% 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{Kuppe:894425,
author = {Kuppe, Christian W. and Huber, Gregor and Postma, Johannes
A.},
title = {{C}omparison of numerical methods for radial solute
transport to simulate uptake by plant roots},
journal = {Rhizosphere},
volume = {18},
issn = {2452-2198},
address = {Amsterdam},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-03217},
pages = {100352},
year = {2021},
abstract = {The 1D radial solute transport model with non-linear inner
boundary condition is widely used for simulating nutrient
uptake by plant roots. When included into an architectural
root model, this local model has to be solved for a high
number of root segments, e. g. – segments for large root
systems. Each root segment comes with its own local
parameter set in heterogeneous root architectural models.
Depending on the soil and solute, the effective diffusion
coefficient spans over more than six orders (e. g. for N, K,
and P). Thus a numerical implementation of this rhizosphere
transport model is required to be fast, accurate and stable
for a large parameter space. We apply 13 methods to this
rhizosphere model with root hairs and compare their
accuracy, computational speed, and applicability. In
particular, the Crank-Nicolson method is compared to
higher-order explicit adaptive methods and some stiff
solvers. The Crank-Nicolson method sometimes oscillated and
was up to a hundred times slower than an explicit adaptive
scheme with similar accuracy. For a given spatial
resolution, Crank-Nicolson had about one order lower
accuracy as other tested methods. The maximum spatial time
step can be estimated from root radius, solute diffusion,
advection, and soil buffer power. Although Crank-Nicolson is
a viable method and often used as de-facto standard method
for rhizosphere models, it was not the best performer in our
comparison. While the best method remains problem specific,
for general use in root architectural models we recommend
adaptive Runge-Kutta with cubic or quadratic upwind for
advection.},
cin = {IBG-2},
ddc = {580},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
pnm = {2171 - Biological and environmental resources for
sustainable use (POF4-217)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2171},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000663433400001},
doi = {10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100352},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/894425},
}