No Trade-off Between Root Biomass and Aboveground Production in Lolium perenne

  • J. Deru
  • H. Schilder
  • J. R. Van der SchootEmail author
  • N. Van Eekeren
Conference paper


Although grasses have dense rooting systems, further improvements to rooting may increase nutrient uptake and drought resistance and reduce N leaching. Improved rooting of grasses in agricultural systems should, however, not reduce aboveground biomass allocation and yield. In two field experiments on sandy soil in The Netherlands, we measured the variation in grass yield of 16 varieties of Lolium perenne (Lp) during three years, and the root dry matter (RDM) at the end of the experiments. The Lp- varieties differed in aboveground and genetic characteristics such as productivity (classified according to the measured yields in the actual experiments), grass cover and ploidy. Results of the experiments show that RDM of perennial ryegrass differed significantly between varieties, and that these differences were not linked to grass yield. Our results indicate that it is possible to select perennial ryegrass varieties that combine high aboveground productivity with high RDM. Considering challenges in the areas of climate change, pollution and soil degradation, high yielding grass varieties with improved root systems could contribute to an efficient use of nutrients and water, and to erosion control, soil improvement and carbon sequestration.


Root mass Grass yield Lolium perenne varieties 



This research was part of the project Bufferboeren, financed by the following Dutch institutions: Agricultural Innovation Bureau (LIB), Dairy Board (PZ), Brabant Water, Water Board Aa en Maas, Rabobank Bernheeze, Foundation for Applied Water Research (STOWA), NCB-fund and Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (I&M). We want to thank the Dutch breeders association Plantum for the opportunity to take root samples after ending of the VCU trials.


  1. Bonos S.A., Rush D., Hignight K., Meyer W.A. (2004) Selection for deep root production in tall fescue and perennial ryegrass. Crop Science 44:1770–1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crush J.R., Easton H.S. and Waller J.E. (2006) Genetic variation in perennial ryegrass for root profile characteristics. In: Mercer C.F. (ed.) New Zealand Grassland Association Research and Practice Series No. 12, pp. 63–65. Dunedin, New Zealand: New Zealand Grassland Association.Google Scholar
  3. Crush J.R., Easton H.S., Waller J.E., Hume D.E., Faville M.J. (2007) Genotypic variation in patterns of root distribution, nitrate interception and response to moisture stress of a perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) mapping population. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deru J., Schilder H., Van der Schoot J.R., Van Eekeren N. (2014) Genetic differences in root mass of Lolium perenne varieties under field conditions. Euphytica, 199: 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ennik G.C., Baan Hofman T. (1983) Variation in the root mass of ryegrass types and its ecological consequences. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 31:325–334.Google Scholar
  6. Van Loo E.N., Dolstra O., Humphreys M.O., Wolters L., Luessink W., De Riek J., Bark N. (2003) Lower nitrogen losses through marker assisted selection for nitrogen use efficiency and feeding value in ryegrass (Nimgrass). Vortrage fur Pflanzenzuchtung, 59, 270–279.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Deru
    • 1
  • H. Schilder
    • 2
  • J. R. Van der Schoot
    • 3
    Email author
  • N. Van Eekeren
    • 1
  1. 1.Louis Bolk InstituteDriebergenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Wageningen UR Livestock ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Wageningen UR Applied Plant ResearchLelystadThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations