Plant and Soil

, Volume 210, Issue 1, pp 43–50 | Cite as

Assessing fine-root biomass and production in a Scots pine stand – comparison of soil core and root ingrowth core methods

  • Kirsi Makkonen
  • Heljä-Sisko Helmisaari

Abstract

Soil core and root ingrowth core methods for assessing fine-root (< 2 mm) biomass and production were compared in a 38-year-old Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L) stand in eastern Finland. 140 soil cores and 114 ingrowth cores were taken from two mineral soil layers (0–10 cm and 10–30 cm) during 1985–1988. Seasonal changes in root biomass (including both Scots pine and understorey roots) and necromass were used for calculating fine-root production. The Scots pine fine-root biomass averaged annually 143 g/m2 and 217 g/m2 in the upper mineral soil layer, and 118 g/m2 and 66 g/m2 in the lower layer of soil cores and ingrowth cores, respectively. The fine-root necromass averaged annually 601 g/m2 and 311 g/m2 in the upper mineral soil layer, and 196 g/m2 and 159 g/m2 in the lower layer of soil cores and ingrowth cores, respectively. The annual fine-root production in a Scots pine stand in the 30 cm thick mineral soil layer, varied between 370–1630 g/m2 in soil cores and between 210 – 490 g/m2 in ingrowth cores during three years. The annual production calculated for Scots pine fine roots, varied between 330–950 g/m2 in soil cores and between 110 – 610 g/m2 in ingrowth cores. The horizontal and vertical variation in fine-root biomass was smaller in soil cores than in ingrowth cores. Roots in soil cores were in the natural dynamic state, while the roots in the ingrowth cores were still expanding both horizontally and vertically. The annual production of fine-root biomass in the Scots pine stand was less in root ingrowth cores than in soil cores. During the third year, the fine-root biomass production of Scots pine, when calculated by the ingrowth core method, was similar to that calculated by the soil core method. Both techniques have sources of error. In this research the sampling interval in the soil core method was 6–8 weeks, and thus root growth and death between sampling dates could not be accurately estimated. In the ingrowth core method, fine roots were still growing into the mesh bags. In Finnish conditions, after more than three growing seasons, roots in the ingrowth cores can be compared with those in the surrounding soil. The soil core method can be used for studying both the annual and seasonal biomass variations. For estimation of production, sampling should be done at short intervals. The ingrowth core method is more suitable for estimating the potential of annual fine-root production between different site types.

biomass fine-root ingrowth core method production Scots pine soil core method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aber J D, Melillo J M, Naderhoffer K J, McClaugherty C A and Pastor J 1985 Fine root turnover in forest ecosystems in relation to quantity and form of nitrogen availability: a comparison of two methods. Oecologia (Berlin) 66, 317–321.Google Scholar
  2. Ahlström K, Persson H and Börjesson I 1988 Fertilization in a mature Scots pine (Pinus silvestris L.) stand-effects on fine roots. Plant Soil 106, 179–190.Google Scholar
  3. Berg B 1984 Decomposition of root litter and some factors neglecting the process, long-term root litter decomposition in a Scots pine forest. Soil Biol. Biochem 16(6), 609–617.Google Scholar
  4. Cajander A K 1949 Forest types and their significance. Acta For. Fenn. 56, 1–69.Google Scholar
  5. Comeau P G and Kimmins J P 1989 Above-and below-ground biomass and production of lodgepole pine on sites with differing soil moisture regimes. Can. J. For. Res. 19, 447–454.Google Scholar
  6. Fairley R I and Alexander I J 1985 Methods of calculating fine root production in forests. In Ecological interactions in soil. Ed. A H Fitter. Special Publication of the British Ecological Society NO 4, 37–42.Google Scholar
  7. FAO-Unesco 1988 Soil map of the world. Revised Legend. World Soil Resources Report 60, Rome, 119 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Finer L and Lame J 1994 Fine root production and decomposition on drained peatlands. In The national SILMU meeting, Aulanko, Finland, March 23–24, 1994-Posters presented on Project of the Department of Forest Ecology. Ed. Mikko Jauhiainen. University of Helsinki Department of Forest Ecology Publications 10, 82–87.Google Scholar
  9. The Finnish Meteorological Institute 1991 Climatological statistics in Finland 1961–1990. Supplement to the meteorological yearbook of Finland 1990, part 1. 125 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Fogel R 1983 Root turnover and productivity of coniferous forests. Plant and Soil 71, 75–85.Google Scholar
  11. Fogel R 1985 Roots as primary producers in below-ground ecosystems. In Ecological interactions in soil. Ed. A H Fitter. Special Publication of the British Ecological Society NO 4, 23–36.Google Scholar
  12. Grier C C, Vogt K A, Keyes M R and Edmonds R L 1981 Biomass distribution and above-and below-ground production in young and mature Abies amabilis zone ecosystems of the Washington Cascades. Can. J. For. Res. 11, 155–167.Google Scholar
  13. Heindrick R L and Pregitzer K S 1992 The demography of fine roots in a northern hardwood forest. Ecology 73(4), 1094–1104.Google Scholar
  14. Helmisaari H.-S 1995 Nutrient cycling in Pinus sylvestris stands in eastern Finland. Plant and Soil 168–169, 327–336.Google Scholar
  15. Helmisaari H-S and Hallbäcken L 1998 Fine-root biomass and necromass in limed and fertilized Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stands. Forest Ecology and Management 119, 99–110.Google Scholar
  16. Helmisaari H-S and Mälkönen E 1989 Acidity and nutrient content of throughfall and soil leachate in three Pinus sylvestris stands. Scand. J. For. Res. 4, 13–28.Google Scholar
  17. Keyes M R and Grier C C 1981 Above-and below-ground net production in 40-year-old Douglas-fir stands on low and high productivity sites. Can. J. For. Res. 11, 599–605.Google Scholar
  18. Kummerow J, Kummerow M and Trabaud L 1990a Root biomass, root distribution and the fine-root growth dynamics of Quercus ciccifera L. in the garrigue of southern France. Vegetatio 87, 37–44.Google Scholar
  19. Kummerow J, Castillanos J, Maas M and Larigauderie A 1990b Production of fine roots and the seasonality of their growth in a Mexican deciduous dry forest. Vegetatio 90, 73–90.Google Scholar
  20. Kurz W A and Kimmins J P 1987 Analysis of some sources of error in methods used to determine fine root production in forest ecosystems: a simulation approach. Can. J. For. Res. 17, 909–912.Google Scholar
  21. Liski J 1995 Variation in the amount of organic carbon in soil within a forest stand: effect of trees and implications for sampling. In Role of Roots, Mycorrhizas and Rhizosphere Microbes in Carbon Cycling in Forest Soil. Extended abstracts of the NorFa-workshop, Hyytiälä, Finland, 20–22.9 1994. Eds H S Helmisaari, A Smolander and A Suokas The Finnish Forest Research Institute. Research Papers 537, 77–82.Google Scholar
  22. Makkonen K and Helmisaari H-S 1998 Seasonal variation of fineroot biomass in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stand. Forest Ecology and Management 102, 283–290.Google Scholar
  23. McClaugherty C A, Aber J D and Melillo J M 1982 The role of fine roots in the organic matter and nitrogen budgets of two forested ecosystems. Ecology 63(5), 1481–1490.Google Scholar
  24. Messier C and Puttonen P 1993 Coniferous and non-coniferous fine-root and rhizome production in Scots pine stands using the ingrowth bag method. Silva Fenn. 27(3), 209–217.Google Scholar
  25. Nadelhoffer K J and Raich J W 1992 Fine-root production estimates and belowground carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Ecology 73(4), 1139–1147.Google Scholar
  26. Nambiar E K S and Sands R 1992 Effects of compaction and simulated root channels in the subsoil on root development, water uptake and growth of radiata pine. Tree Physiology 10, 297–306.Google Scholar
  27. Persson H 1979 Fine-root production, mortality and decomposition in forest ecosystems. Vegetatio 41, 101–109.Google Scholar
  28. Persson H 1980 Fine-root dynamics in a Scots pine stand with and without near optimum nutrient and water regimes. Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 68, 101–110.Google Scholar
  29. Persson H Å 1983 The distribution and productivity of fine roots in boreal forests. Plant and Soil 71, 87–101.Google Scholar
  30. Persson H 1990 Methods of studying root dynamics in relation to nutrient cycling. In Nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. Eds A F Harrison, P Ineson and O W Heal. Elsevier Applied Science. pp. 198–217.Google Scholar
  31. Persson H 1992 Factors affecting fine root dynamics of trees. Suo 43, 163–172.Google Scholar
  32. Santantonio D and Grace J C 1987 Estimating fine-root production and turnover from biomass and decomposition data: a compartment-flow model. Can. J. For. Res. 17, 900–908.Google Scholar
  33. Santantonio D, Hermann R K and Overton W S 1977 Root biomass studies in forest ecosystems. Pedobiologia Bd. 17, 1–31.Google Scholar
  34. Vogt K A and Persson H 1991 Measuring growth and development of roots. In Techniques and approaches in forest tree ecophysiology. Eds J P Lassoie and M H Thomas. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 477–501.Google Scholar
  35. Yin X, Perry J A and Dixon R K 1989 Fine-root dynamics and biomass distribution in a Quercus ecosystem following harvesting. For. Ecol. Manage. 27, 159–177.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsi Makkonen
    • 1
  • Heljä-Sisko Helmisaari
  1. 1.Vantaa Research CentreFinnish Forest Research InstituteVantaaFinland E-mail

Personalised recommendations