LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

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

Photo by a2eorigins from unsplash

How much and where water is taken up by roots from the soil profile are important questions that need to be answered to close the soil water balance equation and… Click to show full abstract

How much and where water is taken up by roots from the soil profile are important questions that need to be answered to close the soil water balance equation and 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 far less used or tested. This study aims at evaluating the simulated RWU of winter wheat by the empirical Feddes–Jarvis (FJ) model and the physically-based Couvreur (C) model for different soil water conditions and soil textures against sap flow measurements. Soil water content (SWC), water potential, and root development were monitored non-invasively at six soil depths in two rhizotron facilities that were constructed in two soil textures: stony vs. silty with each 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.

Keywords: water; root; sap flow; soil; soil water; rwu

Journal Title: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions
Year Published: 2017

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.