, Volume 199, Issue 1–2, pp 223–232 | Cite as

Genetic differences in root mass of Lolium perenne varieties under field conditions

  • Joachim DeruEmail author
  • Henk Schilder
  • Jan Rinze van der Schoot
  • Nick van Eekeren


Although grasses have dense rooting systems, nutrient uptake and productivity can be increased, and N-leaching reduced, if rooting is further improved. The variation in root mass of 16 varieties of Lolium perenne was studied under field conditions in two experiments on sandy soil in The Netherlands. The chosen varieties differed in genetic and aboveground characteristics such as ploidy, productivity and grass cover. Root dry matter (RDM) was measured in the 0–8, 8–16 and 16–24 cm soil layers. In summary, we found that RDM of perennial ryegrass differed significantly between varieties under field conditions. These differences were not linked to grass yield, which indicates that it is possible to select perennial ryegrass varieties that combine high aboveground productivity with high RDM. In the first experiment, which was managed by cutting, diploid varieties had higher RDM than tetraploid varieties. Grand mean RDM in the second experiment, which was managed by cutting as well as grazing, was lower than in the first experiment. In this experiment, total RDM was not influenced by ploidy but by grass cover type: high grass cover types had higher RDM. Differences in management between the two experiments possibly explain the differences in RDM and in the influence of chosen characteristics on RDM. Considering challenges in the areas of climate change, water availability, pollution and soil degradation, grass varieties with improved root systems could significantly contribute to a more efficient use of nutrients and water, erosion control, soil improvement and carbon sequestration.


Grass Lolium perenne Root length Root mass Varieties 



This research was part of the project Bufferboeren, financed by the following Dutch institutions: Agricultural Innovation Bureau (LIB), Dairy Board (PZ), Brabant Water, Water Board Aa en Maas, Rabobank Bernheeze, Foundation for Applied Water Research (STOWA), NCB-fund and Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (I&M). We want to thank the Dutch breeders association Plantum for the opportunity to take root samples in the VCU trials.


  1. Abberton MT, Marshall AH, Humphreys MW, Macduff JH, Collins RP, Marley CL (2008) Genetic improvement of forage species to reduce the environmental impact of temperate livestock grazing systems. Adv Agron 98:311–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews RE, Newman EI (1970) Root intensity and competition for nutrients. Oecol Plant 5:319–334Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson D, Black KE, Dawson A, Dunsiger Z, Watson CA, Wilson SA (2005) Prospects, advantages and limitations of future crop production systems dependent upon the management of soil processes. Ann Appl Biol 146:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baan Hofman T, Ennik GC (1980) Investigation into plant characters affecting the competitive ability of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Neth J Agric Sci 28:97–100Google Scholar
  5. Bonos SA, Rush D, Hignight K, Meyer WA (2004) Selection for deep root production in tall fescue and perennial Ryegrass. Crop Sci 44:1770–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouma TJ, Nielsen KL, Koutstaal B (2000) Sample preparation and scanning protocol for computerised analysis of root length and diameter. Plant Soil 218:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman DC, Devitt DA, Engelke MC, Rufty TW (1998) Root architecture affects nitrate leaching from bentgrass turf. Crop Sci 38:1633–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bronick CJ, Lal R (2005) Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cougnon M, Deru J, Van Eekeren N, Baert J, Reheul D (2013) Root depth and biomass of tall fescue vs. perennial ryegrass. Grassl Sci Eur 18:285–287Google Scholar
  10. Crush JR, Easton HS and Waller JE (2006) Genetic variation in perennial ryegrass for root profile characteristics. In: Mercer CF (ed) New Zealand Grassland Association Research and Practice Series No. 12. New Zealand Grassland Association, Dunedin, pp 63–65Google Scholar
  11. Crush JR, Easton HS, Waller JE, Hume DE, Faville MJ (2007) Genotypic variation in patterns of root distribution, nitrate interception and response to moisture stress of a perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) mapping population. Grass Forage Sci 62:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crush JR, Nichols SN, Easton HS, Ouyang L, Hume DE (2009) Comparison between wild populations and bred perennial ryegrasses for root growth and root/shoot partitioning. N Z J Agric Res 52:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson RL (1969) Effects of soil nutrients and moisture on root/shoot ratios in Lolium perenne L and Trifolium repens L. Ann Bot 33:571–577Google Scholar
  14. Dawson LA, Thornton B, Pratt SM, Paterson E (2003) Morphological and topological responses of roots to defoliation and nitrogen supply in Lolium perenne and Festuca ovina. New Phytol 161:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deinum B (1985) Root mass of grass swards in different grazing systems. Neth J Agric Sci 33:377–384Google Scholar
  16. Deru J, Van Eekeren N, De Boer H (2010) Rooting of grassland: a literature review on nutrient uptake in relation to rooting depth and density, and on potential measures to stimulate deep and dense rooting of grass (in Dutch, English summary). Louis Bolk Institute, Driebergen-Rijsenburg, p 63Google Scholar
  17. Dunbabin V, Diggle A, Rengel Z (2003) Is there an optimal root architecture for nitrate capture in leaching environments? Plant Cell Environ 26:835–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ennik GC, Baan Hofman T (1983) Variation in the root mass of ryegrass types and its ecological consequences. Neth J Agric Sci 31:325–334Google Scholar
  19. Ennik GC, Gillet M, Sibma L (1980) Effect of high nitrogen supply on sward deterioration and root mass. In: Prins WH, Arnol GH (eds) The role of nitrogen in intensive grassland production. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 67–76Google Scholar
  20. Evans PS (1971) Root growth of Lolium perenne L. 2. Effects of defoliation and shading. N Z J Agric Res 14:552–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans PS (1972) Root growth of Lolium perenne L. 3. Investigation of mechanism of defoliation-induced suppression of elongation. N Z J Agric Res 15:347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fairley RI (1985) Grass root production in restored soil following opencast mining. In: Fitter AH, Atkinson D, Read DJ, Usher MB (1985) Ecological interactions in soil. British Ecological Society, London, special publication, vol 4, pp 81-85Google Scholar
  23. Forde B, Lorenzo H (2001) The nutritional control of root development. Plant Soil 232:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gales K (1979) Effects of water supply on partitioning of dry matter between roots and shoots in Lolium perenne. J Appl Ecol 16:863–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garwood EA, Sinclair J (1979) Water-use and root distribution of grass species. J Sci Food Agric 29:834Google Scholar
  26. He ZL, Baligar VC, Martens DC, Ritchey KD, Elrashidi MA (1999) Relationship of ryegrass growth to extractable phosphorus in acidic soil amended with phosphate rock, coal combustion by-products, limestone and cellulose. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 30(3&4):457–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 22:811–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoogerkamp M, Rogaar H, Eysakkers HJP (1983) Effects of earthworms on grassland on recently reclaimed polder soils in the Netherlands. In: Satchell JE (ed) Earthworm ecology: from Darwin to vermiculture. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Houlbrooke DJ, Thom ER, Chapman R, McLay CDA (1997) A study of the effects of soil bulk density on root and shoot growth of different ryegrass lines. N Z J Agric Res 40:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996) A global analysis of root distribution for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108:389–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kutschera L, Lichtenegger E, Sobotik M (2009) Wurzelatlas der Kulturpflanzen gemässiger Gebiete mit Arten des Feldgemüsebaues. 7. Band. Frankfurt am Main, DLG-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynch JP (2007) Roots of the Second Green Revolution. Aust J Bot 55:493–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moir JL, Edwards GR, Berry LN (2012) Nitrogen uptake and leaching loss of thirteen temperate grass species under high N loading. Grass Forage Sci 68:313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Powell CL (1977) Effect of phosphate fertilizer and plant density on phosphate inflow into ryegrass roots in soil. Plant Soil 47:383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robinson D, Linehan DJ, Caul S (1991) What limits nitrate uptake from soil? Plant Cell Environ 14:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheu S (2003) Effects of earthworms on plant growth: patterns and perspectives. Pedobiologia 47:846–856Google Scholar
  37. Snow VO, White TA (2013) Process-based modelling to understand which ryegrass characteristics can increase production and decrease leaching in grazed grass–legume pastures. Crop Pasture Sci 64:265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sprangers JTCM (1999) Vegetation dynamics and erosion resistance of sea dyke grassland. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  39. Steingrobe B, Schmid H, Claassen N (2000) The use of the ingrowth core method for measuring root production of arable crops—influence of soil conditions inside the ingrowth core on root growth. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 163:617–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Troughton A (1980) Production of root axes and leaf elongation in perennial ryegrass in relation to dryness of the upper soil layer. J Agric Sci 95:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Eekeren N, Bommelé L, Bloem J, Schouten AJ, Rutgers M, De Goede R, Reheul D, Brussaard L (2008) Soil Biological quality after 36 years of ley-arable cropping, permanent grassland and permanent arable cropping. Appl Soil Ecol 40:432–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Eekeren N, Bos M, De Wit J, Keidel H, Bloem J (2010) Effect of different grass species mixtures on soil quality in relation to root biomass and grass yield. Appl Soil Ecol 45:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verloop K (2013) Limits of effective nutrient management in dairy farming: analyses of experimental farm De Marke. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  44. White TA, Snow VO (2012) A modelling analysis to identify plant traits for enhanced water-use efficiency of pasture. Crop Pasture Sci 63:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim Deru
    • 1
    Email author
  • Henk Schilder
    • 2
  • Jan Rinze van der Schoot
    • 3
  • Nick van Eekeren
    • 1
  1. 1.Louis Bolk InstituteDriebergenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Wageningen UR Livestock ResearchLelystadThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Wageningen UR Applied Plant ResearchLelystadThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations