Plant and Soil

, Volume 305, Issue 1–2, pp 207–226 | Cite as

Root tensile strength and root distribution of typical Mediterranean plant species and their contribution to soil shear strength

  • S. De Baets
  • J. Poesen
  • B. Reubens
  • K. Wemans
  • J. De Baerdemaeker
  • B. Muys
Regular Article


In Mediterranean environments, gully erosion is responsible for large soil losses. It has since long been recognized that slopes under vegetation are much more resistant to soil erosion processes compared to bare soils and improve slope stability. Planting or preserving vegetation in areas vulnerable to erosion is therefore considered to be a very effective soil erosion control measure. Re-vegetation strategies for erosion control rely in most cases on the effects of the above-ground biomass in reducing water erosion rates, whereas the role of the below-ground biomass is often neglected or underestimated. While the above-ground biomass can temporally disappear in semi-arid environments, roots may still be present underground and play an important role in protecting the topsoil from being eroded. In order to evaluate the potential of plant species growing in Mediterranean environments to prevent shallow mass movements on gully or terrace walls, the root reinforcement effect of 25 typical Mediterranean matorral species (i.e. shrubs, grasses herbs, small trees) was assessed, using the simple perpendicular model of Wu et al. (Can Geotech J 16:19–33, 1979). As little information is available on Mediterranean plant root characteristics, root distribution data were collected in SE-Spain and root tensile strength tests were conducted in the laboratory. The power root tensile strength–root diameter relationships depend on plant species. The results show that the shrubs Salsola genistoides Juss. Ex Poir. and Atriplex halimus L. have the strongest roots, followed by the grass Brachypodium retusum (Pers.) Beauv. The shrubs Nerium oleander L. and the grass Avenula bromoides (Gouan) H. Scholz have the weakest roots in tension. Root area ratio for the 0–0.1 m topsoil ranges from 0.08% for the grass Piptatherum miliaceum (L.) Coss to 0.8% for the tree Tamarix canariensis Willd. The rush Juncus acutus L. provides the maximum soil reinforcement to the topsoil by its roots (i.e. 304 kPa). Grasses also increase soil shear strength significantly (up to 244 kPa in the 0–0.1 m topsoil for Brachypodium retusum (Pers.) Beauv.). The shrubs Retama sphaerocarpa (L.) Boiss. and Anthyllis cytisoides L. are increasing soil shear strength to a large extent as well (up to 134 and 160 kPa respectively in the 0–0.10 m topsoil). Whereas grasses and the rush Juncus acutus L. increase soil shear strength in the topsoil (0–0.10 m) to a large extent, the shrubs Anthyllis cytisoides (L.), Retama sphaerocarpa (L.) Boiss., Salsola genistoides Juss. Ex Poir. and Atriplex halimus L. strongly reinforce the soil to a greater depth (0–0.5 m). As other studies reported that Wu’s model overestimates root cohesion values, reported root cohesion values in this study are maximum values. Nevertheless, the calculated cohesion values are used to rank species according to their potential to reinforce the soil.


Restoration ecology Root area ratio Root cohesion Slope stability Stream bank erosion 



This research is part of the RECONDES (Conditions for Restoration and Mitigation of Desertified Areas Using Vegetation) project funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General of Research, Global Change and Desertification Programme, Project No. GOCE-CT-2003–505361.


  1. Abernethy B, Rutherford ID (2001) The distribution and strength of riparian tree roots in relation to riverbank reinforcement. Hydrol Process 15:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts R, Maes W, November E, Behailu M, Poesen J, Deckers J, Hermy M, Muys B (2006) Surface runoff and seed trapping efficiency of shrubs in a regenerating semiarid woodland in northern Ethiopia. Catena 65:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bischetti GB, Bonfanti F, Greppi M (2003) Misura della resitenza alla trazione delle radice: apparato sperimentale e metodologica d’analisi. Quaderni di Idronomia Montana. 21:349–360 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  4. Bischetti GB, Chiaradia EA, Simonato T, Speziali B, Vitali B, Vullo P, Zocco A (2005) Root strength and root area ratio of forest species in Lombardy (Northern Italy). Plant Soil 278:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhm W (1979) Methods of studying root systems. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Buijs A (2000) Statistiek om Mee Verder te Werken. Stenfert Kroese, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  7. Cammeraat E, van Beek R, Kooijman A (2005) Vegetation succession and its consequences for slope stability in SE Spain. Plant Soil 278:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castillo VM, Mosch WM, Conesa Garcia C, Barbera GG, Navarro Cano JA, Lopez-Bermudez F (2007) Effectiveness and geomorphological impacts of check dams for soil erosion control in a semiarid Mediterranean catchment: El Cárvavo (Murcia, Spain). Catena 70:416–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cofie P, Koolen AJ (2001) Test speed and other factors affecting the measurements of tree root properties used in soil reinforcement models. Soil Tillage Res 63:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Special report 247: landslides, investigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp 36–71Google Scholar
  11. Davidson DW, Kapustka LA, Koch RG (1991) The role of plant root distribution and strength in moderating erosion of red clay in the Lake Superior watershed. Trans Wis Acad Sci Arts Lett 77:51–63Google Scholar
  12. De Baets S, Poesen J, Knapen A, Barberá GG, Navarro JA (2007) Root characteristics of representative Mediterranean plant species and their erosion-reducing potential during concentrated runoff. Plant Soil 294:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dupuy L, Fourcaud T, Stokes A (2005) A numerical investigation into the influence of soil type and root architecture on tree anchorage. Plant Soil 278:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ennos AR (1990) The anchorage of leek seedlings – the effect of root length and soil strength. Ann Bot 65:409–416Google Scholar
  15. Ennos AR, Crook MJ, Grimshaw C (1993) A comparative study of the anchorage systems of Himalyan Balsam Impatiens glandulifera and Mature Sunflower Helicanthus annuus. J Exp Bot 258:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FAO (2005) New_LocClim software – local climate estimator. Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper N° 20. Environment and Natural Resources Service, FAO, Rome, Italy (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  17. Genet M, Stokes A, Salin F, Mickovski SB, Fourcaud T, Dumail J, van Beek R (2005) The influence of cellulose content on tensile strength in tree roots. Plant Soil 278:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray DH, Barker D (2004) Root-soil mechanics and interactions. In: Bennett JJ, Simon A (eds) Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphology. Water Science and Application 8. American Geophyisical Union, New York, pp 113–123Google Scholar
  19. Gray DH, Leiser AT (1982) Biotechnical slope protection and erosion control. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, p 271Google Scholar
  20. Gray DH, Sotir RB (1996) Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: a practical guide for erosion control. Wiley, Toronto, p 365Google Scholar
  21. Greenway DR (1987) Vegetation and slope stability. In: Anderson MG, Richards KS (eds) Slope stability: geotechnical engineering and geomorphology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 187–230Google Scholar
  22. Greenwood JR (2005) SLIP4EX – A program for routine slope stability analysis to include the effects of vegetation, reinforcement and hydrological changes. Plant Soil 24:449–465Google Scholar
  23. Gyssels G, Poesen J, Bochet E, Li Y (2005) Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water: a review. Prog Phys Geog 29:189–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karrenberg S, Blaser S, Kollmann J, Speck T, Edwards PJ (2003) Root anchorage of saplings and cuttings of woody pioneer species in a riparian environment. Funct Ecol 17:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lesschen JP, Kok K, Verburg PH, Cammeraat LH (2007) Identification of vulnerable areas for gully erosion under different scenarios of land abandonment in Southeast Spain. Catena 71:110–121Google Scholar
  26. Manschadi AM, Sauerborn J, Stützel H, Göbel W, Saxena MC (1998) Simulation of faba bean root system development under Mediterranean conditions. Eur J Agron 9:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mattia C, Bischetti GB, Gentile F (2005) Biotechnical characteristics of root systems of typical Mediterranean species. Plant Soil 278:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mickovski SB, Bengough AG, Bransby MF, Davies MCR, Hallett PD, Sonneberg R (2007) The effect of willow roots on the shear strength of soil. In: Dazzi C (ed) Changing soils in a changing world: the soils of tomorrow. Book of Abstracts of the 5th international congress of the European Society for Soil Conservation (ESCC), Palermo University, June 25–30, 2007, p 117Google Scholar
  29. Morgan RPC (2005) Soil erosion and conservation, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford (UK), p 299Google Scholar
  30. Norris JE (2005) Root reinforcement by hawthorn and oak roots on a highway cut-slope in Southern England. Plant Soil 278:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Operstein V, Frydman S (2000) The influence of vegetation on soil strength. Ground Improv 4:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poesen JWA, Hooke JM (1997) Erosion, flooding and channel management in Mediterranean environments of southern Europe. Prog Phys Geogr 21:157–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poesen J, Nachtergaele J, Verstraeten G, Valentin C (2003) Gully erosion and environmental change: importance and research needs. Catena 50:91–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollen N (2007) Temporal and spatial variability in root reinforcement of streambanks: accounting for soil shear strength and moisture. Catena 69:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pollen N, Simon A (2005) Estimating the mechanical effects of riparian vegetation on stream bank stability using a fiber bundle model. Water Resour Res 41:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reubens B, Poesen J, Danjon F, Geudens G, Muys B (2007) The role of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability and soil erosion control with a focus on root system architecture: a review. Trees 21:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SAS Entreprise Guide 4.1 (2006) SAS enterprise guide 4.1 ( for Windows. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Sidle RC, Ziegler AD, Negishi JN, Nik AR, Siew R, Turkelboom F (2006) Erosion processes in steep terrain – truths, myths, and uncertainties related to forest management in Southeast Asia. For Ecol Manag 224:199–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon A, Collison A (2002) Quantifying the mechanical and hydrological effects of riparian vegetation on streambank stability. Earth Surf Process Landf 27:527–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simon A, Pollen N, Langendoen E (2006) Influence of two woody riparian species on critical conditions for streambank stability: upper Truckee river, California. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tosi M (2007) Root tensile strength relationships and their slope stability implications of three shrub species in Northern Apennines (Italy). Geomorphology 87:268–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Beek LPH, Wint J, Cammeraat LH, Edwards JP (2005) Observation and simulation of root reinforcement on abandoned Mediterranean slopes. Plant Soil 278:55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Waldron LJ (1977) The shear resistance or root-permeated homogeneous and stratified soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41:843–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waldron LJ, Dakessian S (1982) Effect of grass, legume and tree roots on soil shearing resistance. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:894–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weaver JE, Clements FE (1938) Plant ecology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu TH, McKinnell WP III, Swanston DN (1979) Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Can Geotech J 16:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. De Baets
    • 1
  • J. Poesen
    • 1
  • B. Reubens
    • 2
  • K. Wemans
    • 1
  • J. De Baerdemaeker
    • 3
  • B. Muys
    • 2
  1. 1.Physical and Regional Geography Research GroupK.U. LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Division Forest, Nature and LandscapeK.U. LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Division of Mechatronics, Biostatistics and SensorsK.U. LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations