% 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{Metzner:188812,
author = {Metzner, Ralf and Eggert, Anja and van Dusschoten, Dagmar
and Pflugfelder, Daniel and Gerth, Stefan and Schurr, Ulrich
and Uhlmann, Norman and Jahnke, Siegfried},
title = {{D}irect comparison of {MRI} and {X}-ray {CT} technologies
for 3{D} imaging of root systems in soil: potential and
challenges for root trait quantification},
journal = {Plant methods},
volume = {11},
number = {1},
issn = {1746-4811},
address = {London},
publisher = {BioMed Central},
reportid = {FZJ-2015-02120},
pages = {17},
year = {2015},
abstract = {BackgroundRoots are vital to plants for soil exploration
and uptake of water and nutrients. Root performance is
critical for growth and yield of plants, in particular when
resources are limited. Since roots develop in strong
interaction with the soil matrix, tools are required that
can visualize and quantify root growth in opaque soil at
best in 3D. Two modalities that are suited for such
investigations are X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) and
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Due to the different
physical principles they are based on, these modalities have
their specific potentials and challenges for root
phenotyping. We compared the two methods by imaging the same
root systems grown in 3 different pot sizes with inner
diameters of 34 mm, 56 mm or 81 mm.ResultsBoth methods
successfully visualized roots of two weeks old bean plants
in all three pot sizes. Similar root images and almost the
same root length were obtained for roots grown in the small
pot, while more root details showed up in the CT images
compared to MRI. For the medium sized pot, MRI showed more
roots and higher root lengths whereas at some spots thin
roots were only found by CT and the high water content
apparently affected CT more than MRI. For the large pot, MRI
detected much more roots including some laterals than
CT.ConclusionsBoth techniques performed equally well for
pots with small diameters which are best suited to monitor
root development of seedlings. To investigate specific root
details or finely graduated root diameters of thin roots, CT
was advantageous as it provided the higher spatial
resolution. For larger pot diameters, MRI delivered higher
fractions of the root systems than CT, most likely because
of the strong root-to-soil contrast achievable by MRI. Since
complementary information can be gathered with CT and MRI, a
combination of the two modalities could open a whole range
of additional possibilities like analysis of root system
traits in different soil structures or under varying soil
moisture.},
cin = {IBG-2},
ddc = {580},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
pnm = {582 - Plant Science (POF3-582)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-582},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000350859000001},
pubmed = {pmid:25774207},
doi = {10.1186/s13007-015-0060-z},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/188812},
}