Plant and Soil

, Volume 237, Issue 1, pp 37–45 | Cite as

Novel rhizobox design to assess rhizosphere characteristics at high spatial resolution

  • Walter W. Wenzel
  • Gottfried Wieshammer
  • Walter J. Fitz
  • Markus Puschenreiter


Available tools to study rhizosphere characteristics at a sub-mm spatial resolution suffer from a number of shortfalls, including geometrically and physiologically ill-defined root layers containing soil or other growth medium. Such designs may result in over- or underestimation of root-induced changes in the rhizosphere. We present a novel rhizobox design that overcomes these shortfalls. Plants are pre-grown in a soil–root compartment with an opening slit at the bottom. As plants reach the targeted physiological stage, this compartment is transferred on top of a rhizosphere soil compartment attached to a vertical root-only compartment. The latter is made up of a membrane (pore size 7 μm to restrict root hair growth into the rhizosphere compartment or 30 μm to restrict only root growth) and a transparent acrylic window which is gently pressed against the membrane and rhizosphere soil compartment using an adjustable screw. This design allows roots to penetrate from the upper soil–root compartment through the slit into the root-only compartment. Root growth and distribution can be monitored through the acrylic window using digital camera equipment. Upon termination of the experiment, the rhizosphere compartment is removed and frozen prior to separation of sub-mm soil layers using microtome techniques. In a test experiment, canola (Brassica napus L. cv. Sprinter) developed a fairly dense root monolayer within 8 days. Using measurement of soil characteristics at 0.5–1-mm increments across the rhizosphere we demonstrate that the proposed rhizobox design is yielding reproducible data. Due to exudation of LMWOC, we found a statistically significant increase of DOC towards the root plane, whereas more stable soil characteristics were not affected by root activity. Limitations and further extensions of this rhizobox design, including the use of micro suction cups and microsensors for pH and redox potential to measure spatial and temporal changes in a non-destructive manner are discussed along with potential applications such as validation of rhizosphere models.

canola rhizobox rhizosphere root exudates soil–root interface 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Awad F, Römheld V and Marschner H 1994 Effect of root exudates on mobilization in the rhizosphere and uptake of iron by wheat plants. Plant Soil 165, 213–218.Google Scholar
  2. Brandstetter A, Sletten R S, Mentler A and Wenzel W W 1996 Estimating dissolved organic carbon in natural waters by UV absorbance (254 nm). Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 159, 605–607.Google Scholar
  3. Brown D A and Ul-Haq A 1984 A porous membrane-root culture technique for growing plants under controlled soil condition. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48, 692–695.Google Scholar
  4. Cappy J J and Brown D A 1980 A method for obtaining soil-free soil-solution grown plant root systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 1321–1323.Google Scholar
  5. Cieslinski G, Van Rees K C J, Szmigielska A M, Krishnamurti G S R and Huang P M 1998 Low-molecular-weight organic acids in rhizosphere soils of durum wheat and their effect on cadmium bioaccumulation. Plant Soil 203, 109–117.Google Scholar
  6. Davison W and Zhang H 1994 In situ speciation measurements of trace components in natural waters using thin-film gels. Nature 367, 546–548.Google Scholar
  7. Dinkelaker B, Hahn G, Römheld V, Wolf G A and Marschner H 1993 Non-destructive methods for demonstrating chemical changes in the rhizosphere I. Description of methods. Plant Soil 155/156, 67–70.Google Scholar
  8. Gahoonia T S and Nielsen N E 1991 A method to study rhizosphere processes in thin soil layers of different proximity to roots. Plant Soil 135, 143–146.Google Scholar
  9. Gahoonia T S and Nielsen N E 1992 Control of pH at the soil-root interface. Plant Soil 140, 49–54.Google Scholar
  10. Helal H M and Sauerbeck D 1981 Ein Verfahren zur Trennung von Bodenzonen unterschiedlicher Wurzelnähe. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 144, 524–527.Google Scholar
  11. Hinsinger P and Gilkes R J 1995 Root-induced dissolution of phosphate rock in the rhizosphere of lupines grown in alkaline soil. Aust. J. Soil Res. 33, 477–489.Google Scholar
  12. Jones D L 1998 Organic acids in the rhizosphere - a critical review. Plant Soil 205, 25–44.Google Scholar
  13. Jungk H and Claassen N 1986 Availability of phosphate and potassium as the result of interaction between root and soil in the rhizosphere. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 149, 411–427.Google Scholar
  14. Kape R, Wex K, Parniske M, Görge E, Wetzel A and Werner D 1992 Legume root metabolites and VA-mycorrhiza development. J. Plant Physiol. 141, 54–60.Google Scholar
  15. Kirk G J 1999 A model of phosphate solubilization by organic anion excretion from plant roots. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 50, 369–378.Google Scholar
  16. Kuchenbuch R and Jungk A 1982 A method for determining concentration profiles at the soil-root interface by thin slicing rhizosphere soil. Plant Soil. 68, 391–394.Google Scholar
  17. Liao Z W, Wang J L and Liu Z Y 1993 Si, Fe and Mn distributions in rice (Oryza sativa L.) rhizosphere of red earths and paddy soils. Pedosphere 3, 1–6.Google Scholar
  18. Lombi E, Wenzel W W, Gobran G R and Adriano D C 2000 Dependency of phytoavailability of metals on indigenous and induced rhizosphere processes: A review. In Trace Elements in the Rhizosphere. Eds. G Gobran, W W Wenzel and E Lombi E. pp 3–24. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  19. Marschner H 1995 Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA. 889 p.Google Scholar
  20. Marschner H and Römheld V 1983 In vivo measurement of rootinduced changes at the soil-root interface: Effect of plant species and nitrogen source. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 111, 241–251.Google Scholar
  21. McGrath S P, Shen Z G and Zhao F J 1997 Heavy metals uptake and chemical changes in the rhizosphere of Thlaspi caerulescens and Thlaspi ochroleucum grown in contaminated soils. Plant Soil 188, 153–159.Google Scholar
  22. Norvel W A and Cary E E 1992 Potential errors caused by roots in analyses of rhizosphere soil. Plant Soil 143, 223–231.Google Scholar
  23. Schilling G, Gransee O, Deubel A, Lezovic G and Ruppel S 1998 Phosphorus availability, root exudates, and microbial activity in the rhizosphere. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 161, 465–478.Google Scholar
  24. Strasser O, Köhl K and Römheld V. 1999 Overestimation of apoplastic Fe in roots of soil grown plants. Plant Soil 210, 179–187.Google Scholar
  25. Strasser O 2000 Bedeutung des Wurzelapoplasten als Eisenspeicher für Pflanzen. Verlag Grauer, Stuttgart. 153 p.Google Scholar
  26. Wenzel W W, Sletten R S, Brandstetter A, Wieshammer G and Stingeder G 1997 Adsorption of trace metals by tension lysimeters: nylon membrane vs. porous ceramic cup. J. Environ. Qual. 26, 1430–1434.Google Scholar
  27. Youssef R A and Chino M 1988 Development of a new rhizobox system to study the nutrient status in the rhizosphere. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 34, 461–465.Google Scholar
  28. Youssef R A and Chino M 1989a Root induced changes in the rhizosphere of plants. I. Changes in relation to the bulk soil. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 35, 461–468.Google Scholar
  29. Youssef R A and Chino M 1989b Root-induced changes in the rhizosphere of plants. II. Distribution of heavy metals across the rhizosphere in soils. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 35, 609–621. Section editor: B. Suttelmacher Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter W. Wenzel
    • 1
  • Gottfried Wieshammer
    • 2
  • Walter J. Fitz
    • 1
  • Markus Puschenreiter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Soil ScienceUniversity of Agricultural Sciences Vienna – BOKUViennaAustria
  2. 2.Technisches Büro für BodenkulturViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations