Articles | Volume 22, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2449-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2449-2018
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

Related authors

Quantifying hydrological impacts of compacted sandy subsoils using soil water flow simulations: the importance of vegetation parameterization
Jayson Gabriel Pinza, Ona-Abeni Devos Stoffels, Robrecht Debbaut, Jan Staes, Jan Vanderborght, Patrick Willems, and Sarah Garré
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1166,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1166, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for SOIL (SOIL).
Short summary
Assessing soil fertilization effects using time-lapse electromagnetic induction
Manuela S. Kaufmann, Anja Klotzsche, Jan van der Kruk, Anke Langen, Harry Vereecken, and Lutz Weihermüller
SOIL, 11, 267–285, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-267-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-267-2025, 2025
Short summary
From hydraulic root architecture models to efficient macroscopic sink terms including perirhizal resistance: quantifying accuracy and computational speed
Daniel Leitner, Andrea Schnepf, and Jan Vanderborght
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1759–1782, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1759-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1759-2025, 2025
Short summary
High-resolution land surface modelling over Africa: the role of uncertain soil properties in combination with forcing temporal resolution
Bamidele Oloruntoba, Stefan Kollet, Carsten Montzka, Harry Vereecken, and Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1659–1683, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1659-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1659-2025, 2025
Short summary
In silico analysis of carbon stabilisation by plant and soil microbes for different weather scenarios
Mona Giraud, Ahmet Kürşad Sırcan, Thilo Streck, Daniel Leitner, Guillaume Lobet, Holger Pagel, and Andrea Schnepf
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-572,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-572, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for SOIL (SOIL).
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Vadose Zone Hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Modelling approaches
From hydraulic root architecture models to efficient macroscopic sink terms including perirhizal resistance: quantifying accuracy and computational speed
Daniel Leitner, Andrea Schnepf, and Jan Vanderborght
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1759–1782, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1759-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1759-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying the potential of using Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) soil moisture variability to predict subsurface water dynamics
Aruna Kumar Nayak, Xiaoyong Xu, Steven K. Frey, Omar Khader, Andre R. Erler, David R. Lapen, Hazen A. J. Russell, and Edward A. Sudicky
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 215–244, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-215-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-215-2025, 2025
Short summary
Modeling 2D gravity-driven flow in unsaturated porous media for different infiltration rates
Jakub Kmec and Miloslav Šír
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4947–4970, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4947-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4947-2024, 2024
Short summary
Quantitative soil characterization using frequency domain electromagnetic induction method in heterogeneous fields
Gaston Matias Mendoza Veirana, Guillaume Blanchy, Ellen Van De Vijver, Jeroen Verhegge, Wim Cornelis, and Philippe De Smedt
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2693,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2693, 2024
Short summary
Mesoscale permeability variations estimated from natural airflows in the decorated Cosquer Cave (southeastern France)
Hugo Pellet, Bruno Arfib, Pierre Henry, Stéphanie Touron, and Ghislain Gassier
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4035–4057, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4035-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4035-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Albasha, R., Mailhol, J.-C., and Cheviron, B.: Compensatory uptake functions in empirical macroscopic root water uptake models – experimental and numerical analysis, Agr. Water Manage., 155, 22–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.010, 2015. 
Allen, R. G., Jensen, M. E., Wright, J. L., and Burman, R. D.: Operational estimates of reference evapotranspiration, Agron J., 81, 650–662, 1989. 
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop Evapotranspiration – Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements – FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 56, FAO, Rome, 300, 6541, 1998. 
Amenu, G. G. and Kumar, P.: A model for hydraulic redistribution incorporating coupled soil-root moisture transport, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 55–74, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-55-2008, 2008. 
Bechmann, M., Schneider, C., Carminati, A., Vetterlein, D., Attinger, S., and Hildebrandt, A.: Effect of parameter choice in root water uptake models – the arrangement of root hydraulic properties within the root architecture affects dynamics and efficiency of root water uptake, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 4189–4206, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4189-2014, 2014. 
Download
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.
Share