% 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{Schnepf:875104,
      author       = {Schnepf, Andrea and Black, Christopher K. and Couvreur,
                      Valentin and Delory, Benjamin M. and Doussan, Claude and
                      Koch, Axelle and Koch, Timo and Javaux, Mathieu and Landl,
                      Magdalena and Leitner, Daniel and Lobet, Guillaume and Mai,
                      Trung Hieu and Meunier, Félicien and Petrich, Lukas and
                      Postma, Johannes A. and Priesack, Eckart and Schmidt, Volker
                      and Vanderborght, Jan and Vereecken, Harry and Weber,
                      Matthias},
      title        = {{C}all for {P}articipation: {C}ollaborative {B}enchmarking
                      of {F}unctional-{S}tructural {R}oot {A}rchitecture {M}odels.
                      {T}he {C}ase of {R}oot {W}ater {U}ptake},
      journal      = {Frontiers in Functional Plant Ecology},
      volume       = {11},
      issn         = {1664-462X},
      address      = {Lausanne},
      publisher    = {Frontiers Media88991},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2020-01807},
      pages        = {316},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {Three-dimensional models of root growth, architecture and
                      function are becoming important tools that aid the design of
                      agricultural management schemes and the selection of
                      beneficial root traits. However, while benchmarking is
                      common in many disciplines that use numerical models, such
                      as natural and engineering sciences, functional-structural
                      root architecture models have never been systematically
                      compared. The following reasons might induce disagreement
                      between the simulation results of different models:
                      different representation of root growth, sink term of root
                      water and solute uptake and representation of the
                      rhizosphere. Presently, the extent of discrepancies is
                      unknown, and a framework for quantitatively comparing
                      functional-structural root architecture models is required.
                      We propose, in a first step, to define benchmarking
                      scenarios that test individual components of complex models:
                      root architecture, water flow in soil and water flow in
                      roots. While the latter two will focus mainly on comparing
                      numerical aspects, the root architectural models have to be
                      compared at a conceptual level as they generally differ in
                      process representation. Therefore, defining common inputs
                      that allow recreating reference root systems in all models
                      will be a key challenge. In a second step, benchmarking
                      scenarios for the coupled problems are defined. We expect
                      that the results of step 1 will enable us to better
                      interpret differences found in step 2. This benchmarking
                      will result in a better understanding of the different
                      models and contribute toward improving them. Improved models
                      will allow us to simulate various scenarios with greater
                      confidence and avoid bugs, numerical errors or conceptual
                      misunderstandings. This work will set a standard for future
                      model development.},
      cin          = {IBG-3 / IBG-2},
      ddc          = {570},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118 / I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
      pnm          = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
                      (POF3-255) / 582 - Plant Science (POF3-582)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255 / G:(DE-HGF)POF3-582},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:32296451},
      UT           = {WOS:000526711800001},
      doi          = {10.3389/fpls.2020.00316},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/875104},
}