Macroscopic Root Water Uptake Distribution Using a Matric Flux Potential Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrological models featuring root water uptake usually do not include compensation mechanisms such that reductions in uptake from dry layers are compensated by an increase in uptake from wetter layers. We developed a physically based root water uptake model with an implicit compensation mechanism. Based on an expression for the matric flux potential ( M ) as a function of the distance to the root, and assuming a depth‐independent value of M at the root surface, uptake per layer is shown to be a function of layer bulk M , root surface M , and a weighting factor that depends on root length density and root radius. Actual transpiration can be calculated from the sum of layer uptake rates. The proposed reduction function (PRF) was built into the SWAP model, and predictions were compared to those made with the Feddes reduction function (FRF). Simulation results were tested against data from Canada (continuous spring wheat [( Triticum aestivum L.]) and Germany (spring wheat, winter barley [ Hordeum vulgare L.], sugarbeet [ Beta vulgaris L.], winter wheat rotation). For the Canadian data, the root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) for water content in the upper soil layers was very similar for FRF and PRF; for the deeper layers, RMSEP was smaller for PRF. For the German data, RMSEP was lower for PRF in the upper layers and was similar for both models in the deeper layers. In conclusion, but dependent on the properties of the data sets available for testing, the incorporation of the new reduction function into SWAP was successful, providing new capabilities for simulating compensated root water uptake without increasing the number of input parameters or degrading model performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it