Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 233–237 | Cite as

Root recovery of five tropical tree and shrub species by sieves of different mesh sizes

  • S. M. Gathumbi


Accurate quantitative assessment of roots is key to understanding the belowground plant productivity as well as providing an insight of the plant-soil interactions. In this study, root recoveries by sieves of different mesh sizes (2.0, 1.0, 0.5 and 0.25 mm) were measured for five tropical tree and shrub species grown in monoculture stands: crotalaria (Crotalaria grahamiana Wight and Arn.), pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.], sesbania [Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr.], tephrosia (Tephrosia vogelii Hook F.), siratro [Macroptilium atropurpureum (DC.) Urb.] and tithonia [Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) Gray]. Root samples were take from 0-15 cm soil depth. Recovery of coarser roots (>1.0 mm) ranged from 70 to 93% and 90 to 98% of the cumulative root length and biomass respectively. The proportion of root length of the finer roots (<1.0 mm) was greater for pigeonpea (30%), tithonia (22%) and siratro (18%) compared with other species, but contributed negligibly to the cumulative total root biomass for all species. The use of 0.5 mm sieve improved the recovery of root length for most species but had little effect on root biomass. The 0.25 mm sieve was most effective in capturing finer roots (<0.5 mm) of pigeonpea which represented 16% of cumulative root length and 4% of root biomass recorded for this species. Recovery of roots of different diameter classes depended on species, suggesting that for an improved estimation of root parameters especially when sieves of large mesh sizes (>0.25 mm) are used, a correction factor could be useful for root length measurements but not root biomass measurements for a particular species in each site and for a specific study.

Legume species Root parameters Sieve size Tithonia diversifolia 


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 mesh sizes. Plant and Soil 161: 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eastham J. and Rose C.W. 1990. Tree/pasture interactions at a range of tree densities in an agroforestry experiment. I. Rooting patterns. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41: 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eissenstat D.M. 1992. Costs and benefits of constracting roots of small diameter. Journal of Plant Nutrition 15: 763–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fitter A.H. 1991. Characteristics and functions of root systems. In: Waisel Y., Eshel A. and Kafkafi U. (eds), Plant roots: The hidden half, pp. 3–25. Marcel Decker Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Gathumbi S.M., Cadisch G., Buresh J.R. and Giller K.E. 2003. Subsoil nitrogen capture in mixed legume stands as assessed by deep 15N placement. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67: 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gathumbi S.M., Ndufa J.K., Giller K.E. and Cadisch G. 2002. Do species mixtures increase above-and below-ground resource capture in woody and herbaceous tropical legumes? Agronomy Journal 94: 518–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jama B.A., Buresh J.R., Ndufa J.K. and Shepherd K.D. 1998. Vertical distribution of roots and soil nitrates: Tree species and phosphorus effects. Soil Science Society of America Journal 62: 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Livesley S.J., Stacey C.L., Gregory P.J. and Buresh R.J. 1998. Sieve size effects on root length and biomass measurements of maize (Zea mays) and Grevillea robusta. Plant and Soil 207: 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mekonnen K., Buresh R.J. and Jama B. 1997. Root and inorganic nitrogen distributions in Sesbania fallow, natural fallow and maize fields. Plant and Soil 188: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Payne R.W., Lane P.W., Ainsley A.E., Bicknell K.E., Digby P.G.N., Harding S.A., Leech P.K., Simpson H.R., Todd A.D., Verrier P.J. and White R.P. 1987. Genstat 5 release manual, Second edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Rao M.R. and Coe R. 1991. Measuring crop yields in agroforestry studies. Agroforestry Systems 15: 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ruhigwa B.A., Gichuru M.P., Mambani B. and Tariah N.M. 1992. Root distribution of Acioa barteri, Alchornea cordifolia, Cassia siamea and Gmelina arborea in an acid ultisol. Agroforestry Systems 19: 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Noordwijk M. and Brouwer G. 1991. Review of quantitative root length data in agriculture. In: Persson H. and McMichael B.L. (eds), Plant Roots and their Environment, pp. 515–525. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Gathumbi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Kenya Forestry Research InstituteNairobiKenya
  2. 2.MacArthur Agro-Ecology Research CenterLake PlacidUSA

Personalised recommendations