Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 200, Issue 2, pp 157–167 | Cite as

Geometrical properties of simulated maize root systems: consequences for length density and intersection density

  • Pavel Grabarnik
  • Loíc Pagès
  • Anthony Glyn Bengough
Article

Abstract

The spatial distribution of root length density (RLD) is important because it affects water and nutrient uptake. It is difficult to obtain reliable estimates of RLD because root systems are very variable and heterogeneous. We identified systematic trends, clustering, and anisotropy as geometrical properties of root systems, and studied their consequences for the sampling and observation of roots. We determined the degree of clustering by comparing the coefficient of variation of a simulated root system with that of a Boolean model. We also present an alternative theoretical derivation of the relation between RLD and root intersection density (RID) based on the theory of random processes of fibres. We show how systematic trends, clustering and anisotropy affect the theoretical relation between RLD and RID, and the consequences this has for measurement of RID in the field. We simulated the root systems of one hundred maize crops grown for a thermal time of 600 K d, and analysed the distribution of RLD and root intersection density RID on regular grids of locations throughout the simulated root systems. Systematic trends were most important in the surface layers, decreasing with depth. Clustering and anisotropy both increased with depth. Roots at depth had a bimodal distribution of root orientation, causing changes in the ratio of RLD/RID. The close proximity of the emerging lateral roots and the parent axis caused clustering which increased the coefficient of variation.

maize model root architecture root intersection root length stochastic geometry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldwin I P, Tinker P B and Marriott F H C 1971 The measurement of length and distribution of onion roots in the field and laboratory. J. Appl. Ecol. 8, 543–554.Google Scholar
  2. Bengough A G, MacKenzie C J and Diggle A J 1992 Relations between root length densities and root intersections with horizontal and vertical planes using root growth modelling in 3-dimensions. Plant Soil 145, 245–252.Google Scholar
  3. Bohm W 1979 Methods of studying root systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. Bragg P L, Govi G and Cannell R Q 1983 A comparison of methods, including angled and vertical minirhizotrons, for studying root growth and distribution in a spring oat crop. Plant Soil 73, 435–440.Google Scholar
  5. Coutts M P 1989 Factors affecting the direction of growth of tree roots. Ann. Sci. For. 46, 277–287Google Scholar
  6. Gajri P R, Arora V K and Kumar K 1994 A procedure for determining average root length density in row crops by single-site augering. Plant Soil 160, 41–47.Google Scholar
  7. Gerwitz A and Page E R 1974 An empirical mathematical model to describe plant root systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 11, 773–781.Google Scholar
  8. Klepper B 1990 Root growth and water uptake. In Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. Agronomy monograph 30, pp 231–321. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Kutschera L 1960 Wurzelatlas mitteleuropäischer Ackerunkräuter und Kulturpflanzen DLG-Verlags-GmbH, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  10. Lang A R G and Melhuish F M 1970 Lengths and diameters of plant roots in non-random populations by analysis of plane surfaces. Biometrics 16, 421–431.Google Scholar
  11. Logsdon S D and Allmaras R R 1991 Maize and soybean clustering as indicated by root mapping. Plant Soil, 131, 169–176.Google Scholar
  12. McCully M E 1975 The development of lateral roots. In The Development and Function of Roots. Eds J G Torrey and D T Clarkson. pp 105–124. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Melhuish F M and Lang A R G 1968 Quantitative studies of roots in soil. Length and diameters of cotton roots in a clay-loam soil by analysis of surface-ground blocks of resin-impregnated soil. Soil Sci. 106, 16–22.Google Scholar
  14. Newman E I 1966 A method of estimating the total length of root in a sample. J. Appl. Ecol. 3, 139–145.Google Scholar
  15. Pagès L, Jordan M O and Picard D 1989 A simulation model of the three-dimensional architecture of the maize root system. Plant Soil 119, 147–154.Google Scholar
  16. Pagès L and Pellerin S 1994 Evaluation of parameters describing the root system architecture of field grown maize plants (Zea mays L.). II. Density, length, and branching of first-order lateral roots. Plant Soil 164, 169–176.Google Scholar
  17. Pagès L and Pellerin S 1996 Study of differences between vertical root maps observed in a maize crop and simulated maps obtained using a three-dimensional model of the root system architecture. Plant Soil 182, 329–337.Google Scholar
  18. Passioura J B 1988 Water transport in and to roots. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 39, 245–265.Google Scholar
  19. Pearson C J and Jacobs B C 1985 Root distribution in space and time. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 36, 601–614.Google Scholar
  20. Pellerin S and Pagès L 1994 Evaluation of parameters describing the root system architecture of field grown maize plants (Zea mays L.). I. Elongation of seminal and nodal roots and extension of their branched zone. Plant Soil 164, 155–167.Google Scholar
  21. Pellerin S and Pagès L 1996 Evaluation in field conditions of a three-dimensional architectural model of the maize root system: Comparison of simulated and observed horizontal root maps. Plant Soil 178, 101–112.Google Scholar
  22. Robinson D 1994 The responses of plants to non-uniform supplies of nutrients. New Phytol. 127, 635–674.Google Scholar
  23. Smucker A J M, McBurney S L and Srivastava A K, 1982. Quantitative separation of roots from compacted soil profiles by the hydropneumatic elutriation system. Agron. J. 74, 500–503.Google Scholar
  24. Stoyan D, Kendall W S and Mecke J 1987 Stochastic Geometry and its Application. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Tardieu F 1988a Analysis of the spatial variability of maize root density. I. Effect of wheel compaction on the spatial arrangement of roots. Plant Soil 107, 259–266.Google Scholar
  26. Tardieu F 1988b Analysis of the spatial variability of maize root density. II. Distances between roots. Plant Soil 107, 267–272.Google Scholar
  27. Tardieu F and Pellerin S 1990 Trajectory of the nodal roots of maize in fields with low mechanical constraints. Plant Soil 124, 39–45.Google Scholar
  28. Tardieu F and Manichon H 1986 Caractérisation en tant que capteur d'eau de l'enracinement du maïs en parcelle cultivée. II. Une méthode d'étude de la répartition verticale et horizontale des racines. Agronomie 6, 415–426Google Scholar
  29. Van Noordwijk M 1987 Methods for quantification of root distribution pattern and root dynamics in the field. 20th Colloq. Int. Potash Inst., Berne. pp 263–281.Google Scholar
  30. Van Noordwijk M, Floris J and Jager A de 1985 Sampling schemes for estimating root density distribution in cropped fields. Netherlands J. Agric. Sci. 33, 241–262.Google Scholar
  31. Varney G T and McCully M E 1991 The branch roots of Zea. II. Developmental loss of the apical meristem in field-grown roots. New Phytol. 118, 535–546.Google Scholar
  32. Vepraskas M J and Hoyt G D 1988 Comparison of the trench profile and core methods for evaluating root distributions in tillage studies. Agron. J. 80, 166–172.Google Scholar
  33. Wang J, Hesketh J D and Wooley J T 1986 Pre-existing channels and soybean rooting patterns. Soil Sci 141, 432–437.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson B F 1967 Root growth around barriers. Bot. Gaz 128, 79–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavel Grabarnik
    • 1
  • Loíc Pagès
    • 1
  • Anthony Glyn Bengough
    • 2
  1. 1.INRA, Ecophysiologie et HorticultureAvignon Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Scottish Crop Research InstituteDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations