Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 113–118 | Cite as

Precrop root system determines root diameter of subsequent crop

Short Communication
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Little is known about the root distribution pattern of different root diameter classes as affected by crop sequence. Barley roots were sampled using the monolith method from 45 to 155 cm soil depth at the time of anthesis (BBCH = 61) after growing taprooted chicory and fibrous-rooted tall fescue precrops for two consecutive years. Image-based analysis of the root-length density (RLD, cm cm−3) of four root diameter classes, viz., very fine (<0.1 mm), fine (0.1–0.2 mm), medium (0.2–0.5 mm), and coarse roots (>0.5 mm), was done by using the WinRHIZO Pro software. Proportional distribution of very fine, fine, medium, and coarse roots across the soil depth was 4.4, 33.6, 50.4, and 11.6 %, respectively. In case of very fine and fine roots, the RLD of barley was significantly higher when grown after tall fescue (0.35 cm cm−3) than chicory (0.53 cm cm−3). In contrast to these results, barley roots sampled after the taprooted chicory resulted in a higher RLD of two upper root diameter classes (medium and coarse roots; 0.38 cm cm−3) in comparison to tall fescue (0.23 cm cm−3). Our data suggest the root architecture of precrops resulted first in different patterns of soil biopores and second in a different morphology of the root system of the subsequent crop. More precise root sampling inside and outside the pore channels might be helpful for direct comparisons of root morphological traits. Additionally, functional-structural plant models allowing the modeling of root growth in three dimensions will be helpful tools for understanding the interrelations between root-designed soil structure, root development plasticity, and nutrient uptake processes.

Keywords

Root morphology Root-length density Pore dynamics Biopore Nutrient acquisition 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) for financing this study under the research units DFG-FOR 1320 and DFG-PAK 888. Special thanks shall go to Miriam Athmann, Ute Perkons, Ning Huang, Christian Dahn, Henning Riebeling, and Johannes Siebigteroth for their valuable contribution to this study.

References

  1. Athmann M, Kautz T, Pude R, Köpke U (2013) Root growth in biopores—evaluation with in situ endoscopy. Plant Soil 371:179–190. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1673-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atwell BJ (1988) Physiological responses of lupin roots to soil compaction. Plant Soil 111:277–281. doi: 10.1007/Bf02139953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengough AG (2003) Root growth and function in relation to soil structure, composition, and strength. In: de Kroon H, Visser EJW (eds) Root ecology. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bengough AG (2012) Root elongation is restricted by axial but not by radial pressures: so what happens in field soil? Plant Soil 360:15–18. doi: 10.1007/s11104-012-1428-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengough AG, Mackenzie CJ (1994) Simultaneous measurement of root force and elongation for seedling pea roots. J Exp Bot 45:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Böhm W (1979) Monolith methods. In: Böhm W (ed) Methods of studying root systems. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrow RN (1996) Drought avoidance characteristics of diverse tall fescue cultivars. Crop Sci 36:371–377. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1996.0011183X003600020026x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Föhse D, Claassen N, Jungk A (1991) Phosphorus efficiency of plants. Plant Soil 132:261–272. doi: 10.1007/BF00011205 Google Scholar
  9. Gaiser T, Perkons U, Küpper PM, Uteau Puschmann D, Peth S, Kautz T, Pfeifer J, Ewert F, Horn R, Köpke U (2012) Evidence of improved water uptake from subsoil by spring wheat following lucerne in a temperate humid climate. Field Crop Res 126:56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godin C, Sinoquet H (2005) Functional-structural plant modelling. New Phytol 166:705–708. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01445.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Han E, Kautz T, Perkons U, Lüsebrink M, Pude R, Köpke U (2015a) Quantification of soil biopore density after perennial fodder cropping. Plant Soil. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2488-3 Google Scholar
  12. Han E, Kautz T, Perkons U, Uteau D, Peth S, Huang N, Horn R, Köpke U (2015b) Root growth dynamics inside and outside of soil biopores as affected by crop sequence determined with the profile wall method. Biol Fertil Soils. doi: 10.1007/s00374-015-1032-1 Google Scholar
  13. Hatano R, Iwanaga K, Okajima H, Sakuma T (1988) Relationship between the distribution of soil macropores and root elongation. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 34:535–546. doi: 10.1080/00380768.1988.10416469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirth JR, McKenzie BM, Tisdall JM (2005) Ability of seedling roots of Lolium perenne L. to penetrate soil from artificial biopores is modified by soil bulk density, biopore angle and biopore relief. Plant Soil 272:327–336. doi: 10.1007/s11104-004-5764-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodge A, Robinson D, Griffiths BS, Fitter AH (1999) Why plants bother: root proliferation results in increased nitrogen capture from an organic patch when two grasses compete. Plant Cell Environ 22:811–820. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.1999.00454.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang B, Gao H (2000) Root physiological characteristics associated with drought resistance in tall fescue cultivars. Crop Sci 40:196–203. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2000.401196x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huck MG, Klepper B, Taylor HM (1970) Diurnal variations in root diameter. Plant Physiol 45:529–530PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joslin JD, Gaudinski JB, Torn MS, Riley WJ, Hanson PJ (2006) Fine-root turnover patterns and their relationship to root diameter and soil depth in a 14C-labeled hardwood forest. New Phytol 172:523–535. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01847.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jungk A, Claassen N (1997) Ion diffusion in the soil-root system. Adv Agron 61:53–110. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60662-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kautz T (2014) Research on subsoil biopores and their functions in organically managed soils: a review. Renew Agric Food Syst. doi: 10.1017/S1742170513000549 Google Scholar
  21. Kautz T, Perkons U, Athmann M, Pude R, Köpke U (2013) Barley roots are not constrained to large-sized biopores in the subsoil of a deep Haplic Luvisol. Biol Fertil Soils 49:959–963. doi: 10.1007/s00374-013-0783-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kautz T, Lüsebrink M, Pätzold S, Vetterlein D, Pude R, Athmann M, Küpper PM, Perkons U, Köpke U (2014) Contribution of anecic earthworms to biopore formation during cultivation of perennial ley crops. Pedobiologia 57:47–52. doi: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2013.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirkegaard J, Christen O, Krupinsky J, Layzell D (2008) Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. Field Crop Res 107:185–195. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2008.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolb E, Hartmann C, Genet P (2012) Radial force development during root growth measured by photoelasticity. Plant Soil 360:19–35. doi: 10.1007/s11104-012-1316-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Köpke U, Athmann M, Han E, Kautz T (2015) Optimising cropping techniques for nutrient and environmental management in organic agriculture. Sustain Agric Res 4:11–21Google Scholar
  26. Lynch JP, Wojciechowski T (2015) Opportunities and challenges in the subsoil: pathways to deeper rooted crops. J Exp Bot 66:2199–2210. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru508 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Materechera SA, Alston AM, Kirby JM, Dexter AR (1992) Influence of root diameter on the penetration of seminal roots into a compacted subsoil. Plant Soil 144:297–303. doi: 10.1007/BF00012888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCallum MH, Kirkegaard JA, Green TW, Cresswell HP, Davies SL, Angus JF, Peoples MB (2004) Improved subsoil macroporosity following perennial pastures. Aust J Exp Agric 44:299–307. doi: 10.1071/EA03076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McKenzie BM, Bengough AG, Hallett PD, Thomas WTB, Forster B, McNicol JW (2009) Deep rooting and drought screening of cereal crops: a novel field-based method and its application. Field Crop Res 112:165–171. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Passioura JB (1988) Water transport in and to roots. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 39:245–265. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.39.1.245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perkons U, Kautz T, Uteau D, Peth S, Geier V, Thomas K, Holz KL, Athmann M, Pude R, Köpke U (2014) Root-length densities of various annual crops following crops with contrasting root systems. Soil Tillage Res 137:50–57. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2013.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pierret A, Moran CJ, Pankhurst CE (1999) Differentiation of soil properties related to the spatial association of wheat roots and soil macropores. Plant Soil 211:51–58. doi: 10.1023/a:1004490800536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pii Y, Mimmo T, Tomasi N, Terzano R, Cesco S, Crecchio C (2015) Microbial interactions in the rhizosphere: beneficial influences of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on nutrient acquisition process: a review. Biol Fertil Soils 51:403–415. doi: 10.1007/s00374-015-0996-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/
  35. Reinhardt DR, Miller RM (1990) Size classes of root diameter and mycorrhizal fungal colonization in 2 temperate grassland communities. New Phytol 116:129–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1990.tb00518.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson D, Hodge A, Fitter A (2003) Constraints on the form and function of root systems. In: de Kroon H, Visser EJW (eds) Root ecology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevens GN, Jones RH (2006) Patterns in soil fertility and root herbivory interact to influence fine-root dynamics. Ecology 87:616–624. doi: 10.1890/05-0809 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stewart JB, Moran CJ, Wood JT (1999) Macropore sheath: quantification of plant root and soil macropore association. Plant Soil 211:59–67. doi: 10.1023/A:1004405422847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stirzaker RJ, Passioura JB, Wilms Y (1996) Soil structure and plant growth: impact of bulk density and biopores. Plant Soil 185:151–162. doi: 10.1007/bf02257571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Noordwijk M, Schoonderbeek D, Kooistra MJ (1993) Root-soil contact of field-grown winter wheat. Geoderma 56:277–286. doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(93)90117-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Veen BW, van Noordwijk M, de Willigen P, Boone FR, Kooistra MJ (1992) Root-soil contact of maize, as measured by a thin-section technique. III. Effects on shoot growth, nitrate and water-uptake efficiency. Plant Soil 139:131–138. doi: 10.1007/Bf00012850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vetterlein D, Kühn T, Kaiser K, Jahn R (2013) Illite transformation and potassium release upon changes in composition of the rhizophere soil solution. Plant Soil 371:267–279. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1680-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Volkmar KM (1996) Effects of biopores on the growth and N-uptake of wheat at three levels of soil moisture. Can J Soil Sci 76:453–458. doi: 10.1007/s00248-012-0132-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. White RG, Kirkegaard JA (2010) The distribution and abundance of wheat roots in a dense, structured subsoil—implications for water uptake. Plant Cell Environ 33:133–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02059.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Organic AgricultureUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Campus Klein-AltendorfRheinbachGermany

Personalised recommendations