% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Schnepf:1010527,
      author       = {Schnepf, Andrea and Black, Christopher K and Couvreur,
                      Valentin and Delory, Benjamin M and Doussan, Claude and
                      Heymans, Adrien and Javaux, Mathieu and Khare, Deepanshu and
                      Koch, Axelle and Koch, Timo and Kuppe, Christian W and
                      Landl, Magdalena and Leitner, Daniel and Lobet, Guillaume
                      and Meunier, Félicien and Postma, Johannes A and Schäfer,
                      Ernst D and Selzner, Tobias and Vanderborght, Jan and
                      Vereecken, Harry},
      title        = {{C}ollaborative benchmarking of functional-structural root
                      architecture models: {Q}uantitative comparison of simulated
                      root water uptake},
      journal      = {In silico plants},
      volume       = {5},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2517-5025},
      address      = {[Oxford]},
      publisher    = {Oxford University Press},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-03110},
      pages        = {diad005},
      year         = {2023},
      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.},
      cin          = {IBG-3 / IBG-2},
      ddc          = {004},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118 / I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
      pnm          = {2173 - Agro-biogeosystems: controls, feedbacks and impact
                      (POF4-217)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2173},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001046771300002},
      doi          = {10.1093/insilicoplants/diad005},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1010527},
}