Plant and Soil

, Volume 147, Issue 1, pp 127–134 | Cite as

A comparison between minirhizotron and monolith sampling methods for measuring root growth of maize (Zea mays L.)

  • Hooshang Majdi
  • Alvin J. M. Smucker
  • Hans Persson


Transparent plastic minirhizotron tubes have been used to evaluate spatial and temporal growth activities of plant root systems. Root number was estimated from video recordings of roots intersecting minirhizotron tubes and of washed roots extracted from monoliths of the same soil profiles at the physiological maturity stage of a maize (Zea mays L.) crop. Root length was measured by the line intercept (LI) and computer image processing (CIP) methods from the monolith samples.

There was a slight significant correlation (r=0.28, p<0.005) between the number of roots measured by minirhizotron and root lengths measured by the LI method, however, no correlation was found with the CIP method. Using a single regression line, root number was underestimated by the minirhizotron method at depths between 0–7.6 cm. A correlation was found between root length estimated by LI and CIP. The slope of estimated RLD was significant with depth for these two methods. Root length density (RLD) measured by CIP showed a more erratic decline with distance from the plant row and soil surface than the LI method.

Key words

image processing methods maize minirhizotron Zea mays L. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bland W S and Dugas W A 1988 Root length density from minirhizotron observations. Agron. J. 80, 271–275.Google Scholar
  2. Box J EJr, Smucker A J M and Ritchie J T 1989 Installation methods of minirhizotron for measuring root dynamics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53, 115–118.Google Scholar
  3. Box J E Jr and Hammond L C Eds. 1990 Rhizosphere dynamics. 322 p., AAAS Selected Symposium 113, West-view Press Inc., Boudler, CO.Google Scholar
  4. Bragg P L, Govi G and Cannell R Q 1983 A comparison of methods, including angled and vertical minirhizotrons, for studying root growth and distribution in a spring oat crop. Plant and Soil 73, 435–440.Google Scholar
  5. Ferguson J C and Smucker A J M 1989 Modification of the minirhizotron video camera system for measuring spatial and temporal root dynamics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53, 1601–1605.Google Scholar
  6. Gijsman A J, Floris J, van Noordwijk M and Brouwer G 1991 An inflatable minirhizotron system for root observations with improved soil/tube contact. Plant and Soil 134, 261–269.Google Scholar
  7. McMichael R and Taylor H M 1987 Application and limitations of rhizotrons and minirhizotrons. In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H M Taylor. pp 1–13. ASA Spec. Publ. no. 50. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  8. Parker C J, Carr M K V, Jarvis N J, Puplampu B O and Lee V H 1991 An evaluation of the minirhizotron technique for estimating root distribution in potatoes. J. Agric. Sci. Cambridge 116, 41–350.Google Scholar
  9. Smucker A J M 1990 Quantification of root dynamics in agroecological systems. In Instrumentation for Studying Vegetation Canopies for Remote Sensing in Optical and Thermal Infrared Regions. Eds. V S Goel and J M Normal. pp 237–248. Remote Sensing Reviews 5.Google Scholar
  10. Smucker A J M, McBurney S L and Srivastava A K 1982 Quantitative separation of roots from compacted soil profiles by the hydropneumatic elutriation system. Agron. J. 74, 500–503.Google Scholar
  11. Smucker A J M, Ferguson J C, Debruyn W P, Belford R L and Ritchie J T 1987 Image analysis of video recorded plant root systems. In Minirhizotron Observation tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H M Taylor. pp 67–80. ASA Spec. Publ. no. 50. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  12. Snider R J, Snider R and Smucker A J M 1990 Collembolan population and root dynamics in Michigan agroecosystems. In Rhizosphere Dynamics. Eds. Box J E and L C Hammon. pp 168–191. AAAS Selected Symposium 113, West-view Press Inc., CO.Google Scholar
  13. Srivastava A K, Smucker A J M and McBurney S L 1982 An improved mechanical soil-root sampler. Transactions of ASAE 25, 868–871.Google Scholar
  14. Tennant D 1975 A test of a modified line intercept method of estimating root length. J. Ecol. 68, 995–1001.Google Scholar
  15. Upchurch D R and Ritchie J T 1983 Root observations using a video recording system in minirhizotrons. Agron. J. 75, 1009–1015.Google Scholar
  16. VanNoordwijk M, de Jager A and Floris J 1985 A new dimension of observations in minirhizotrons: A stereoscopic view on root photographs. Plant and Soil 86, 447–453.Google Scholar
  17. Vogt C and Persson H 1991 Measuring growth and development of roots. In Techniques and Approaches in Forest Tree Ecophysiology. Eds. J PLassoie and T M Hincley. pp 477–501. CRS Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hooshang Majdi
    • 1
  • Alvin J. M. Smucker
    • 2
  • Hans Persson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Environmental ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Crop and Soil SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations