## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Calibration Test  
For a more comprehensive verification of the simulations we elaborated Taylor diagrams, which can display the correlation, standard deviations and root mean square error between observations and multiple simulations in a single diagram. Figures 1 and 2 shows the results of 44 simulations of site-scale energy balance components, as well as CO\({}_{2}\) fluxes for the wet season (blue letters) and dry season (red letters) of 2014, compared to observations (open circles). Initial calibrations of morphological and physiological parameters were crucial to obtain a more realistic representation of the energy fluxes in the Caatinga biome in both wet and dry seasons. Main calibrated parameters were: specific leaf area (sla), typical dimension of leaves (d\({}_{\rm u}\)), leaf width (w), coefficient of stomatal conductance (m), maximum capacity of the Rubisco enzyme (V\({}_{\rm max}\)), and the initial fraction of soil moisture (\(\theta\)g/\(\theta\)d) (Table 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wet Season**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dry Season**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wet Season**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Dry Season**} \\  & **Simulation V** & **Simulation U** & **Simulation M** & **Simulation G** & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Initial** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Energy Flux Calibrated**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CO\({}_{2}\) Flux Calibrated**} \\ \hline Specific leaf area (sla) & 13.0 & 14.5 & 23.5 & 14.5 & 23.5 & [61; 62] \\ Typical dimension of leaves (d\({}_{\rm u}\)) & 0.072 & 0.056 & 0.032 & 0.056 & 0.032 & [63] \\ Typical dimension of stems (d\({}_{\rm s}\)) & 0.1 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & [63] \\ Leaf width (w) & 0.1 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.03 & [63] \\ Coefficient of stomatal conductance (m) & 10.0 & 8.0 & 5.0 & 8.0 & 5.0 & [4(6); 62] \\ Maximum capacity of the Rubisco enzyme (V\({}_{\rm max}\)) & \(75\times 10^{-6}\) & \(90\times 10^{-6}\) & \(90\times 10^{-6}\) & \(90\times 10^{-6}\) & \(60\times 10^{-6}\) & [62; 64] \\ Initial fraction of soil moisture (\(\theta\)g/\(\theta\)d) & 0.36 & 0.165 & 0.075 & 0.225 & 0.165 & [38; 39] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Calibrated parameters: Specific leaf area (sla, m\({}^{2}\) leaf kg\({}^{-1}\) C), typical dimension of leaves (d\({}_{\rm u}\), m), typical dimension of stems (d\({}_{\rm s}\), m), leaf width (w, m), coefficient of stomatal conductance (m, dimensionless), maximum capacity of the Rubisco enzyme (V\({}_{\rm max}\), \(\mu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)), and initial fraction of soil moisture (\(\theta\)g/\(\theta\)d, dimensionless). Where \(\theta\)g is the soil water content based on mass expressed in the gravimetric soil moisture content, \(\theta\)d is the soil moisture. Uppercase letters (V, U, M and G) represent the best calibrated simulations in the wet season and dry season of 2014, analyzed by means of Taylor diagrams. Figure 1: Taylor diagram of energy fluxes simulations against eddy covariance observations. Uppercase letters represent the different simulations in the wet season (blue letters) and dry season (red letters) of 2014. The open circle located at normalized standard deviation = 1.0 and RMSE = 0 indicates the eddy covariance observations. Standard deviation was normalized using hourly data of energy fluxes simulations and eddy covariance observations. Net radiation (Rn; (**A**)), sensible heat flux (H; (**B**)), latent heat flux (LE; (**C**)) and soil heat flux (G, (**D**)). Figure 2: Taylor diagram of CO\({}_{2}\) fluxes simulations against eddy covariance observations. Uppercase letters represent the different simulations in the wet season (blue letters) and dry season (red letters) of 2014. The open circle located at normalized standard deviation = 1.0 and RMSE = 0 indicates the eddy covariance observations. Standard deviation was normalized using hourly data of CO\({}_{2}\) fluxes simulations and eddy covariance observations.