Plant and Soil

, Volume 218, Issue 1–2, pp 185–196 | Cite as

Sample preparation and scanning protocol for computerised analysis of root length and diameter

  • Tjeerd J. Bouma
  • Kai L. Nielsen
  • Bas Koutstaal


Root length and diameter distribution are important characteristics to be considered when describing and comparing root systems. Root length and root-diameter distribution may be obtained in two ways: by microscopical measurements, which are laborious, or by computerised analysis, which is fast but sensitive to the scanning protocol. Although scanning protocols vary widely between laboratories, papers rarely report the details. Using two commercially available root analysis software packages (Delta-T Scan and WinRHIZO), we performed a sensitivity analysis of scanning protocols for estimating root length and diameter distribution. The results are shown graphically, rather than numerically, because the interactions between different parameters in the overall scanning protocol are most clearly illustrated by the shape of the curves. The present analysis clearly demonstrated the sensitivity of the two scanning methods with regard to staining period, maximum root density, scanning resolution and transformation threshold. For example, estimating the root-diameter distribution versus measuring root length, puts opposite constraints on the transformation threshold settings. We suggest the following settings for the most sensitive parameters: a staining period of 24 h, a root density of less than 0.5 mm root per mm2 surface, a resolution of 400 dpi and the automatic threshold for WinRHIZO and a brightness of 200 for Delta-T Scan. According to this protocol, comparison of computerised analyses with microscopic measurements showed good total root length and diameter distribution agreement for three contrasting root systems. We suggest to always start with the present protocol when studying other species. If validation indicates that the proposed scanning protocol needs to be modified for other species, the present sensitivity analysis may be used as a guideline for changing the most critical parameters. Similarly, the use of another stain than neutral red may also require modifications of the scanning protocol. In general, a long staining period (e.g., 24 h) is recommended for all stains, as small differences in staining period have the least effect when the root tissue is saturated. To enhance comparability of results in the literature, the staining period, stain, (maximum) root density, scanner resolution and threshold should always be listed when root data obtained by scanning are presented.

