil value that gets subsequently reduced for conditions of low soil moisture. We first describe the moist soil formulation.
For sufficiently moist soils, LAI is a simple function of biomass. In the version of SimBA that came out with version 15 of the Planet Simulator model (Lunkeit et al., 2007), this moist soil LAI was a linear function of forest cover fraction. For SimBA in version 16 of Planet Simulator, the LAI functional dependency on biomass (Lunkeit et al., 2011) was updated to reduce 20 the high number of multiple equilibria in the coupled climate-vegetation system that Dekker et al. (2010) found when using PlaSim version 15. This new parameterization is maintained in SEDGES, but its three parameters have updated values.
The equation for LAI in the absence of soil moisture stress is a monotonically increasing function of biomass with decreasing slope: 25 where LAI min and LAI max are the minimum and maximum LAI's (respectively) under moist soil conditions. LAI min is set to 0.05 and represents a seeding source with negligible mass. LAI max is set to 7.
While winter-deciduous phenology is not included in SEDGES, the model simulates drought-deciduous phenology using a crude parameterization from SimBA that came originally from the ECHAM3 model (Klimarechenzentrum, 1993). LAI m is converted into leaf cover fraction, f veg m by substituting it into Eq. (5). Then, we set Here, f veg dry represents the maximum leaf cover permitted by the soil wetness fraction; W f rac crit,lai is the critical soil wetness fraction at which leaf cover begins to get restricted and is set to 0.05.

Forest Cover Fraction
In SEDGES, forest cover fraction helps to determine the amount of surface that is covered by snow for the calculation of evaporation (see Eq. 13). In SimBa, forest cover affected the albedo of snow-covered land; instead, SEDGES has a dependency on biomass. As in the last version of SimBA (Lunkeit et al., 2011), forest cover is parameterized to commence at a biomass 15 of 1 kgC m −2 . Such cover would represent woody shrubs. Only at a biomass threshold of 1.5 kgC m −2 is the woody cover considered tall enough so as to protrude above the winter snow pack and lower the albedo (section 2.3.1). Forest cover fraction is formulated as follows: where c 1 is a shape parameter and c 2 is the biomass threshold for forest cover. 20 The derivation of the c 1 and c 2 parameter values involved translating NPP from outside data into SEDGES biomass. If one assumes long time scales and steady state conditions, then the translation is readily achieved by setting the left hand side of Eq.
(1) to 0, and solving for C veg in terms of NPP. Doing so results in the following relationship: N P P = Cveg τveg . Using this relationship allows modeled annual NPP from Cramer et al. (1999) and McGuire et al. (1992) to be interpreted as SEDGES biomass equivalent. Then, comparing the real world spatial distribution of boreal forest, boreal woodland, and tundra with the

Equations for Remaining Land Surface Variables
While the equations for the ecological variables were presented in section 2.2, here, we provide the formulations for the land surface variables used by the PlaSim GCM as well as some purely diagnostic variables.

Surface Albedo
A surface albedo with respect to broadband short wave radiation is obtained by incorporating the effects of snow cover on the albedo for snow-free conditions. In obtaining the snow-free albedo (α 0 ), we simplify by ignoring dependencies on solar zenith angle, diffuse-direct radiation partitioning, the spectral composition of the incident light, the effect of soil moisture on soil albedo, and any impact of leaf litter. Moreover, we neglect variations in leaf reflectivity that often occur between differing 15 plant species and leaf development stages. The formulation of snow-free albedo in SEDGES is of the same form as that for the ECHAM5 GCM (Rechid et al., 2009) and ENTS land surface scheme (Williamson et al., 2006); it is as follows: where α veg is the albedo of a completely leaf-covered surface, and α soil is the albedo of the bare soil.
Soil albedo decreases linearly with soil carbon to a minimum value that is reached at 9 kgC m −2 and stays constant with 20 further carbon increase. The equation is as follows: where c 7 = 9 kgC m −2 and is the soil carbon level at which the soil albedo saturates, α sand is the soil albedo in the complete absence of soil carbon, and 25 α peat is the albedo of soil when saturated with soil carbon. This soil albedo formulation is taken from ENTS (Williamson et al., 2006), except for the following modifications: the peat albedo has been increased from 0.11 to 0.12, the sand albedo has been increased from 0.30 to 0.32, and c 7 was decreased from 15 to 9 kgC m −2 . The first change was made for the sake of model simplicity (since the albedo of a fully-leaved surface is 0.12 in SEDGES); the increase in sand albedo was made to better match observed values in the Sahara and Arabian deserts (e.g., Knorr and Schnitzler, 2006). A saturation level for soil albedo as a function of soil column carbon content was estimated to be around 9 kgC m −2 by visually comparing the soil/litter surface albedo map from Houldcroft et al. (2009) with a global gridded dataset of soil carbon content (Wieder et al., 2011). Using this estimate for saturation value in SEDGES reduces a positive albedo bias in the high arctic in summer as compared to using the 5 standard ENTS value of 15 kgC m −2 .
The soil albedo formulation in SEDGES is an advent to SimBA, which has always used a fixed soil albedo of 0.30. The new dynamic scheme was adopted, in part, due to the important role played by ground albedo in Sahelian/Saharan vegetationprecipitation feedbacks, as seen through its effect on low frequency precipitation variability (Vamborg et al., 2014) and increased greening in the mid Holocene (Vamborg et al., 2011). The new scheme also gives more realistic snow-free albedo 10 values in the high latitudes and in the hot deserts ( Fig. 11. While the above formulation for snow-free albedo, α 0 neglects, for simplicity, the radiative impact of non-photosynthesizing plant parts (e.g. stems and branches), this impact becomes important (although implicit) in the snow-covered formulation.
A new snow albedo scheme for SEDGES replaces the version from SimBA that linearly combines the albedos from the forested and flat portions of the grid cell according to the forest cover fraction. The SimBA formulation did not simulate well 15 the sharp, real-world transition in snow-covered albedo from tundra to boreal forest (Loranty et al., 2014), which is why a new exponential decay scheme was developed.
In SEDGES, for snow depth > 0, the surface is treated as consisting of two components: 1) "flat" surface (consisting of exposed soil, prostrate vegetation, and dwarf shrubs) that can be partially or entirely buried by the snow cover; 2) "forest" that is covered by trees and shrubs of sufficient stature as to protrude above the snow pack and mask it from the sun via their leaves, 20 stems, and/or branches, regardless of accumulated snow depth on the ground. A non-linear combination of the albedo of the flat portion and the snow-covered forest albedo yields the final surface albedo (α): where c 4 is a shape parameter, and 25 c 5 is the biomass threshold (1.5 kgC m −2 ) at which the woody vegetation is sufficiently tall as to begin to mask the snow.
Albedo of the flat portion of the grid cell, α snowf lat , is formulated according to the same temperature dependency (Roeckner et al., 2003) and snow cover fraction (Roesch and Roeckner, 2006) schemes for non-forested areas in the ECHAM5 model, except that we maintain the melting snow albedo of 0.4 from PlaSim and ECHAM4 (Roesch et al., 2001), and we neglect the impact of sloping terrain. We thus have the following: where swe is the snow depth in liquid water equivalent (m 3 m −2 ), (100swe) is the fraction of the flat portion of the grid cell that is covered by snow 7 , α deepsnowf lat is the albedo of a deep and pure snow pack and is temperature dependent. This dependency has the form of a ramp function, with a maximum albedo, α maxdeepsnowf lat ≡ 0.8, for surface temperatures ≤ -5 • C and a minimum albedo, α mindeepsnowf lat ≡ 0.4, at melting point. These values are the same as in PlaSim and SimBA, except that they have maximum 5 albedo attainment at -10 • C.
The albedo of the forest component of the grid cell when there is snow cover is as follows: Here, α maxsnowf or is the maximum snow-covered albedo for forest and is set to 0.30, a mid-range white sky albedo value for the different forest types (Moody et al., 2007). Restricting α snowf or to not exceed α snowf lat is done because the lower snow 10 depth and warmer snow that reduce the albedo of the flat area also lower the albedo of the forested area to at least the level of the flat area.

Soil Bucket Depth
We first introduced the soil bucket depth, W max , in section 2.2.5 in Eq. (11). SEDGES uses a simplified version of the parameterization in the JeDi dynamic global vegetation model (Pavlick et al., 2013). The JeDi model uses a pipe representation 1 2 . This value yields soil bucket depths that are a reasonably good fit with a plant available water dataset based on optimal rooting depths (Kleidon and Heimann, 1998;Hall et al., 2006;Kleidon, 2011).
In that dataset, the soil bucket depths in the most sparsely-vegetated regions range from around 0.05m in the Canadian polar desert to < 0.003m in the hyper-arid Atacama and northeast Sahara deserts. SEDGES adopts a minimum soil bucket depth, W maxmin , of 0.05m.

Surface Roughness
SEDGES has been designed for use by land surface schemes for which the surface roughness lengths for momentum and water vapor are the same (e.g., schemes that use parameterizations from Louis, 1979;Louis et al., 1982). As such, SEDGES returns 7 Roesch and Roeckner (2006) include the 0.95 multiplier in their definition of the snow-covered fraction of the non-forested part of the grid cell, but we do not. only a single value for surface roughness length, z 0 , for a grid cell. The (total) surface roughness is comprised of a surface roughness due to orography and a surface roughness due to vegetation: where z 0oro is the orographic surface roughness, and z 0veg is the roughness due to vegetation. z 0oro is used by some GCM's (including Planet Simulator) to account for the enhancement of surface drag due to sub-grid scale topographic variation (e.g., 5 see Beljaars et al., 2004). z 0oro is set to zero by default, because small-scale orographic variation has little effect on land-toatmosphere moisture transfer (Huntingford et al., 1998;Blyth, 1999).
In the SimBA formulation, surface roughness due to vegetation is parameterized assuming that only forest cover increases it appreciably and that prostrate vegetative cover does not. As such, sparsely-vegetated surfaces are assigned too high of a surface roughness. SimBA has minimum and maximum values of z 0veg of 0.05m and 2m, respectively (Kleidon, 2006b;Lunkeit et al., 10 2007Lunkeit et al., 10 , 2011. SEDGES replaces SimBA's linear dependency of z 0veg on forest cover fraction with the following logistic curve that depends on biomass rather than forest cover fraction: where z 0const ≡ c17 1+e −c 16 (−c 15 ) is a constant (in m) that forces z 0veg to equal z 0min at zero biomass. The new formulation for z 0veg 15 is tuned by adjusting c 15 and c 16 so as to roughly match reference values in the literature for different land cover types (especially those in Hagemann, 2002). z 0min is set to a bare soil value of 0.01 m (Oke, 1987). c 17 represents the approximate maximum value of z 0veg and is assigned a value of 2.5 m, which is representative of tropical rainforests (Sellers et al., 1996).
z 0veg values that lie between these two extremes have been constrained by using the N P P -biomass relationship described in section 2.2.9 and by visually comparing reference N P P and GP P values (Cramer et al., 1999;Jung et al., 2011), biome/land 20 cover distribution maps (Ramankutty and Foley, 1999;Olson et al., 2001), and the aforementioned literature values of z 0veg for those land cover types.

How to Couple SEDGES
At minimum, the following time-varying input fields are required by SEDGES: aerodynamic conductance (g a ), surface temperature (T sf c ), surface downwelling (broadband) short wave radiation (SW ↓), soil temperature at ≈ 0.25 m (T soil ), (bulk 25 aerodynamic) potential evapotranspiration (P ET ), soil moisture content (W soil ), surface pressure (p surf ), and snow depth water equivalent (swe). Most of these variables are calculated by full-fledge land surface schemes.
The simulations of aerodynamic conductance, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture content require further input variables than those listed in the previous paragraph. This is also the case when using ERA-Interim reanalysis data to force SEDGES (section 4). In addition, the following parameter values (see table 1) are not specified within the actual SEDGES code, which means that they must be declared and assigned values either in outside modules or by modifying the current SEDGES code: maximum light use efficiency ( max ), atmospheric CO 2 concentration (c a ), the gas constant for dry air (R d ), maximum transpiration rate (trmax), and residences times for vegetative and soil carbon at 10 • C (τ veg and τ soil ). SEDGES returns the following output fields: live vegetative biomass (C veg ), soil carbon (C soil ), soil water holding capacity (W max ), surface wet-5 ness factor (C w ), transpiration (T ) (as a diagnostic), canopy resistance (r c ), surface albedo (α), total surface roughness (z 0 ), forest cover fraction (f f or ), leaf area index (LAI), leaf cover fraction (f veg ), net primary productivity (N P P ), light-limited gross primary productivity (GP P L ), and water-limited gross primary productivity (GP P W ).
In general, the land surface modeling framework that SEDGES presupposes must be reconciled with that of the land surface scheme of the model that one is coupling to. In particular, in the absence of modification to either SEDGES or the external land 10 surface scheme, the simulation of evapotranspiration according to the simplified mosaic and bulk aerodynamic formulations described in sections 2.1 and 2.2.5 is required. The requirement arises because the water and CO 2 exchanges predicted through this framework are presupposed by the canopy resistance equations. The simplest and recommended scenario with regards to reconciling soil hydrology is that the land surface scheme use a single layer bucket model, because this is what SEDGES "sees" when calculating soil surface and canopy resistances. As an example, Eq. (29), used in our forcing of SEDGES with 15 ERA-Interim data (section 4), gives the standard hydrological formulation for the simple single layer bucket model.
In the likely scenario that the land surface scheme of the external model does not perfectly match the framework used by SEDGES, it should, in many cases, be easy to achieve consistency of frameworks by adapting SEDGES and/or the external land surface scheme. Such adaptation would be easiest for the case in which the land surface scheme uses a single or multiple tile/mosaic approach, because this approach could be converted to the simplified mosaic framework of SEDGES by, at each 20 time step, replacing tile surface temperatures and soil wetness fractions with their respective grid cell weighted averages, and by computing an effective surface roughness for the grid cell (e.g., Mason, 1988) in the case of significant areal water body coverage. Finally, many land surface schemes distinguish between a surface roughness length of water vapor and heat from a surface roughness length of momentum, which is done to correct the typical bulk aerodynamic formulation for its replacement of temperature at the height of the roughness length with surface temperature (e.g., see discussion and references in Chen et al., . Although SEDGES only computes a roughness length of momentum, there are many ways to convert this roughness length to the roughness length for vapor/heat (e.g., see analyses and references in Chen et al., 2010).
An advantage of SEDGES is that it can be run at any horizontal and temporal resolution. However, we encourage users to run the model using a sub-daily time step so that the generally positive diurnal covariances of light, temperature, aerodynamic conductance, and surface-to-air specific humidity difference can be adequately captured. These covariances should increase 30 ET, overall. On the other hand, If users choose a daily time step or longer, then they should also anticipate an increase in vegetative productivity in water-limited regions due to the concomitant reduction in water stress. This reduction in water stress can be offset by decreasing trmax, the maximum transpiration parameter (appendix B).

Forcing SEDGES with ERA-Interim Reanalysis Data
In order to evaluate the performance of SEDGES, repeated 1981-2010 6-hourly data from the ERA-Interim reanalysis (Dee et al., 2011) is used as the driver. The following required forcing variables (section 3) were obtained from the reanalysis: surface (skin) temperature, surface downwelling short wave radiation, temperature of the second-from-top soil layer, surface pressure, snow depth water equivalent, and the lowest atmospheric model level's specific humidity. We simulate the aerodynamic con-5 ductance using these additional variables: the u and v wind components and temperature, all from the lowest atmospheric model level. The aerodynamic conductance is simulated as in the Planet Simulator model (Lunkeit et al., 2011). Soil moisture content is simulated using three additional variables: precipitation, snowfall, and snow melt. Short wave downwelling surface radiation is derived as follows: 3-hourly periods are isolated, and the two periods that straddle each given time (e.g. 12z straddled by the 09z-12z and 12z-15z periods) are averaged to give the flux at that time. A glacier mask is derived by considering 10 any land point that has a daily mean snow depth always greater than zero to be glaciated. No vegetation occurs on glaciated grid points. Finally, all ERA-Interim data are interpolated to T62 resolution using Climate Data Operators (CDO) before being read into SEDGES.
Soil moisture content is simulated as a prognostic variable. As we recommend above in section 3, we use a single layer bucket model, with bucket depth determined by SEDGES. The bucket model is simple. As such, runoff is from the surface and 15 only occurs when the soil moisture content exceeds the bucket depth. Infiltration of liquid water from rainfall and from snow melt is unrestricted. We use the discretized version of the following formulation to simulate soil moisture: where P is precipitation, S is the rate of snowfall, and M is the rate of snow melt (all in liquid water equivalent). Again, W soil cannot be greater than W f rac , with any excess going into runoff. Here, ET soil is the combined soil evaporation and 20 transpiration (and thus not coming from the snow cover). When there is snow cover, we parameterize soil evaporation in line with Eq. (13), so it is thus ( ET .
Soil hydrology requires careful treatment in the presence of non-zero snow depths. Such care is especially needed because of the tile-based TESSEL land surface scheme that is used by ERA-Interim and the data interpolation to the coarse T62 grid.
The underlying TESSEL tile scheme and the spatial interpolation imply that data for a given grid cell that is fed into SEDGES 25 can be physically inconsistent in the SEDGES framework (section 2). The inconsistency arises because a grid cell can have a non-zero snow depth and yet have a homogeneous (as required and seen by SEDGES) surface temperature that is wellabove 0 • C. This situation, in the absence of any modification to the SEDGES code, gives rise to common occurrences in which substantial transpiration is occurring from snow-covered leaves and in which snow-covered vegetation and ground are evaporating as if their surface temperatures were well above freezing. These occurrences are not only unphysical; they give rise 30 to higher simulated ET from a given snowy, above-freezing region than would occur over the same region if it were divided up into its original small, homogeneous but differing tiles.
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., doi: 10.5194/gmd-2017-75, 2017 Manuscript under review for journal Geosci. Model Dev. A second issue that must be addressed when there is snow is the tendency for ERA-Interim to over-predict freezing rain at the expense of snowfall (Dutra et al., 2011). Because we treat rain as entering the soil without interception by the snow pack (as is done in the TESSEL land surface model (Dutra et al., 2010)), the freezing rain bias led our early simulations to have unrealistically large recharge of soil water reservoirs in winter in many locations, even though surface temperatures were well below 0 • C. Handling of the aforementioned snow-temperature inconsistency and the freezing-rain bias are discussed next.

5
In order to simply resolve the above issue of snow with above-freezing temperature, we separate possible conditions into two cases: 1) swe > snowthresh and 2) swe ≤ snowthresh, where we define snowthresh as the swe threshold above which the surface is treated as snow-covered with respect to evaporation from and physiology of vegetation and the threshold at or below which the surface is treated as snow-free. In case 1, we assume that transpiration is negligible (due to combined cold temperature and physical coverage of leaves by snow) and thus introduce a slight modification to Eq. (2), by setting 10 f 2 (T sf c ) to 0 (its value at freezing), which, in turn, forces the productivity to 0. In case 2, we assume that evaporation from snow is negligible, and f 2 (T sf c ) is as normal. Finally, we address the excessive partitioning of precipitation into liquid form at subfreezing temperatures by further assuming for case 1 that soil moisture cannot increase unless there is some snow melt during the same time step. Snow melt indicates the presence of above-freezing temperatures and, thus, the presence of liquid water that does not freeze on contact with the surface and can thus infiltrate into the soil. ice core data (Etheridge et al., 1998) for the prior years. Unless stated explicitly, the results and analyses always refer to the transient CO 2 simulation. The model performs reasonably well, overall; GPP is simulated exceptionally well. The spatial correlations between SEDGES and the reference datasets are as high as can be expected (table 3). Spatial correlations between annual mean climatologies of GPP from MTE and three offline land surface models (ORCHIDEE, JULES, and CLM4CN) range from ≈ 0.87 to 0.95 (Anav et al., 2015), whereas it is 0.92 for SEDGES. The same correlations between the three models and CARBONES ranges from ≈ 0.83 to 0.87 (Anav et al., 2015), whereas it is 0.86 for SEDGES. 20 SEDGES simulates well the climatological annual cycles of GPP. Figure 3 shows monthly mean climatology of GPP for different latitudinal bands for SEDGES and the MTE dataset. From this figure, we can see that SEDGES captures well the seasonal progressions of GPP. A noticeable departure of SEDGES from MTE, however, is a slight phase shift in the northern hemisphere extratropics, with a generally earlier spring productivity increase in SEDGES than in MTE. We suspect that the phase shift is due to the absence of both winter-deciduous leaf phenology and physiological constraints on speed of acclimation 25 to temperature (discussed more in appendix A). Moving to the full spatial field, Fig. 4 shows that the correlations in the seasonal cycle between SEDGES and MTE are generally high in areas with strong seasonality of productivity such as the mid to high latitudes, India, and the dry tropics. Temporal correlations are weaker, but still generally positive, in semi-arid regions and in Amazonia. Correlations are often negative in regions with low absolute seasonal variation in GPP such as equatorial Africa, the northern hemispheric deserts, and southern Australia. SEDGES' problems in the dry regions may be due to the simple 30 single-layer bucket soil hydrology that was used. The negative correlation in equatorial Africa is due to insufficient moisture stress in that region in ERA-Interim-forced SEDGES. The lack of moisture stress in this region causes dry season GPP to exceed that of the wet season due to the reduced cloud cover, as is seen in the wetter parts of the Amazon (Wu et al., 2016).

Evaluation of Productivity
However, the real African equatorial forest experiences a drop in GPP during the dry season relative to wet season (Guan et al., 2015). Thus, the real world behavior in equatorial Africa is anti-correlated with that in the model. In equatorial Africa, the lack of moisture stress in ERA-Interim-forced SEDGES is likely attributable to a pronounced positive precipitation bias in the ERA-Interim forcing data in that region (Lorenz and Kunstmann, 2012;Dolinar et al., 2016).  Fig. 6. SEDGES captures the spatial pattern of GPP trend in the CARBONES dataset better than ORCHIDEE, 10 JULES, and CLM4CN, as reported by Anav et al. (2015). SEDGES generally outperforms the other models in Africa, Australia, the semi-arid areas of eastern Europe, and central and eastern Asia. Notable areas where SEDGES (but not the other models) deviates from CARBONES include Amazon and parts of northwestern North American, in which SEDGES simulates more negative trends in GPP than the reference dataset. The negative GPP trend in SEDGES in the Amazon is very possibly due, at least in part, to its simplifications affecting CO 2 fertilization of productivity, as is explained next.

15
The SEDGES treatment of CO 2 fertilization is seen via Eqs. (3) and (6) and notably lacks a direct dependency on temperature. However, Long (1991), using the widely-used Farquhar model of photosynthesis (Farquhar et al., 1980), finds that, for a given ci ca , the proportional increase in leaf photosynthesis with elevated CO 2 increases substantially with temperature under both Rubisco-and light-limited conditions. In line with that result, a modeling study at the scale of a global grid (Hickler et al., 2008) which uses a photosynthesis model based on that of the Farquhar one, finds the fertilization response of NPP to elevated 20 CO 2 increases substantially, too, when moving from boreal forest to temperate forest to tropical forest. Hence, if SEDGES were to use a more complex parameterization of photosynthesis that is based on the Farquhar model, one would expect the Amazon region to show a more positive GPP trend in Fig. 6 and thus be closer to the CARBONES data.
In spite of the simplifications affecting CO 2 fertilization in SEDGES, its global productivity response to CO 2 forcing is comparable to that of other models of the land surface and vegetation. The results of transient experiments in which 10 such 25 models are forced offline with repeated early 20th century climate and with increasing CO 2 values show relative increases of global NPP per ppm CO 2 of 0.05% to 0.20% (with mean of 0.16%) for the 1980-2009 period (Piao et al., 2013); it is 0.102% for SEDGES. Similar transient simulations with 5 of the aforementioned models (but also including projected CO 2 levels) (Sitch et al., 2008) give global GPP increases 8 from 280 to 360ppm CO 2 that range from approximately 14% to 19%; they give global GPP increases from 360 to 560ppm CO 2 that range from approximately 23% to 36%. In comparison, the 30 transient run of SEDGES gives an increase in global GPP from 280 to 360ppm CO 2 of 20%, and an at-equilibrium global GPP increase from 360 to 560ppm CO 2 of 30%. Finally, Hemming et al. (2013), approximating the purely physiological effect 9 of CO 2 on productivity using a GCM, finds an increase in equilibrium GPP of 75% when doubling CO 2 from nearpre-industrial values. A most likely increase in global NPP of 40% to 60% with CO 2 doubling from pre-industrial levels is found by Holden et al. (2013), using a combination of global atmospheric CO 2 rise and estimated land use changes since the pre-industrial. Doubling pre-industrial CO 2 (280 to 560ppm) in equilibrium simulations in SEDGES induces an NPP increase of 55%. 5

Evaluation of Vegetative Carbon
Vegetative carbon is simulated reasonably well by SEDGES. Unless stated otherwise, we compare the means of the last 30 years of the CO 2 -varying run with an older reference dataset (Olson et al., 1985). The Olson dataset was chosen because its data sources reflect the potential natural vegetation better than the sources of the more recent NDP-017b dataset (Gibbs, 2006). SEDGES has an equilibrium global vegetative carbon of 530PgC under pre-industrial levels of CO 2 , and a mean of 615PgC 10 for 1981-2010 of the transient CO 2 run. In comparison, the Olson et al. (1985) dataset and the more recent Gibbs (2006) dataset give a global vegetative carbon of 451PgC and 560PgC, respectively (Jiang et al. (2015), citing Gibbs (2006)).
The spatial pattern of Olson vegetative carbon is captured well by SEDGES (table 3: R = 0.57, R 2 = 0.33). This R 2 value compares favorably with the range of values (0.14 to 0.38) given by Jiang et al. (2015) for 11 Earth system models.
The RMSE (root mean squared error) between SEDGES and the Olson datasets is 3.92kgC m −2 , whereas it ranges from 15 3.01kgC m −2 to 7.18kgC m −2 for the models in Jiang et al. (2015). 10 More specifically, Fig. 7 shows the distributions of mean vegetative carbon for SEDGES  and that for the Olson et al. (1985) dataset. Two tendencies in the discrepancies prevail: the almost-direct relationship between GPP biases and vegetative carbon biases, and an overall tendency to overestimate vegetative carbon in the tropics and to underestimate it in the mid to high latitudes. SEDGES has large positive vegetative carbon biases in most of the tropics (except the western Amazon), southeast North America, China, and northwestern Europe. 20 One should note that many of these biases reflect land cover change from forests to croplands (Ramankutty and Foley, 1999).
In addition, positive biases in the wet-and-dry and semi-arid tropics are partially attributable to the absence of a fire module in SEDGES; fire can have a large impact on vegetative cover in these regions (Bond et al., 2005). SEDGES has large negative biases in western Canada and central Siberia. The subarctic is generally negatively-biased. These vegetative carbon biases are due to a combination of the aforementioned GPP biases and the globally-uniform residence time for vegetative carbon in SEDGES 25 (table 1). The SEDGES 10 year residence time for vegetative carbon matches the observation-based estimate (≡ Cveg N P P ) given by Jiang et al. (2015). 9 In addition to the direct impact of CO 2 on GPP, some vegetation feedback onto GPP via climate is included here; also, vegetation distributions and LAI are held fixed. 10 We calculate RMSE in this study by taking the square root of an area-weighted mean of the squared differences between SEDGES and the reference at each grid point. Jiang et al. (2015) uses the simple mean across all grid points.

Evaluation of Soil Carbon
At present, land surface models have great difficulty in simulating soil carbon well. Tian et al. (2015), using 10 offline-forced terrestrial biosphere models, find highly diverging model estimates of soil organic carbon dynamics as well as systematic biases due to absent processes affecting high latitude soil carbon stocks. A study by Todd-Brown et al. (2013)

Evaluation of LAI
We use reprocessed Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data from 2001 to 2010 from Bejing Normal University (BNU) (Yuan et al., 2011) as the reference set. We interpolated this data to T62 resolution and derived a monthly 20 mean climatology from it. Outside of the tropics, we compare only the maximum of the climatological monthly means of LAI between SEDGES and the reference data because of the absence of cold deciduous phenology in SEDGES and because serious deficiencies with MODIS in capturing the seasonal cycle of LAI in boreal coniferous forests have been found (Serbin et al., 2013).  where LAI varies modestly, seasonally, in the real world (e.g., Wu et al., 2016). The wet parts of the Amazon generally experience high water availability, even in the dry season. As a result, LAI there is decoupled from soil moisture-induced water stress (in contrast with the drier portions of the Amazon), and LAI, generally, is increasing during the dry season and decreasing during the wet season (Wu et al., 2016). SEDGES cannot capture this behavior. Hemispheric summer is due to the absence of a strong snow signature on the land and relative weakness of the model in correctly capturing the second and third order determinants of (non-glacier) terrestrial albedo, since these determinants come to the fore during boreal summer. Three such determinants are now discussed.
The most significant model deficiency in albedo simulation that gains prominence during boreal summer is the simulation of 15 bare soil surface albedos. Recall from section 2.3.1 that bare surface albedo in SEDGES is determined by soil carbon content and by the albedo of soil in the absence of soil carbon (α sand ), which is assumed constant. In the real world, geological processes, the quantity and properties of dead biomass litter, and the albedo of the underlying bedrock greatly impact α sand as well (Knorr and Schnitzler, 2006;Vamborg et al., 2011). The absence of these real world processes in SEDGES gives rise to an underestimate of albedo in the Arabian and the Saharan deserts and an overestimate of albedo in the snow-free season in 20 most of the world's remaining deserts (Fig. 11). MODIS values of snow-free albedo (NASA LP DAAC, a) in the polar desert (not shown) vary generally from 0.12 to 0.22 in July. The negative soil carbon bias in SEDGES in the high Arctic (section 5.3) causes the snow-free albedo to be too high in polar deserts of the high Arctic.
A second major model deficiency in boreal summer albedo simulation stems from SEDGES's inability to distinguish between low albedo (≈0.09) evergreen coniferous forests and high albedo (≈0.16) mid or high latitude broadleaf deciduous forests. This 25 deficiency is seen most clearly in July (Fig. 11) in eastern North America, in which SEDGES fails to capture the south-to-north decrease in albedo from the temperate to subarctic regions.
The third significant model deficiency in the simulation of albedo during boreal summer is a negative bias in areas that are grassland or savanna in the real world, particularly those found in Mongolia, the U.S. Great Plains, and tropical Africa. In 11 The original MODIS data were processed by spatially interpolating to fill in missing data, taking multi-year means (i.e. means across multiple years) of the 23 16-day periods for each year, spatially interpolating these into T62 resolution, temporally interpolating the 16-day periods linearly to obtain 24 new such periods such that each month was covered by two periods, taking the mean of the two periods for each month, masking out albedo values for each month and region that had polar night-caused missing values in its original pre-interpolated comprising data, and masking out water and land ice grid points in the ERA-Interim reanalysis T62 data that was used to forced SEDGES. White sky albedo from MODIS was used as the reference dataset because SEDGES's albedo formulation lacks dependency on the zenith angle of the direct beam.
Positive biases in vegetative carbon in the mid to high latitudes also cause a lowering of SEDGES January albedo as compared to MODIS (Fig. 11). The most affected regions are in central Asia and the North American prairies and High Plains. 12 Finally, it must be noted that our albedo evaluations of SEDGES has been with respect to white sky albedo, and not actual 5 albedo.

Evaluation of Evapotranspiration and Runoff
Evapotranspiration from SEDGES is compared to that of a multi-source compilation reference dataset, Mueller et al. (2013), for the period from 1989 to 2005. Simulated evapotranspiration by SEDGES qualitatively follows that of the reference dataset, successfully capturing the first order annual and seasonal zonal mean patterns (Fig. 12). Some salient deficiencies exist, how-10 ever.
The most severe discrepancy is the excessive ET simulated by SEDGES in the mid-to high northern latitudes, which is most pronounced in the transition season from late winter to early spring (Fig. 12). This ET bias occurs because the new parameterization (see section 2.2.5) to reduce excessive sublimation from snow-covered surfaces in the original SimBA parameterization is only moderately effective. This deficiency is possibly the most crucial one to improve in future model versions. Another 15 major contributor to the mid-to high northern latitude ET bias is the absence of winter-deciduous leaf phenology and the assumed instantaneous temperature acclimation in SEDGES (appendix A), which together increase spring GPP (section 5.1) and thus, concomitantly, increase transpiration.
In addition to the northern mid-to high latitude positive bias, SEDGES suffers from a negative ET bias in the equatorial region ( Fig. 12), which has at least three likely causes. There is a negative bias in the incident surface shortwave radiation 20 field in the ERA-Interim reanalysis data (Zhang et al., 2016) on the order of ≈ 5% to 30% throughout most of the equatorial tropics for at least 6 months of the year. This bias may result in a relative reduction of GPP of similar magnitude, which would help to explain the negative GPP bias that SEDGES simulates here (seen in Figs. 1 and 2), while also explaining a reduction in transpiration of comparable (but lesser) magnitude. The latter would result from the increased canopy resistance (Eq. 12) that would ensue from the decreased demand for CO 2 uptake due to the lower light. The second reason for low ET 25 near the equator is the complete absence of canopy interception loss in SEDGES, since this source of surface evaporation has been found to comprise around 20% of total ET in tropical rainforests (Shuttleworth, 1988;Da Rocha et al., 2004;Czikowsky and Fitzjarrald, 2009;Miralles et al., 2011) 13 . Finally, the low vapor pressure deficits in the wet tropics do not activate a mechanism in SEDGES that, in other models, would increase transpiration. Less transpiration is simulated by SEDGES in this region because SEDGES's simplifying assumption of a fixed ci ca promotes underestimation (overestimation) of transpiration 30 12 Even though these areas would be mostly grasslands rather than cropland if not for human land cover change (Ramankutty and Foley, 1999), the winter albedo would be similarly high in either case. 13 Here, we combine in-situ precipitation and ET data from Da Rocha et al. (2004) with a ground-observed interception loss-to-precipitation ratio of 0.116 from nearby (as reported by Czikowsky and Fitzjarrald, 2009) to get an interception loss-to-ET ratio of 0.22 when vapor pressure deficits are low (high), due to the increase of ci ca with decreasing vapor pressure deficit (Medlyn et al., 2011Prentice et al., 2014). It then follows from Fick's law of diffusion (at the plant scale) that higher ci ca decreases the leaf-to-air CO 2 gradient, thus requiring that stomatal conductance increase to ensure sufficient CO 2 inflow for photosynthesis.
The higher stomatal conductance increases transpiration. A similar process happens at the canopy scale.
Conspicuously high ET can be seen toward the end of the wet season in both the northern and southern edges of the tropics 5 in Fig. 12. A very similar zonal mean temporal pattern is found in transpiration in the STEAM land surface model (Fig. 6 of Wang-Erlandsson et al., 2014). Because this model was evaluated using ERA-Interim forcing data, the high ET anomalies that we see in Fig. 12 may be attributable to this particular forcing; the ET anomalies in SEDGES may also be attributable to the lack of canopy interception loss, which declines in tandem with precipitation toward the end of the wet season in Wang-Erlandsson et al. (2014), thus reducing the magnitude of the ET aberrations. 10 The percentage of global evapotranspiration coming from transpiration is 64% in SEDGES, which compares very well with a literature-based estimate of 61% (with 15% standard deviation), derived from 81 studies (Schlesinger and Jasechko, 2014).
Simulated runoff is compared to the composite gridded dataset from the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and World Meteorological Organization's Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC) (Fekete et al., 2002). SEDGES simulates runoff well except for excesses in the equatorial tropics and in the mid latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere (Fig. 13). Excessive runoff in the 15 equatorial tropics is due to the aforementioned low ET, but it is also attributable to a general overestimate of precipitation in these latitudes by the ERA-Interim reanalysis (Lorenz and Kunstmann, 2012;Dolinar et al., 2016). Global runoff for SEDGES, excluding areas of land ice, is about 44 ×10 15 kg yr −1 , which is slightly higher than the 38 ×10 15 kg yr −1 for the UNH/GRDC dataset and the global (excluding Antarctica) runoff estimate of 37 ×10 15 kg yr −1 by Dai and Trenberth (2002).
It should be noted that the parameterization for soil water holding capacity (section 2.3.2) gives generally much lower 20 values (not shown) in the wet and dry tropics than in the reference dataset (Kleidon and Heimann, 1998;Hall et al., 2006;Kleidon, 2011). Such lower values of soil water holding capacity should lead one to expect a positive runoff bias in these areas in SEDGES. This is not the case, however, when we compare those regions of the wet and dry tropics where the ERA-Interim precipitation forcing has insignificant bias (and where biases in SEDGES runoff are thus unlikely to be attributable to precipitation deficiencies in the forcing). The lack of runoff bias in these regions suggests that the parameterization of soil 25 water holding capacity in SEDGES (Eq. 26) works well in tandem with its ET scheme and the simple soil bucket hydrology (Eq. 29).
Finally, while it might seem easy to attribute deficiencies in the SEDGES hydrology to our use of the single layer soil bucket, this type of model has been found to perform well under many conditions: wet soils, when precipitation events tend to be large relative to the bucket depth, and under strong root compensation or hydraulic redistribution of soil moisture (Guswa et al., 30 2002;Guswa, 2005). Even when the aforementioned conditions do not hold, distortions stemming from use of the single layer bucket model are comparable to those coming from other aspects of SEDGES hydrology.

Evaluation of Forest Cover Fraction
The overall global pattern of tree cover fraction of the International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project (ISLSCP II) reference dataset (DeFries and Hansen, 2009) is captured reasonably well by SEDGES, as seen from Fig. 14. However, SEDGES has almost double the amount of arboreal cover. In Europe, China, and India, this is at least partially due to anthropogenic land cover change of natural forests and woodland to croplands (Ramankutty and Foley, 1999). Aside from this deforestation, the 5 model's lack of competing plant functional types (especially boreal trees, warm region trees, and grasses) in conjunction with the constant residence time of 10 years for all vegetative carbon, leads to an overestimation of arboreal vegetation by SEDGES in South America, Africa, and North America, as well as a slight underestimation in boreal forest regions. A noted limitation of the reference dataset is its underestimation of real world tree cover in areas with the highest cover fraction. Thus, SEDGES' overestimates in these regions may partially be due to this phenomenon, as well. Finally, a less inclusive definition for arboreal 10 cover in the reference dataset than in SEDGES contributes to the cover overestimate in the latter. SEDGES assumes that forest is vegetated land that protrudes above the winter snow pack, whereas the ISLSCP II dataset requires that trees be at least 5m tall to count toward tree cover and thus excludes short trees and tall shrubs that do not get completely buried by snow.

