Plant and Soil

, Volume 148, Issue 1, pp 29–41 | Cite as

A comparison of minirhizotron, core and monolith methods for quantifying barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and fababean (Vicia faba L.) root distribution

  • D. A. Heeraman
  • N. G. Juma
Research Article

Abstract

Root research has been hampered by a lack of good methods and by the amount of time involved in making measurements. The use of the minirhizotron as a quantitative tool requires comparison with conventional destructive methods. This study was conducted in the greenhouse to compare the minirhizotron technique with core and monolith methods in quantifying barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and fababean (Vicia faba L.) root distribution. Plants were grown in boxes (80 cm long × 80 cm wide × 75 cm deep) in a hexagonal arrangement to minimize the effects of rooting anistrophy. Minirhizotron observations and destructive sampling to a depth of 70 cm using core and monolith methods were performed at the ripening growth stage. Total root length for the entire depth interval was generally higher in barley (159–309 m) than fababean (110–226 m). Significant correlation coefficients between monolith and core methods for root length density (RLD, cm cm−3) was observed in both crops (p ≤ 0.01). A method and depth interaction showed no significant differences in fababean RLD distribution measured by core and monolith methods. However, the RLD was different for the uppermost 40 cm depth in barley. The relationship for RLD between minirhizotron and core methods was significant only in barley (r=0.77*). For both crops, estimates of RLD in the top 10-cm layer by the minirhizotron technique were lower than those by core and monolith techniques. In contrast, estimates of RLD were higher in fababean at a depth >30 cm. Destructive sampling still remains the method to quantify root growth in the 0–10 cm soil layer. ei]B E Clothier

Key words

barley core fababean minirhizotron monolith root density root distribution Typic Cryoboroll 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atmospheric Environmental Service 1982b Canadian Climate Normals, 1951–1980. Volume 1: Solar Radiation. Downsview: Atmospheric Environment Service.Google Scholar
  2. Belford R K and Henderson F K G 1984 Measurement of the growth of wheat roots using a TV camera system in the field.In Wheat Growth and Modelling. Eds. WDay and R KAtkin. pp 99–105. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Beyrouty C A, Wells B R, Norman R J, Marvel J N and Pillow J RJr. 1987 Characterization of rice roots using a minirhizotron technique.In Minirhizotron Obsrvation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 99–108. ASA Spec. Pub. 50, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  4. Böhm W 1979 Methods of studying Root Systems. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Böhm W, Maduakor H and Taylor H M 1977 Comparison of five methods for characterizing soybean rooting density and development. Agron. J. 69, 415–419.Google Scholar
  6. Box G E P and Cox D R 1964 An analysis of transformations. J. Roy. Stat. Soc., Ser. B 26, 211–243.Google Scholar
  7. Box J E and Johnson J W 1987 Minirhizotron rooting comparison of three wheat cultivars.In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 123–130. ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Brown D A and Upchurch D R 1987 Minirhizotrons: A summary of methods and instruments in current use.In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 15–30. ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA. CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  10. Cheng W, Coleman D C and BoxJr. J E 1990 Root dynamics, production and distribution in agroecosystems on the Georgia Piedmont using minirhizotrons. J. Appl. Ecol. 27, 592–604.Google Scholar
  11. Crown P H and Greenlee G M 1978 Guide-book for a soils and land use tour in the Edmonton Region, Alberta: Tours E1, E2 and E3. 11th Congress of Int. Soc. of Soil Sci., Edmonton, Alta, 102 p.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham M, Adams M B, Luxmoore R J, Post W M and DeAngelis D L 1989 Quick estimates of root length, using a video image analyzer. Can. J. For. Res. 19, 335–340.Google Scholar
  13. De Willigen P and Van Noordwijk M 1987 Roots, Plant Production and Nutrient Use Efficiency. Ph.D. thesis Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 282 p.Google Scholar
  14. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) Crop Growth Stage Keys: Field Bean 1987 EPPO Bulletin 17, 491–496.Google Scholar
  15. Furuya M and Rorrey J G 1964 The reversible inhibition by red and far red light of auxin-induced lateral root initiation in isolated pea roots. Plant Physiol. 39, 987–991.Google Scholar
  16. Gijsman A J, Floris J, VanNoordwijk 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
  17. Gregory P J 1979 A periscope method for observing root growth and distribution in field soil. J. Exp. Bot. 30, 205–214.Google Scholar
  18. Hackett C 1968 A study of the root system of barley. I. Effects of nutrition on two varieties. New Phytol. 67, 287–299.Google Scholar
  19. Hamblin A and Tennant D 1987 Root length density and water uptake in cereals and grain legumes: How well are they correlated? Aust. J. Agric. Res. 38, 513–527.Google Scholar
  20. Hansson A C and Andrén O 1987 Root dynamics in barley, lucerne and meadow fescue investigated with a mini-rhizotron technique. Plant and Soil 103, 33–38.Google Scholar
  21. Harris G A and Campbell G S 1989 Automated quantification of roots using a simple image analyzer. Agron. J. 81, 935–938.Google Scholar
  22. Köpke U 1981 A comparison of methods for measuring root growth of field crops. Z. Acker-Pflanzenbau 150, 39–49.Google Scholar
  23. Levan M A, Yeas J W and Hummel J W 1987 Light leak effects on near-surface soybean rooting observed with minirhizotrons.In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 89–98. ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  24. Madsen H B 1985 Distribution of spring barley roots in Danish soils of different texture and under different climatic conditions. Plant and Soil 88, 31–43.Google Scholar
  25. Maertens C 1987 Ways of using endoscopy to determine growth and quality of root systems.In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamcis. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 31–38 ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  26. McMichael B L and Taylor H M 1987 Applications and limitations of rhizotrons and minirhizotrons.In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 1–14. ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  27. Merrill S D, Doering E J and Reichman G A 1987 Application of a minirhizotron with flexible, pressurized walls to a study of corn root growth.In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 131–143. ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  28. Newman E I 1966 A method of estimating the total length of root in a sample. J. Appl. Ecol. 3, 139–145.Google Scholar
  29. Persson H 1990 Methods of studying root dynamics in relation to nutrient cycling.In Nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems: Field methods application, and interpretation. Eds. A FHarrison, P.Ineson and O WHeal. pp 198–217. London/Elsevier Applied Science, New York. 454 p.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers H H and Bottomley P A 1987 In situ nuclear magnetic reasonance imaging of roots: Influence of soil type, ferromagnetic particle content, and soil water. Agron. J. 79, 957–965.Google Scholar
  31. Russell R S 1977 Plant root systems: Their function and interaction with the soil. McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
  32. Sanders J L and Brown D A 1979 Measurement of rooting patterns for determinate and indeterminate soybean genotypes with a fiber-optic scope.In The soil-root interface. Proceedings of an International Symposium in Oxford. Ed. J LHarley and R SRussell. pp 369–379. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  33. SAS Institute, Inc. 1985 SAS/STAT Procedures Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. 378 p.Google Scholar
  34. Schuurman J J and Goedewaagen M A J 1971 Methods for the examination of root systems and roots. Center for Agricultural Publications and Documentation, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Shapiro S S and Wilk M B 1965 An analysis of variance test for normality. (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 591–611.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Smucker A J M, Ferguson J C, DeBruyn W P, Belford R K, 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 MTaylor. pp 67–80. ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor H M 1987In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor H M, Huck M G, Klepper B and Lund Z F 1970 Measurement of soil-grown roots in a rhizotron. Agron. J. 62, 807–809.Google Scholar
  40. Tennant D 1976 A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. J. Ecol. 63, 995–1001.Google Scholar
  41. Upchurch D R and Ritchie J T 1983 Root observations using a video recording system in mini-rhizotrons. Agron. J. 75, 1009–1015.Google Scholar
  42. Upchurch D R 1987 Conversion of minirhizotron-root intersections to root length density.In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 51–66. ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  43. Van Noordwijk M 1987 Methods for quantification of root distribution pattern and root dynamics in the field. Proc. 20th Colloq. Intern. Potash Inst., Baden bei Wien, pp 263–281.Google Scholar
  44. VanNoordwijk M, Floris J and Jagerde A 1985 Sampling schemes for estimating root density distribution in cropped fields. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 33, 241–262.Google Scholar
  45. Vogt K A, Vogt D J, Moore E E and Sprugel D G 1989 Methodological considerations in measuring biomass production, respiration and nutrient resorption for tree roots in natural ecosystems.In Applications of Continuous and Steady-State Methods to Root Biology. Eds. J GTorrey and L JWinship. pp 217–232. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  46. Volkmar K M 1991 Applications of minirhizotrons to soil research. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Alberta Soil Science Workshop. 19–21 February 1991, Lethbridge Lodge, Lethbridge, Alberta.Google Scholar
  47. Vos J and Groenwold J 1987 The relation between root growth along observation tubes and in bulk Soil.In Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Ed. H MTaylor. pp 39–50 ASA Spec. Pub. 50. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  48. Weaver J E 1926 Root Development of Field Crops. McGraw Hill, New York. 291 p.Google Scholar
  49. Xu J G and Juma N G 1992 Above and below-ground net primary production of four barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. (In press).Google Scholar
  50. Yamauchi A, Kono Y and Tatsumi J 1987 Comparison of root system structure of 13 species of cereals. Jpn J. Crop Sci. 56, 618–631.Google Scholar
  51. Zadoks J C, Chang T T and Konzak C F 1974 A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 14, 415–421.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. Heeraman
    • 1
  • N. G. Juma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations