A simple three-dimensional macroscopic root water uptake model based on the hydraulic architecture approach

Couvreur, Valentin; Vanderborght, Jan; Javaux, Mathieu

doi:10.5194/hess-16-2957-2012

Cited by 185 publications

(229 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

225

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the total resistance to flow in the axial direction is small (large axial conductance and/or small transport distance), then the 3-D version of the C model reproduces the flow in the root system exactly that is predicted by solving the flow equations in the root system for boundary conditions that correspond with the soil water potentials (Couvreur et al, 2014b(Couvreur et al, , 2012. In these conditions, K comp should be equal to K rs .…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used two 1-D RWU models: the FJ model (Šimůnek and Hopmans, 2009) and the physically based C model (Couvreur et al, 2012(Couvreur et al, , 2014a, both of which considered water uptake compensation. The two models have been implemented in Hydrus-1-D (Šimůnek et al, 2016).…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to present a mechanistic description of the RWU process that contains physically defined parameters, Couvreur et al (2012) developed a 3-D model based on the approach of root system hydraulic architecture (Doussan et al, 2006;Javaux et al, 2008). In this model, RWU is dependent on root system hydraulic conductance (K rs ), the root distribution, and the difference between the local soil water potential and the water potential at the root collar.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Root growth, water uptake, and sap flow of winter wheat in response to different soil water conditions

Cai¹,

Vanderborght²,

Langensiepen

et al. 2018

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Root growth, water uptake, and sap flow of winter wheat in response to different soil water conditions

Cai¹,

Vanderborght²,

Langensiepen

et al. 2018

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other physical RWU models include Couvreur et al (2012), comparable to De Jong van Lier et al (2013), as well as more complex three-dimensional models (e.g. Javaux et al, 2013), which account for the full root architecture, requiring more input parameters and a higher computational effort.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking test of empirical root water uptake models

Santos

Lier

Dam

et al. 2017

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Detailed physical models describing root water uptake (RWU) are an important tool for the prediction of RWU and crop transpiration, but the hydraulic parameters involved are hardly ever available, making them less attractive for many studies. Empirical models are more readily used because of their simplicity and the associated lower data requirements. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the capability of some empirical models to mimic the RWU distribution under varying environmental conditions predicted from numerical simulations with a detailed physical model. A review of some empirical models used as sub-models in ecohydrological models is presented, and alternative empirical RWU models are proposed. All these empirical models are analogous to the standard Feddes model, but differ in how RWU is partitioned over depth or how the transpiration reduction function is defined. The parameters of the empirical models are determined by inverse modelling of simulated depth-dependent RWU. The performance of the empirical models and their optimized empirical parameters depends on the scenario. The standard empirical Feddes model only performs well in scenarios with low root length density R, i.e. for scenarios with low RWU "compensation". For medium and high R, the Feddes RWU model cannot mimic properly the root uptake dynamics as predicted by the physical model. The Jarvis RWU model in combination with the Feddes reduction function (JMf) only provides good predictions for low and medium R scenarios. For high R, it cannot mimic the uptake patterns predicted by the physical model. Incorporating a newly proposed reduction function into the Jarvis model improved RWU predictions. Regarding the ability of the models to predict plant transpiration, all models accounting for compensation show good performance. The Akaike information criterion (AIC) indicates that the Jarvis (2010) model (JMII), with no empirical parameters to be estimated, is the "best model". The proposed models are better in predicting RWU patterns similar to the physical model. The statistical indices point to them as the best alternatives for mimicking RWU predictions of the physical model.

show abstract

“…Plants under well-watered conditions (green) or in water deficit (orange) can have similar leaf water potential via stomatal control (isohydric species). Even in this case, the xylem water potential (which controls leaf growth) is still higher in well-watered plants than in plants under drought conditions because of the steeper gradient of water potential in well-watered plants caused by higher water flux.VZJ | Advancing Critical Zone Science p. 3 of 10 et al, 2014a, 2014b), as it can be measured via pre-dawn leaf water potential (assuming equilibrium) or can be modeled as proposed by Couvreur et al (2012). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Root Water Uptake and Ideotypes of the Root System: Whole‐Plant Controls Matter

Tardieu

Javaux

2017

Vadose Zone Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simulations of plant water uptake in soil science are based on the interplay between soil and root properties, with an imposed flux or water potential at the stem base. The dialogue between roots and shoots is important in water uptake. The threshold soil water potential for water uptake represents the soil water potential at which stomatal control stops transpiration over 24 h. Measurements show that it has a large variability among species and cultivars. Isohydric plants prevent low leaf water potentials via stomatal control, so their threshold soil water potential is high. Anisohydric plants allow low leaf water potentials, resulting in lower thresholds. These behaviors have a genetic control and can be simulated via whole-plant models. In studied species, the hydraulic conductance in roots and shoots depends on the whole-plant transpiration rate. In particular, there is a "dialogue" between the daily alternations in the transpiration rate and the circadian oscillations in root hydraulic conductance that affect the hydraulic conductance of the rhizosphere, with appreciable consequences on water uptake. Root traits such as length, branching, or depth interact with shoot traits such as leaf area or stomatal control, thereby generating feedbacks. As a consequence, optimum root systems for water uptake at a given time are not always those associated with the best yields. Models that take these whole-plant results into account bring an extra level of complication but are probably indispensable whenever the aim is to optimize root traits in view of improved drought tolerance.Abbreviations: ABA, abscisic acid; PIP, plasma membrane intrinsic protein; PRD, partial root drying.The root system is the first actor for plant water uptake through its spatial architecture and the distribution of hydraulic conductance along root axes and branching orders. As a consequence, most models of water uptake are based on a dialogue between soil and root hydraulic properties, with an imposed flux or water potential at the base of the stem considered as the boundary of the system (Gardner, 1960;Nimah and Hanks, 1973;Feddes et al., 1976). This has resulted in models that couple soil water depletion and root water uptake (Doussan et al., 2006;Javaux et al., 2008;Schneider et al., 2010). The rationale for imposing boundary conditions at the stem base is that the water flux though the plant is primarily controlled by stomatal conductance. Indeed, the latter is several orders of magnitudes lower than any hydraulic conductance in the soil or in the plant even when stomata are fully opened. This can be visualized in plants that have defective stomatal control and wilt even under well-watered conditions (Borel et al., 2001;Dodd et al., 2009). Furthermore, root hydraulic conductance has no effect on transpiration when it is manipulated via chemical compounds (Ehlert et al., 2009).However, transpiration is controlled via feedbacks involving both roots and shoots, namely chemical and/or hydraulic messages in the short term and soil water depletio...

show abstract

A simple three-dimensional macroscopic root water uptake model based on the hydraulic architecture approach

Cited by 185 publications

References 57 publications

Root growth, water uptake, and sap flow of winter wheat in response to different soil water conditions

Root growth, water uptake, and sap flow of winter wheat in response to different soil water conditions

Benchmarking test of empirical root water uptake models

Root Water Uptake and Ideotypes of the Root System: Whole‐Plant Controls Matter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About