% 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{Nguyen:889160,
author = {Nguyen, Thuy Huu and Langensiepen, Matthias and
Vanderborght, Jan and Hüging, Hubert and Mboh, Cho Miltin
and Ewert, Frank},
title = {{C}omparison of root water uptake models in simulating
${CO}\<sub\>2\</sub\>$ and ${H}\<sub\>2\</sub\>{O}$ fluxes
and growth of wheat},
journal = {Hydrology and earth system sciences},
volume = {24},
number = {10},
issn = {1607-7938},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {EGU},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-00083},
pages = {4943 - 4969},
year = {2020},
abstract = {Stomatal regulation and whole plant hydraulic signaling
affect water fluxes and stress in plants. Land surface
models and crop models use a coupled
photosynthesis–stomatal conductance modeling approach.
Those models estimate the effect of soil water stress on
stomatal conductance directly from soil water content or
soil hydraulic potential without explicit representation of
hydraulic signals between the soil and stomata. In order to
explicitly represent stomatal regulation by soil water
status as a function of the hydraulic signal and its
relation to the whole plant hydraulic conductance, we
coupled the crop model LINTULCC2 and the root growth model
SLIMROOT with Couvreur's root water uptake model (RWU) and
the HILLFLOW soil water balance model. Since plant hydraulic
conductance depends on the plant development, this model
coupling represents a two-way coupling between growth and
plant hydraulics. To evaluate the advantage of considering
plant hydraulic conductance and hydraulic signaling, we
compared the performance of this newly coupled model with
another commonly used approach that relates root water
uptake and plant stress directly to the root zone water
hydraulic potential (HILLFLOW with Feddes' RWU model).
Simulations were compared with gas flux measurements and
crop growth data from a wheat crop grown under three water
supply regimes (sheltered, rainfed, and irrigated) and two
soil types (stony and silty) in western Germany in 2016. The
two models showed a relatively similar performance in the
simulation of dry matter, leaf area index (LAI), root
growth, RWU, gross assimilation rate, and soil water
content. The Feddes model predicts more stress and less
growth in the silty soil than in the stony soil, which is
opposite to the observed growth. The Couvreur model better
represents the difference in growth between the two soils
and the different treatments. The newly coupled model
(HILLFLOW–Couvreur's RWU–SLIMROOT–LINTULCC2) was also
able to simulate the dynamics and magnitude of whole plant
hydraulic conductance over the growing season. This
demonstrates the importance of two-way feedbacks between
growth and root water uptake for predicting the crop
response to different soil water conditions in different
soils. Our results suggest that a better representation of
the effects of soil characteristics on root growth is needed
for reliable estimations of root hydraulic conductance and
gas fluxes, particularly in heterogeneous fields. The newly
coupled soil–plant model marks a promising approach but
requires further testing for other scenarios regarding
crops, soil, and climate.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255) / DFG project 15232683 - TRR 32: Muster und
Strukturen in Boden-Pflanzen-Atmosphären-Systemen:
Erfassung, Modellierung und Datenassimilation},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255 / G:(GEPRIS)15232683},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000585918000001},
doi = {10.5194/hess-24-4943-2020},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/889160},
}