Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 172, Issue 1, pp 63–71 | Cite as

A comparison of four methods for measuring roots of field crops in three contrasting soils

  • M. Kücke
  • H. Schmid
  • A. Spiess
Research Article

Abstract

Rooting measurements have been made at different growth stages for sugar beets (1987) and for cereals (1988) on three different sites using four different root measurement techniques: (a) the core method where roots were extracted and root length is directly measured, (b) the core-break method where the visible roots were counted on the faces of a broken soil column, (c) the trench profile wall method where the number of visible roots were counted and the root length density was estimated on a profile wall, and (d) the monolith method where the roots were extracted from monoliths dug out from a profile wall. The calibration curves between the field methods and the extraction methods were not linear, and regression coefficients differed significantly between different sites, crops and between fields with different agronomic management, e.g. irrigation and liquid manure application. Differences between growth stages were comparably low compared with those found between locations. Root length densities obtained with the trench profile method were on average 10-fold lower in the sand brown earth, 6-fold lower in the vertisol and 4 times lower in the cambisol compared to data obtained with the core method. It is therefore concluded that the core-break method and the trench profile wall method deliver no reliable data for comparing rooting intensities between different soils and between different crops if they are not calibrated with an extraction method for each site and crop.

Key words

cereals core-break method core method monolith method sugar beets trench profile method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Böhm W 1979 Methods of studying root systems. Ecological Studies Vol 33, Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. Drew M C and Saker L R 1980 Assessment of a rapid method, using soil cores, for estimating the amount and the distribution of crop roots in the field. Plant and Soil 55, 297–305.Google Scholar
  3. Ellis F B and Barnes B T 1980 Growth and development of root systems of winter cereals grown after different tillage methods including direct drilling. Plant and Soil 55, 283–295.Google Scholar
  4. Gäth S and Meuser H 1989 Vergleich von Methoden zur Bestimmung der Wurzellängendichte bei Kulturpflanzen. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 163, 124–128Google Scholar
  5. Hellriegel H 1883 Beiträge zu den naturwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen 084 des Ackerbaus mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der agrikultur-chemischen Methode der Sandkultur. Verlag F. Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig. pp 252–263.Google Scholar
  6. Kaselowsky J 1990 Wirkung von Lagerungsdichte und Wassergehalt des Bodens auf die Verfügbarkeit von Phosphat und Kalium sowie das Nährstoffaneignungsvermögen von Pflanzen. Doctoral Thesis, University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
  7. Köpke U 1979 Ein Vergleich von Feldmethoden zur Bestimmung des Wurzelwachstums landwirtschaftlicher Kulturpflanzen. Doctoral thesis, Univ. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  8. Newman E J 1966 A method of estimating the total length of root in a sample. J. Appl. Ecol. 3, 133–145.Google Scholar
  9. Othmer H and Borg H R 1989 Characterisation af the investigation sites. Landschaftsgenese und Landschaftsökologie 16, 73–86.Google Scholar
  10. Vepraskas M J and Hoyt G D 1988 Comparison of the trench- profile and core methods for evaluating root distributions in tillage studies. Agron. J. 80, 166–172.Google Scholar
  11. Vetter H and Scharafat S 1964 Die Wurzelverbreitung landwirtschaftlicher Kulturpflanzen im Unterboden. Z. Acker- und Pflanzenbau 120, 275–298.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kücke
    • 1
  • H. Schmid
    • 1
  • A. Spiess
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Plant Nutrition and Soil ScienceFederal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL)BraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations