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

Cai, Gaochao; Vanderborght, Jan; Langensiepen, Matthias; Schnepf, Andrea; Hüging, Hubert; Vereecken, Harry

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2449-2018

Articles | Volume 22, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2449-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2449-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 22, issue 4

Research article

|

23 Apr 2018

Research article |

| 23 Apr 2018

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

Gaochao Cai, Jan Vanderborght, Matthias Langensiepen, Andrea Schnepf, Hubert Hüging, and Harry Vereecken

Download

Final revised paper (published on 23 Apr 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Dec 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of HESS-2017-711', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jan 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to reviewer 1', Gaochao Cai, 09 Mar 2018
- AC3: 'Revised manuscript', Gaochao Cai, 09 Mar 2018
RC2: 'Comments on root growth, water uptake ....', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Jan 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to reviewer 2', Gaochao Cai, 09 Mar 2018
- AC4: 'Revised manuscript', Gaochao Cai, 09 Mar 2018
EC1: 'Start discussin', Nunzio Romano, 21 Jan 2018
- SC1: 'Short reply', Gaochao Cai, 22 Jan 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (16 Mar 2018) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Gaochao Cai on behalf of the Authors (16 Mar 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (24 Mar 2018) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Gaochao Cai on behalf of the Authors (25 Mar 2018)

Short summary

Different crop growths had consequences for the parameterization of root water uptake models. The root hydraulic parameters of the Couvreur model but not the water stress parameters of the Feddes–Jarvis model could be constrained by the field data measured from rhizotron facilities. The simulated differences in transpiration from the two soils and the different water treatments could be confirmed by sap flow measurements. The Couvreur model predicted the ratios of transpiration fluxes better.