Plant and Soil

, Volume 107, Issue 2, pp 267–272 | Cite as

Analysis of the spatial variability of maize root density

II. Distances between roots
  • F. Tardieu


A study was carried out in a maize field in order (i) to study the horizontal variability of the root length per unit volume (Lv), and (ii) to compare two methods of calculation of distances between roots: the first was based on the classical calculation of half the mean distance between neighbouring roots (HMDR), and the second was a direct graphical method carried out on root maps, on 5 superposed horizontal planes. Lv was measured at silking in adjacent, 10−3m3-sized parallelepipeds, and in 2-cm edged cubes taken in non-compacted zone. At a 10−3m3 scale, the distribution of Lv was bimodal in each layer, with one mode in non-compacted zones and the other, which was 20 times lower, below the wheel tracks. The study on a contimetre-sized scale in the non-compacted parts showed a very skewed distribution, with differences between cubes of more than one order of magnitude. The HMDR per layer were smaller than 2 cm to a depth of 60 cm, whereas the direct method showed that an appreciable proportion of points in the soil were at a distance more than 10 times the HMDR from the nearest root. It would therefore have been incorrect to consider, as it is generally assumed in water uptake models, that the maximum distance which water had to travel to the nearest root was the HMDR. Here, root mapping was therefore a better solution than measurement of Lv for characterizing root system as a water sink.

Key words

distances maize root density root clumping soil structure water relations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allmaras R R, Nelson W W and Voorhees W B 1975 Soybean and corn rooting in southwestern Minnesota. II. Root distributions and related water inflow. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39, 771–777.Google Scholar
  2. Böhm W 1979 Methods of Studying Root Systems, Berlin, 188 p.Google Scholar
  3. Edwards W M, Fehrenbacher J B and Vavra J P 1964 The effect of discrete ped density on corn root penetration in a plano soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28, 560–564.Google Scholar
  4. Gardner W R 1960 Dynamic aspects of water availability to plants. Soil Sci. 89, 63–73.Google Scholar
  5. Jordan M O 1986 Mise en Place du Système Racinaire du Maïs. Définition et Caracterisation au Champ et en Conditions Contrôlées des Paramètres Descriptifs de la Structure Racinaire. Thèse Strasbourg I, 177 p.Google Scholar
  6. Mengel D B and Barber S A 1974 Development and distribution of the corn root system under field conditions. Agron. J. 66, 341–344.Google Scholar
  7. Molz F J 1981 Models of water transport in the soil-plant system: a review. Water resour. Res., 61, 751–755.Google Scholar
  8. Newman E I 1969 Resistance to water flow in soil and plant. I. Soil resistance in relation to amounts of root: theoretical estimates. J. Appl. Ecol. 6, 1–2.Google Scholar
  9. Tardieu F 1988 Analysis of spatial variability of maize root density. I. Effect of compactions on spatial arrangement of roots. Plant and Soil 107, 259–266.Google Scholar
  10. Tardieu F and Manichon H 1986 Caractérisation en tant que capteur d’eau de l’enracinement du maïs en parcelle cultivée. I. Discussion des critères d’étude. Agronomie 6, 345–354.Google Scholar
  11. Varlet Grancher C, Derieux M, Jordan M O, Girardin P and Picard D 1988 Rythme d’apparition des racines primaires du maïs. III Variations pour quelques génotypes. Agronomie 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Tardieu
    • 1
  1. 1.INRA Laboratoire d’agronomieThiverval GrignonFrance

Personalised recommendations