Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 71, Issue 1–3, pp 63–74 | Cite as

Root distribution of fourVitis cultivars

  • R. L. Perry
  • S. D. Lyda
  • H. H. Bowen
Article

Summary

Root distribution of fourVitis cultivars at one location in Texas was asessed using trench profile and soil core sampling methods. Greater differences were obtained among cultivars utilizing the latter method when comparing root dry weights. Surface area of roots extracted from soil samples was estimated using a calcium nitrate slurry dip. This technique was found to be unreliable.Vitis champini cv. Dogridge maintained the greatest above-ground canopy and the most extensive root system. In measuring root numbers and dry weight,V. rotundifolia cv. Noble ranked at or near the bottom withV. vinifera cv. Barbera andV. labruscana cv. Concord being intermediate. Overall schematic root system patterns for each cultivar indicate that Noble is shallow rooted, having more than 35% of the total roots in the 0–15 cm depth. In contrast, ten percent of the total Dogridge roots were found at the 90–105 cm depth.

Key words

Calcium nitrate Distribution Distribution Roots Vitis 

References

  1. 1.
    Adriance G W and Hampton H E 1949 Root distribution in citrus as influenced by environment. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 53, 103–108.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous 1971 Muscadine grapes, a fruit for the south. USDA Farmers Bull. #2157, 14p.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bilan M V 1969 Some aspects of tree root distribution. pp 69–80.In Mycorrhizae. Ed. E Hacsckaylo. Proc. 1st. N. Am. Conf. Mycorrhizae, Misc. Publ. #1189 USDA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Böhm W 1979 Methods of studying Root Systems. Springer-Verlag, NY. 188 p.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks J F 1972 Muscadine grapes production, guide for North Carolina., N. C. State Coop. ext. Service Bull. 32 p.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cahoon G A and Stolzy L H 1959 Estimating root density and distribution in citrus orchards by the neutron moderation methods. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 74, 322–327.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carley H E and Watson R D 1966 A new gravimetric method for estimating root surface areas. Soil Sci. 102, 289–291.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castle W S and Krezdorn A H 1974 Effect of citrus rootstocks on root distribution and leaf mineral content of Orlando Tangelo trees. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 100, 1–4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castle W S and Krezdorn A H 1977 Soil water use and apparent root efficiencies of citrus trees on four rootstocks. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 102, 403–406.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conrad J P and Veihmeyer F J 1929 Root development and soil moisture. Hilgardia 4, 113–134.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ford H W 1959 Growth and root distribution of orange trees on two different rootstocks as influenced by depth to subsoil clay. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 74, 313–321.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kasimatis A N and Lider L 1975 Grape rootstock varieties. Univ. Calif. Coop. Ext. Leafl. #2780, 16p.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kramer P J 1969 Plant and Soil Water Relationships: a modern Synthesis, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oskamp J 1932 The rooting habits of deciduous fruits on different soils. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 29, 213–219.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perry R L and Bowen H H 1974 A feasibility study for grape production in Texas. Tex. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep. 74-43.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers W S and Beakbane A G 1956 Stock and scion relations. Annu. Rev. Plant. Physiol. 8, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rogers W S and Vyvyan M C 1934 Rootstock and soil effect on apple root systems. J. Pomol. Hortic. Sci. 12, 110–150.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schuurman J J and Goedewaagen M A J 1971 Methods for the Examination of Root Systems and Roots. Agric. Publ. and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tukey H B and Brase K D 1933 Influence of the scion and of an intermediate stem-piece upon the character and development of roots of young apple trees. N.Y. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 281.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiersum L K 1980 The effect of soil physical conditions on roots and uptake. pp 11–121.In Mineral Nutrition of Fruit Trees. Eds. D Atkinson, J E Jackson, R O Sharples and W M Walter. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. L. Perry
    • 1
  • S. D. Lyda
    • 1
  • H. H. Bowen
    • 1
  1. 1.Horticulture DepartmentMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations