Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32296451›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2020

Call for Participation: Collaborative Benchmarking of Functional-Structural Root Architecture Models. The Case of Root Water Uptake.

Andrea Schnepf, Christopher K Black, Valentin Couvreur, Benjamin M Delory, Claude Doussan, Axelle Koch, Timo Koch, Mathieu Javaux, Magdalena Landl, Daniel Leitner and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Andrea SchnepfInstitut für Bio- und Geowissenschaften: Agrosphäre (IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Christopher K BlackDepartment of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.
Valentin CouvreurEarth and Life Institute, Agronomy, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Benjamin M DeloryInstitute of Ecology, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.
Claude DoussanINRAE, Avignon Université, EMMAH, Avignon, France.
Axelle KochEarth and Life Institute, Environmental Sciences, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Timo KochDepartment of Hydromechanics and Modelling of Hydrosystems, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Mathieu JavauxInstitut für Bio- und Geowissenschaften: Agrosphäre (IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Magdalena LandlInstitut für Bio- und Geowissenschaften: Agrosphäre (IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Daniel LeitnerSimulationswerkstatt, Leonding, Austria.
Guillaume LobetInstitut für Bio- und Geowissenschaften: Agrosphäre (IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Trung Hieu MaiInstitut für Bio- und Geowissenschaften: Agrosphäre (IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Félicien MeunierCAVElab-Computational and Applied Vegetation Ecology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Lukas PetrichInstitute of Stochastics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Johannes A PostmaInstitut für Bio- und Geowissenschaften: Plant Sciences (IBG-2), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Eckart PriesackInstitute of Biochemical Plant Pathology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany.
Volker SchmidtInstitute of Stochastics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Jan VanderborghtInstitut für Bio- und Geowissenschaften: Agrosphäre (IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Harry VereeckenInstitut für Bio- und Geowissenschaften: Agrosphäre (IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Matthias WeberInstitute of Stochastics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Forschungszentrum Jülich · DEUCLouvain · BEInternational Medical Research (Germany) · DEBoston University · USHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement · FRLeuphana University of Lüneburg · DEPennsylvania State University · USUniversity of Stuttgart · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional models of root growth, architecture and function are becoming important tools that aid the design of agricultural management schemes and the selection of beneficial root traits. However, while benchmarking is common in many disciplines that use numerical models, such as natural and engineering sciences, functional-structural root architecture models have never been systematically compared. The following reasons might induce disagreement between the simulation results of different models: different representation of root growth, sink term of root water and solute uptake and representation of the rhizosphere. Presently, the extent of discrepancies is unknown, and a framework for quantitatively comparing functional-structural root architecture models is required. We propose, in a first step, to define benchmarking scenarios that test individual components of complex models: root architecture, water flow in soil and water flow in roots. While the latter two will focus mainly on comparing numerical aspects, the root architectural models have to be compared at a conceptual level as they generally differ in process representation. Therefore, defining common inputs that allow recreating reference root systems in all models will be a key challenge. In a second step, benchmarking scenarios for the coupled problems are defined. We expect that the results of step 1 will enable us to better interpret differences found in step 2. This benchmarking will result in a better understanding of the different models and contribute toward improving them. Improved models will allow us to simulate various scenarios with greater confidence and avoid bugs, numerical errors or conceptual misunderstandings. This work will set a standard for future model development.

Indexed as

benchmarkcall for participationfunctional-structural root architecture modelsmodel comparisonroot water uptake

Identifiers

PMID32296451
PMCPMC7136536
OpenAlexW3014385755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.