Benchmarking of Functional-Structural Root Architecture Models

Abstract

<p>Schnepf et al., (2020) defined benchmark scenarios for root growth models, soil water flow models, root water flow models, and for water flow in the coupled soil-root system. All benchmarks and corresponding reference solutions were published in the form of Jupyter Notebooks on the GitHub repository <em>https://github.com/RSAbenchmarks/collaborative-comparison</em>. Several groups of functional-structural model developers have joined this benchmarking activity and provided the results of their individual implementations of the different scenarios.</p> <p>The focus of this contribution is on water uptake from a drying soil by a static root architecture. The numerical solutions of the different participating simulators as compared to the provided reference solution.</p> <p>The participating simulators are CPlantBox, DuMu<sup>x</sup>, R-SWMS, OpenSimRoot and SRI. They have in common that they simulate water flow in the 3D soil domain, water flow inside the root system that is represented as a mathematical tree graph, and the coupling between the two domains in form of a volumetric sink term that describes the transfer of water between the two domains. The simulators differ in the numerical schemes used for solving the water flow equations in roots and soil domains, as well as in the way the sink term is formulated, in particular in the way the possibly increased rhizosphere resistance to water flow is accounted for. </p> <p>The results to the water flow in soil benchmarks show how the different simulators perform against the analytical solution to a problem of infiltration into an initially dry soil, as well as a problem of evaporation from initially moist soil. All of the simulators could accurately predict the infiltration front in different soil types as well as the actual evaporation curves.</p> <p>The coupled problem of root water uptake by a static root architecture from an initially already dry soil posed a bigger challenge to the different simulators and revealed some diversity between the different solutions. The Benchmark with an initially rather dry soil defined a potential transpiration that immediately induced water stress of the plant. The simulators had to simulate the consequent rhizosphere drying and associated increase in rhizosphere resistance. All of the soil simulators smoothed the gradients in the rhizosphere at the soil grid size such that root water uptake was significantly overestimated unless the rhizosphere resistance was explicitly accounted for in the root water uptake model. As a result, all simulators came close to the reference solution (that itself is a numerical solution, see Schnepf et al. 2020 for details). </p> <p>In this study, we showed that all simulators are generally able to solve the benchmark problems but minor differences occur amongst the simulators when simulating different soil types. Benchmarking led to model improvements and helped interpret model results in a more informed way. The availability of “reference solutions“ made modellers aware of the range of validity of their numerical solution and encouraged them to improve either their numerical solution or to introduce new processes Future efforts may aim to extend the benchmarks from water flow to further processes, such as solute transport or rhizodeposition.</p> <p> </p> <p>Schnepf et al., 2020, <em>Front. Plant Sci.</em> 11</p>

Modeling cassava root system architecture and the underlying dynamics in shoot-root carbon allocation

“…Thus, they provide insight into key processes underlying plant growth, notably the allocation of resources (Postma and Black 2021). Recently benchmarking of root-focused FSPM models showed the ability of several codes to solve challenging scenarios (Schnepf et al 2023). Among the well-performing models was OpenSimRoot, an FSPM for describing root growth and function and investigating the complexity of the soil-plant interactions (de Dorlodot et al 2007;Postma et al 2017).…”

Efficiently starting and preferentially filling a potato

“…In FSPMs, structural representation is combined with mathematical equations that describe the physiological processes occurring within the plant, such as photosynthesis, respiration, nutrient uptake, and water and sucrose transport. Using these models, studies on the effect of architecture on water uptake (Schnepf et al, 2023), light intensity and competitive shading on photosynthesis (Sarlikioti et al, 2011) have been done. In theory, these models can be expanded to incorporate biophysically realistic growth, sugar transport and allocation, however, technically, this is still very difficult to achieve due to computational complications and the complexity of both architectural and biophysically realistic models in isolation alone (Seleznyova & Hanan, 2018).…”