% 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{Cai:845903,
      author       = {Cai, Gaochao and Vanderborght, Jan and Langensiepen,
                      Matthias and Schnepf, Andrea and Hüging, Hubert and
                      Vereecken, Harry},
      title        = {{R}oot growth, water uptake, and sap flow of winter wheat
                      in response to different soil water conditions},
      journal      = {Hydrology and earth system sciences},
      volume       = {22},
      number       = {4},
      issn         = {1607-7938},
      address      = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
      publisher    = {EGU},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2018-03101},
      pages        = {2449 - 2470},
      year         = {2018},
      abstract     = {How much water can be taken up by roots and how this
                      depends on the root and water distributions in the root zone
                      are important questions that need to be answered to describe
                      water fluxes in the soil–plant–atmosphere system.
                      Physically based root water uptake (RWU) models that relate
                      RWU to transpiration, root density, and water potential
                      distributions have been developed but used or tested far
                      less. This study aims at evaluating the simulated RWU of
                      winter wheat using the empirical Feddes–Jarvis (FJ) model
                      and the physically based Couvreur (C) model for different
                      soil water conditions and soil textures compared to sap flow
                      measurements. Soil water content (SWC), water potential, and
                      root development were monitored noninvasively at six soil
                      depths in two rhizotron facilities that were constructed in
                      two soil textures: stony vs. silty, with each of three water
                      treatments: sheltered, rainfed, and irrigated. Soil and root
                      parameters of the two models were derived from inverse
                      modeling and simulated RWU was compared with sap flow
                      measurements for validation. The different soil types and
                      water treatments resulted in different crop biomass, root
                      densities, and root distributions with depth. The two models
                      simulated the lowest RWU in the sheltered plot of the stony
                      soil where RWU was also lower than the potential RWU. In the
                      silty soil, simulated RWU was equal to the potential uptake
                      for all treatments. The variation of simulated RWU among the
                      different plots agreed well with measured sap flow but the C
                      model predicted the ratios of the transpiration fluxes in
                      the two soil types slightly better than the FJ model. The
                      root hydraulic parameters of the C model could be
                      constrained by the field data but not the water stress
                      parameters of the FJ model. This was attributed to
                      differences in root densities between the different soils
                      and treatments which are accounted for by the C model,
                      whereas the FJ model only considers normalized root
                      densities. The impact of differences in root density on RWU
                      could be accounted for directly by the physically based RWU
                      model but not by empirical models that use normalized root
                      density functions.},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {550},
      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:000430728800002},
      doi          = {10.5194/hess-22-2449-2018},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/845903},
}