Model Evaluation: Summary and Conclusions
The performance of the new SEDGES model has been evaluated for the present day through comparison with numerous 15 reference land datasets. To do this, we have forced SEDGES offline with ERA-Interim reanalysis data, using our recommended simple single layer bucket soil hydrology to simulate terrestrial water storage, incorporating a simple scheme to handle a snowtemperature mismatch in the forcing data, and adopting the Planet Simulator's formulation for aerodynamic conductance. Note that the particular forcing data and hydrological implementations impact the analyzed output of the SEDGES simulations. In particular, the spin up using repeated climatology from 1981-2010 yields conditions that differ from a spin up using purely 20 historical data. Not only do forcing and hydrology affect the model evaluation, but so do the reference datasets against which it is compared, since even they are not perfect representations of reality. Given all of these particularities, one must view the presented evaluation as a conditional, non-definitive, but yet informative guide to the strengths and the weakness of the model.
The following output variables of SEDGES have been examined: GP P , vegetative carbon, soil carbon, LAI, surface albedo, ET , runoff, and forest cover fraction. In comparison to the respective reference datasets, SEDGES simulates each variable at 25 least reasonably well. Relative model strengths lie in the simulation of GP P ; relative weaknesses in ET , snow-free albedo, and forest cover fraction. Given the simplicity of its formulation, the strength in GP P is unexpected, particularly the ability of SEDGES to capture the spatial patterns of temporal trends in GPP. Simulated ET is too high in the mid to high northern latitudes and is too low in the wet tropics. SEDGES captures albedo patterns fairly well outside of boreal summer, but subtler differences among the different desert types and among the non-desert areas are not well-captured during the snow-free season. 30 Simulated forest cover fraction is generally too high.
A new simplified model for the representation of dynamic ecological processes for use in conjunction with climate models has been developed. This new model was forced with reanalysis data in order to compare the simulated present-day land surface with observational datasets. The quantitative comparison highlighted strengths and weaknesses of the model. A notable strength is that SEDGES's simulation of gross primary productivity is comparable to and sometimes better than that of state-of-the-art 5 dynamic global vegetation models. Our evaluation has also shown that SEDGES performs well in a number of other metrics.
Overall, the results show that SEDGES can be used to adequately simulate modern land surface characteristics, including input variables to land-atmosphere coupling schemes used in climate models, as well as key variables of the hydrological and terrestrial carbon cycles.
The most severe weaknesses of our offline-run SEDGES are the strong positive evapotranspiration bias that it yields in the 10 mid-to-high latitudes in winter and early spring and its over-prediction of arboreal cover. The latter results from the use of only one plant functional type, which, along with a fixed relationship between biomass and both wet soil LAI and rooting depth hydrology, excessively constrains large scale vegetation structure by excluding the emergence of location-adapted landscape characteristics. As result of these issues, simulated vegetation in water-limited regions and wetness-induced changes should be treated as more heuristic than definitive. With respect to simulating terrestrial carbon pool changes, SEDGES's use of a 15 single soil carbon reservoir and its fixed residence time for vegetative carbon may also need to be considered when drawing inferences from model results in transient simulations (e.g., see Friend et al., 2014).
For its level of complexity, SEDGES and the land surface framework which it presupposes have the advantages of a flexible time step, canopy control over transpiration, transpiration that is fully coupled to photosynthesis, and vegetative productivity that depends on light and not just temperature and moisture. The short time step option permits SEDGES to be incorporated 20 into models that resolve the diurnal cycle. Because of these strengths, we expect SEDGES to have advantages over vegetation models of similar complexity in simulating vegetation, primary productivity, and transpiration in past geological warm periods in regions that receive little sunlight (e.g. the Eocene Arctic (Maxbauer et al. (2014) and references within)); and in simulating cloud-vegetation feedbacks in all eras. The SEDGES framework uses photosynthetic-driven stomatal control over evapotranspiration, which is critical when studying hydrological changes on land under altered atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, including 25 anthropogenically-induced warming scenarios (Betts et al., 2007).
The SEDGES framework has the advantages of being easier to understand, process-wise, as compared to more complex vegetation and hydrological schemes. Increased vegetation model complexity can obfuscate model behavior, and it need not improve performance. In an intermodel comparison of the performance of 24 vegetation models at 39 eddy covariance flux tower sites, Schaefer et al. (2012) (Kleidon and Heimann, 1998;Hall et al., 2006;Kleidon, 2011) is available from the following URL: https : //daac.ornl.gov/cgi − bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id = 1006. Accessing these last two datasets requires registering and signing in.
SEDGES' critical temperature of 20 • C at which productivity is no longer limited lies close to the middle of the range of optimum temperatures for C3 plants (5 • C to 39 • C) that was found in a survey of 212 temperature response curves of photosynthesis in the literature for different species and growth temperatures Yamori et al., 2014).
Temperature limitation on photosynthesis has been well studied (e.g., see reviews by Sage and Kubien, 2007;Yamori et al., 10 2014), but many uncertainties remain. In land plants, photosynthesis is significantly limited by both high and low temperatures.
Individual plants of different species and from different environments have differing optimal temperatures for photosynthesis, such that away from the optimal temperature, photosynthetic rate decreases . Around the temperature optimum, there exists a range of temperatures for which photosynthesis is nearly as high as at the optimum (Berry and Bjorkman, 1980;Yamori et al., 2014). Both the temperature dependency and the maximum rate of photosynthesis (realized at the 15 temperature optimum) can shift as a plant acclimates to a different set of environmental conditions (Berry and Bjorkman, 1980;Way and Yamori, 2014;Yamori et al., 2014).
In most plants, temperature limitation on photosynthesis depends on the species, current light levels, the environmental conditions under which the plant grew, and the internal levels of CO 2 in the leaves (Berry and Bjorkman, 1980;Sage and Kubien, 2007;Way and Yamori, 2014;Yamori et al., 2014). In addition, the current temperature limitation depends on the 20 extent of acclimation to recent environmental conditions (e.g., Dietze, 2014) The framework in which we use f 2 (T sf c ) assumes perfect acclimation and adaptation of the vegetation to the current weather and light conditions. As such, the SEDGES temperature limitation assumes the presence of the most productive set of plants that could ideally grow under those conditions and also by allowing for their instantaneous adaptation and acclimation to those conditions. In other words, for a given surface temperature (T sf c ), f 2 (T sf c ) represents the universal physiological constraints 25 on productivity exerted by that (isolated) given temperature.
For high temperatures, a conscious decision was made to not include a decline in productivity in SEDGES. Although it is well-established that high temperatures (i.e. temperatures above the optimum) limit productivity for individual plants, some of that limitation that has been found empirically may have been due to an indirect effect of temperature on increasing leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit (for constant ambient relative humidity), which causes optimum temperature to be lower than when vapor 30 pressure deficit is held fixed (Lin et al., 2012). An even more important point is that high temperature limitation reflects more the inability of plants that are adapted to a given environment to perform equally well under all conditions that they might face in that environment and less an intrinsic barrier for plant life at that location to adapt to a given high temperature regime (via some combination of species migrations, natural selection, evolution, and/or acclimation). For example, although the Yamori Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., doi:10.5194/gmd-2017-75, 2017 Manuscript under review for journal Geosci. Model Dev.  (Lawson et al., 2014). Moreover, its (ordinary) daily photosynthetic rates are nearly as high as those of common C3 agricultural crops, in spite of living under natural conditions of much higher vapor pressure deficit and presumably much drier soil (Lawson et al., 2014), which reduce productivity. Similar results as for Rhazya stricta have been found for the C3 desert 5 shrub, Larrea divaricata (Mooney et al., 1978). Thus, the large scale ability of vascular plant life to adapt to high temperatures through the increased prevalence of heat-tolerant species and phenotypes should be properly accounted for when modeling vegetation and the carbon cycle in past warm climates (such as the Cretaceous) as well as in future climates.

Appendix B: Numerical parameterization of canopy resistance and maximum transpiration rate
Canopy resistance is the greater of an unconstrained canopy resistance (r cu ), which is determined by the light-limited rate 10 of canopy photosynthesis (GP P L ), and a canopy resistance set by the maximum rate at which the rooting zone can supply water for transpiration. The equation for the unconstrained canopy resistance is essentially derived by incorporating the canopy resistance (r c ) value from the previous time step, using the mismatch between GP P W and GP P L in the last time step, and accounting for updates to the variables that affect GP P W and GP P L . Although this formulation of r cu depends on values from the previous time step, this dependency is arbitrary. An expression for r cu that depends only on values in the current time 15 step could be derived and used. (Such a r cu would depend on all the variables that comprise GP P W and GP P L , and these variables would be evaluated at the current time step.) Our starting equation for deriving the unconstrained canopy resistance uses the formulations of GP P L and GP P W given in Eqs. (2) and (6) and is as follows: 20 Here, the equivalence statement reflects the first stomatal goal of parsimoniously meeting the light-driven demand for CO 2 .
The future values of GP P W and GP P L are approximated (for simplicity) by neglecting changes in slowly varying variables (e.g., ρ). Equation (B1) represents the standard case for deriving r c . Special cases are discussed below (e.g. when f veg t−1 , f 2 (T sf c t−1 ), or SW ↓ t−1 are zero.) Solving Eq. (B1) for r cu yields Equation (B2) has provided us with r cu , the canopy resistance that would occur in the complete absence of physiological limitations on plant water loss. In the real world, plants must restrict how much their stomata open when water cannot be extracted from the soil (or from internal plant storage) and transported to the leaf stomata fast enough to balance the loss to the atmosphere through the stomata. Doing so helps to keep water potentials within the plant from falling to levels that would cause "runaway" cavitation (Tyree and Sperry, 1988) or "hydraulic failure" (McDowell et al., 2008). Closing stomata increases stomatal resistances across the leaves, which, at the canopy scale, increases the canopy resistance. In this way, canopy resistance can be constrained by the supply rate of water from the soil to the leaves.
To simulate the maximum supply rate of water for transpiration, SEDGES adapts the simple model of Federer (1982).

5
The original Federer maximum supply rate is directly proportional to the soil wetness fraction multiplied by a fixed constant parameter. This parameter is the absolute maximum transpiration value, which we denote here by "trmax". In SEDGES, we extend the original Federer formulation from the limited case of a fully-vegetated surface to the case of a mixed surface comprised of green leaves and exposed soil. This is achieved by simply multiplying the original expression by the vegetative cover fraction, f veg . Thus, the supply rate for transpiration, S tr , is as follows in SEDGES: where β tr is a water stress factor that affects the roots' ability to supply water for transpiration and equals the soil wetness fraction, W f rac , and trmax has a value of 2.78 × 10 −7 m s −1 , which is taken from the BETHY vegetation model (Knorr, 2000). This maximum 15 transpiration value is achieved only for a fully vegetated (f veg = 1), fully wet soil.
The above extension of the original Federer formulation for water supply rate requires some justification. A reader that is familiar with the LPJ model might notice that SEDGES uses the same formulation as LPJ (Gerten et al., 2004); that is, both models multiply the original simple Federer expression (S tr = β tr · trmax) by f veg (on the right hand side). It is, however, inappropriate to simply borrow the LPJ formulation and apply it in SEDGES because the definitions of f veg differ in the two 20 models. In LPJ, the vegetative cover fraction is (approximately) the portion of a grid cell in which vegetation resides. Although this portion appears to change some with daily phenology (Gerten et al., 2004), the basic idea in LPJ seems to be that the vegetated portion of the grid cell is (essentially) completely vegetated, i.e. having roots, stems, and leaves. As such, it makes sense in LPJ to multiply the original Federer supply rate formulation by f veg because this is the fraction of the grid cell that functions as in the Federer model. In contrast, SEDGES assumes that vegetation resides in the entire grid cell. In other words, 25 SEDGES assumes that vegetation is spread throughout the grid cell uniformly, which means that plant roots and above-ground parts are also distributed uniformly at the large scale. Thus, in SEDGES, f veg is created by the covering of bare soil by green leaves when looking down from above the canopy. As such, it is not obvious why the simple supply rate formulation in Federer (1982) is multiplied by f veg in SEDGES. The answer lies in a close examination of the trmax parameter of the original model.
The aforementioned simple supply rate model of Federer (1982) is tested, evaluated, and calibrated in the same paper 30 against a more sophisticated "Type I" (Guswa et al., 2002) water uptake model that is forced using site-specific atmospheric observational data. Doing so reveals that the maximum transpiration rate (i.e. the trmax parameter) in the simple model depends on the following input parameters for the Type I model (in decreasing order of strength): rooting density, root internal resistance, depth of the rooting zone, and vegetation height/surface roughness. Although the first three of these dependencies are found to be substantial, those dependencies are not included in the simple model, which takes the trmax parameter to be a constant. In addition, even the more sophisticated Type I water uptake model neglects soil drying-induced embolism's increase of root xylem resistance (e.g., Linton et al., 1998;Domec et al., 2004), which some authors (Domec et al., 2009;Javaux et al., 2013) feel plays a very significant or even dominant role in the whole plant conductivity of water. Significant The water supply rate in the preceding discussion, as noted above, directly impacts the minimum canopy resistance, for 15 which we will now derive an expression. Starting from Eqs. (12) and (7), it follows that Starting from Eq. (B4), we define r c min as the value of canopy resistance that matches the supply rate of transpiration in the current time step. That is, we have f veg · β tr · trmax ≡ f veg 1 + r c min g a 20 where we note that ET Cw is the potential evapotranspiration (P ET ) and g a = 1 ra . Solving Eq. (B5) for r c min yields r c min = P ET β tr · trmax − 1 r a .
The final canopy resistance is restricted as follows: r c = min(r c max, max(r c min, r cu , r c min min )), where 25 r c min min is the absolute minimum possible value for r c and is set to 0 for simplicity, and r c max is the maximum possible value for r c and is set to an extremely large value, purely for the sake of model simplicity and elegance.
In deriving above Eqs. (B2), (B5), and (B6), we have excluded all cases in which we would have had to divide by variables with a zero value. These cases are handled as follows: Firstly, SEDGES checks to see if the light limited rate of GP P is zero in the next time step or if the soil is completely dry. If so, then canopy resistance is set to the maximum possible value.
In the former case, there is no carbon benefit to keeping stomata open, and in the latter case, the supply rate is zero. If, however, the first check comes back negative for both conditions, then SEDGES checks for the case of parched soil getting 5 rewetted. If this is the case, canopy resistance is set to the minimum value, r c min. If, however, the second check also comes back negative, then a final check is made to see if the light-limited rate of GP P is zero in the current time step. Under this last scenario, either the sun has risen or the surface temperature has risen above freezing in between the last and current time steps. Here, an expression for r cu can be derived by substituting into Eq. (B1) a time-specifying version of Eq. (2): GP P Lt+1 = max ·f 1 (CO 2 )·f 2 (T sf c )·f veg ·SW ↓. We then solve for the unconstrained canopy resistance and get the following: 10 r cu * = GP P W max · f 1 (CO 2 ) · f 2 (T sf c ) · f veg t−1 · SW ↓ (1.6r ct−1 + r at−1 ) − r a 1.6.
where the "*" is used to denote our special case of GP P Lt+1 > 0, GP P L = 0, W soil > 0, and f veg t−1 > 0. After its computation in Eq. (B8), r cu * is restricted the same as r cu is in Eq. (B7). In the case that the first, second, and final checks are all negative, then we have the standard scenario described by Eqs. (B2), (B5), and (B6). r c u (t) r c (t) r c min(t) GPP L (t) GPP W (t) r c (t-1) T sfc (t-1) T sfc (t) SW (t-1) r a (t-1) SW (t) r a (t) W frac (t) PET(t) Figure 16. Canopy resistance dependencies and updating in SEDGES