1996
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(1996)122:4(198)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nonlinear Root-Water Uptake Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
28
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
3
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This same trend was further developed later in the season, as shown by both the measured and simulated data on Fig. 6 A comparison between the fractional root distribution function of Li et al (2001) and the normalized root density distribution of Ojha and Rai (1996) using root shape parameters l=0.5 and β=1.75, respectively. Data are predicted water uptake rates from 80 soil depth increments equally divided within an assumed 1-m root zone under (a) an optimal uptake condition (with a soil water potential h=−5 m) and (b) a water stress condition (with h=−80 m).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 56%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…This same trend was further developed later in the season, as shown by both the measured and simulated data on Fig. 6 A comparison between the fractional root distribution function of Li et al (2001) and the normalized root density distribution of Ojha and Rai (1996) using root shape parameters l=0.5 and β=1.75, respectively. Data are predicted water uptake rates from 80 soil depth increments equally divided within an assumed 1-m root zone under (a) an optimal uptake condition (with a soil water potential h=−5 m) and (b) a water stress condition (with h=−80 m).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…The model-simulated soil water contents were further compared with the field measured data through the soil water profiles on four selected days Table 2 Final parameter values obtained from a simulation-based searching method for maximum rooting depth (L m ), root distribution exponent (β or λ), simulated total transpiration, as well as the minimum average relative discrepancy (ARD) and the root mean square error (RMSE) between model simulated and field measured soil water contents on a mixed-grass prairie during the summer of 2009 Ojha and Rai (1996) 2. Same as 1, except that a physicoempirical model of Arya and Paris (1981) was used to predict water retention curves for depth intervals from 0.15 m to 0.76 m of the soil 3.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations