It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Functional-structural root architecture models have evolved as tools for the design of improved agricultural management practices and for the selection of optimal root traits. In order to test their accuracy and reliability, we present the first benchmarking of root water uptake from soil using five well-established functional-structural root architecture models: DuMux, CPlantBox, R-SWMS, OpenSimRoot and SRI. The benchmark scenarios include basic tests for water flow in soil and roots as well as advanced tests for the coupled soil-root system. The reference solutions and the solutions of the different simulators are available through Jupyter Notebooks on a GitHub repository. All of the simulators were able to pass the basic tests and continued to perform well in the benchmarks for the coupled soil-plant system. For the advanced tests, we created an overview of the different ways of coupling the soil and the root domains as well as the different methods used to account for rhizosphere resistance to water flow. Although the methods used for coupling and modelling rhizosphere resistance were quite different, all simulators were in reasonably good agreement with the reference solution. During this benchmarking effort, individual simulators were able to learn about their strengths and challenges, while some were even able to improve their code. Some now include the benchmarks as standard tests within their codes. Additional model results may be added to the GitHub repository at any point in the future and will be automatically included in the comparison.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institute of Bio- and Geosciences – Agrosphere (IBG-3) , 52425 Jülich , Germany
2 Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University , 102 Tyson Building, University Park PA 16802 , USA
3 Earth and Life Institute, Agronomy, Université catholique de Louvain , Louvain-la-Neuve , Belgium
4 Institute of Ecology, Leuphana University Lüneburg , Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg , Germany
5 INRAE, Avignon Université , EMMAH, F-84000 Avignon , France
6 Earth and Life Institute, Environmental Sciences, Université catholique de Louvain , Louvain-la-Neuve , Belgium
7 Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo , Postboks 1053, Blindern, 0316 Oslo , Norway
8 Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institute of Bio- and Geosciences – Plant Sciences (IBG-2) , 52425 Jülich , Germany
9 CAVElab - Computational and Applied Vegetation Ecology , Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium