% 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{Mohamed:829470,
      author       = {Mohamed, Awaz and Monnier, Yogan and Mao, Zhun and Lobet,
                      Guillaume and Maeght, Jean-Luc and Ramel, Merlin and Stokes,
                      Alexia},
      title        = {{A}n evaluation of inexpensive methods for root image
                      acquisition when using rhizotrons},
      journal      = {Plant methods},
      volume       = {13},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {1746-4811},
      address      = {London},
      publisher    = {BioMed Central},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-03169},
      pages        = {11},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {Background: Belowground processes play an essential role in
                      ecosystem nutrient cycling and the global carbon budget
                      cycle. Quantifying fine root growth is crucial to the
                      understanding of ecosystem structure and function and in
                      predicting how ecosystems respond to climate variability. A
                      better understanding of root system growth is necessary, but
                      choosing the best method of observation is complex,
                      especially in the natural soil environment. Here, we compare
                      five methods of root image acquisition using inexpensive
                      technology that is currently available on the market:
                      flatbed scanner, handheld scanner, manual tracing, a
                      smartphone application scanner and a time-lapse camera.
                      Using the five methods, root elongation rate (RER) was
                      measured for three months, on roots of hybrid walnut
                      (Juglans nigra × Juglans regia L.) in rhizotrons installed
                      in agroforests.ResultsWhen all methods were compared
                      together, there were no significant differences in relative
                      cumulative root length. However, the time-lapse camera and
                      the manual tracing method significantly overestimated the
                      relative mean diameter of roots compared to the three
                      scanning methods. The smartphone scanning application was
                      found to perform best overall when considering image quality
                      and ease of use in the field. The automatic time-lapse
                      camera was useful for measuring RER over several months
                      without any human intervention.ConclusionOur results show
                      that inexpensive scanning and automated methods provide
                      correct measurements of root elongation and length (but not
                      diameter when using the time-lapse camera). These methods
                      are capable of detecting fine roots to a diameter of 0.1 mm
                      and can therefore be selected by the user depending on the
                      data required.},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {580},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
                      (POF3-255)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000397460400001},
      doi          = {10.1186/s13007-017-0160-z},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/829470},
}