% 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{Pflugfelder:840069,
      author       = {Pflugfelder, Daniel and Metzner, Ralf and van Dusschoten,
                      Dagmar and Reichel, Rüdiger and Jahnke, Siegfried and
                      Koller, Robert},
      title        = {{N}on-invasive imaging of plant roots in different soils
                      using magnetic resonance imaging ({MRI})},
      journal      = {Plant methods},
      volume       = {13},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {1746-4811},
      address      = {London},
      publisher    = {BioMed Central},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-07633},
      pages        = {102},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {BackgroundRoot systems are highly plastic and adapt
                      according to their soil environment. Studying the particular
                      influence of soils on root development necessitates the
                      adaptation and evaluation of imaging methods for multiple
                      substrates. Non-invasive 3D root images in soil can be
                      obtained using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Not all
                      substrates, however, are suitable for MRI. Using barley as a
                      model plant we investigated the achievable image quality and
                      the suitability for root phenotyping of six commercially
                      available natural soil substrates of commonly occurring soil
                      textures. The results are compared with two artificially
                      composed substrates previously documented for MRI root
                      imaging.ResultsIn five out of the eight tested substrates,
                      barley lateral roots with diameters below 300 µm could
                      still be resolved. In two other soils, only the thicker
                      barley seminal roots were detectable. For these two
                      substrates the minimal detectable root diameter was between
                      400 and 500 µm. Only one soil did not allow imaging of the
                      roots with MRI. In the artificially composed substrates,
                      soil moisture above $70\%$ of the maximal water holding
                      capacity (WHCmax) impeded root imaging. For the natural soil
                      substrates, soil moisture had no effect on MRI root image
                      quality in the investigated range of $50–80\%$
                      WHCmax.ConclusionsAlmost all tested natural soil substrates
                      allowed for root imaging using MRI. Half of these substrates
                      resulted in root images comparable to our current lab
                      standard substrate, allowing root detection down to a
                      diameter of 300 µm. These soils were used as supplied by
                      the vendor and, in particular, removal of ferromagnetic
                      particles was not necessary. With the characterization of
                      different soils, investigations such as trait stability
                      across substrates are now possible using noninvasive MRI.},
      cin          = {IBG-2 / IBG-3},
      ddc          = {580},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118 / I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {582 - Plant Science (POF3-582) / DPPN - Deutsches Pflanzen
                      Phänotypisierungsnetzwerk (BMBF-031A053A)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-582 / G:(DE-Juel1)BMBF-031A053A},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000415585600001},
      pubmed       = {pmid:29177002},
      doi          = {10.1186/s13007-017-0252-9},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/840069},
}