% 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”.

@INPROCEEDINGS{Schnepf:829735,
      author       = {Schnepf, Andrea and Javaux, Mathieu and Vanderborght, Jan},
      title        = {{C}omparing root architectural models},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-03373, EGU2017-1851},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {Plant roots play an important role in several soil
                      processes (Gregory 2006). Root architecture development
                      deter-mines the sites in soil where roots provide input of
                      carbon and energy and take up water and solutes. However,
                      rootarchitecture is difficult to determine experimentally
                      when grown in opaque soil. Thus, root architectural
                      modelshave been widely used and been further developed into
                      functional-structural models that are able to simulate
                      thefate of water and solutes in the soil-root system
                      (Dunbabin et al. 2013).Still, a systematic comparison of the
                      different root architectural models is missing. In this
                      work, we focuson discrete root architecture models where
                      roots are described by connected line segments. These
                      modelsdiffer (a) in their model concepts, such as the
                      description of distance between branches based on a
                      prescribeddistance (inter-nodal distance) or based on a
                      prescribed time interval. Furthermore, these models differ
                      (b) in theimplementation of the same concept, such as the
                      time step size, the spatial discretization along the root
                      axes or theway stochasticity of parameters such as root
                      growth direction, growth rate, branch spacing, branching
                      angles aretreated.Based on the example of two such different
                      root models, the root growth module of R-SWMS and RootBox,
                      weshow the impact of these differences on simulated root
                      architecture and aggregated information computed fromthis
                      detailed simulation results, taking into account the
                      stochastic nature of those models.ReferencesDunbabin, V.M.,
                      Postma, J.A., Schnepf, A., Pagès, L., Javaux, M., Wu, L.,
                      Leitner, D., Chen, Y.L., Rengel,Z., Diggle, A.J. Modelling
                      root-soil interactions using three-dimensional models of
                      root growth, architecture andfunction (2013) Plant and Soil,
                      372 (1-2), pp. 93 – 124.Gregory (2006) Roots, rhizosphere
                      and soil: the route to a better understanding of soil
                      science? European Journalof Soil Science 57: 2-12.},
      month         = {Apr},
      date          = {2017-04-27},
      organization  = {European Geoscience Union General
                       Assembly 2017, Vienna (Austria), 27 Apr
                       2017 - 27 Apr 2017},
      subtyp        = {Other},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      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)29 / PUB:(DE-HGF)6},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/829735},
}