root architecture root-diameter distribution root efficiency root length root scanning Delta-T Scan WinRHIZO 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amato M and Pardo A 1994 Root length and biomass losses during sample preparation with different screen mesh sizes. Plant Soil 161, 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arsenault J L, Poulcur S, Messier C and Guay R 1995 WinRHIZO a root-measuring system with a unique overlap correction method. HortScience 30, 906.Google Scholar
  3. Barber S A 1995 Soil Nutrient Bioavailability; a Mechanistic Approach. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  4. Berntson G M 1992 A computer program for characterizing root systems branching patterns. Plant Soil 140, 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boot R G A and Mensink M 1990 Size and morphology of root systems of perennial grasses from contrasting habitats as affected by nitrogen supply. Plant Soil 129, 291–299.Google Scholar
  6. Bouma T J, Broekhuysen A G M and Veen B W 1996 Analysis of root respiration of Solanum tuberosum as related to growth, ion uptake and maintenance of biomass. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 34, 759–806.Google Scholar
  7. Dowdy R H, Nater E A and Dolan M S 1995 Quantification of the length and diameter of root segments with public domain software. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 26, 459–468.Google Scholar
  8. Dowdy R H, Smucker A J M, Dolan M S and Ferguson J C 1998 Automated image analysis for separating plant roots from soil debris elutrated from soil cores. Plant Soil 200, 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eissenstat D M 1992 Costs and benefits of construction roots of small diameter. J Plant Nutr. 15, 763–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eissenstat D M 1997 Trade-offs in root form and function. In Agricultural Ecology. Ed. L E Jackson. pp 173–198. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Eissenstat D M and Yanai R D 1997 The ecology of root lifespan. Adv. Ecol. Res. 27, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitter A H 1991 The ecological significance of root system architecture: an economic approach. In Plant Root Growth: an Ecological Perspective. pp 229–243. Blackwell Scientific Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  13. Fitter A H 1996 Characteristics and functions of root systems. In Plant Roots, the Hidden Half. Eds Y Waisel, A Eshel and K Kafkaki. pp 1–20. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Garji 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris G A and Campbell G S 1989 Automated quantification of roots using a simple image analyzer. Agron. J. 81, 935–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoagland D R and Arnon D I 1939 The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. University of California, Agricultural Experimental Station Circular 347, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Kirk G J D and van Du L 1997 Changes in rice root architecture, porosity, and oxygen and proton release under phosphorus deficiency. New Phytol. 135, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirchhof G 1992 Measurement of root length and thickness using a hand-held computer scanner. Field Crop Res. 29, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirchhof G and Pendar K 1993 Delta-T Scan User Manual. Delta-T Devices Ltd, Cambridge, England. Newman E I 1966 A method of estimating the total length of root in a sample. J. Appl. Ecol. 3, 139–145.Google Scholar
  20. Nielsen K L, Lynch J P, Jablokow A G and Curtis P S 1994. Carbon costs of root systems: an architectural approach. Plant Soil 165, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noyd R K, Pfleger F L and Ruselle M P 1995 Interactions between native prairie grasses and indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: implications for reclamation if taconite iron ore tailing. New Phytol. 129, 651–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pallant E, Holmgren R A, Schuler G E, McCraken K L and Drbal B 1993 Using a fine root extraction device to quantify small diameter corn roots (>= 0.025 mm) in field soils. Plant Soil 153, 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pan W L and Bolton R P 1991 Root quantification by edge discrimination using a desktop scanner. Agron. J. 83, 1043–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Regent Instuments 1996 WinRHIZO V3.9 Reference. Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Ruark G A and Bockheim J G 1988 Digital image analysis applied to soil profiles for estimating tree root biomass. Soil Science 146, 119–123.Google Scholar
  26. Ryser P 1997 Intra-and interspecific variation in root length, root turnover and the underlying parameters. In Inherent Variation in Plant Growth: Physiological Mechanisms and Ecological Consequences. Eds. H Lambers, H. Poorter and M.M.I. Van Vuuren. pp 441–465. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.Google Scholar
  27. Ryser P and Lambers H 1995 Root and leaf attributes accounting for the performance of fast-and slow-growing grasses at different nutrient supply. Plant Soil 170, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schroth G and Kolbe D 1994 A method of processing soil core samples for root studies by subsampling. Biol. Fertil. Soils 18, 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smit A L, Sprangers J F C M, Sablik P W and Groenwold J 1994 Automated measurement of root length with a three-dimensional high-resolution scanner and image analysis. Plant Soil 158, 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tanaka S, Yamauchi A and Kono Y 1995 Easy accessible method for root length measurement using image analysis system. Jpn. J. Crop Sci. 64, 144–147.Google Scholar
  31. Tennant D 1975 A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. J. Ecol. 63, 995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Teyker R H 1992 Seedling response to band applied NH4OH rates and to N form in two mais hybrids. Plant Soil 144, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Veen B W 1980 Energy cost of ion transport. In Genetic Engineering of Osmoregulation. Impact on Plant Productivity for Food, Chemicals and Energy. Eds. D W Rains, R C Valentine and C Holaender. pp 187–195. Plentum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Williams M and Yanai R D 1996 Multi-dimensional sensitivity analysis and ecological implications of a nutrient uptake model. Plant Soil 180, 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yanai R D, Fahey T J and Miller S L 1995 Efficiency of nutrient acquisition by fine roots and mycorrhizae. In Resource Physiology of Conifers: Acquisition, Allocation and Utalization Eds. W K Smith and T M Hinckley. pp 75–103. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tjeerd J. Bouma
    • 1
  • Kai L. Nielsen
    • 2
  • Bas Koutstaal
    • 1
  1. 1.Netherlands Institute of EcologyCenter for Estuarine and Coastal EcologyYersekeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of OrnamentalsDanish Institute of Agricultural SciencesAarslevDenmark

Personalised recommendations