Summary
Root distribution of fourVitis cultivars at one location in Texas was asessed using trench profile and soil core sampling methods. Greater differences were obtained among cultivars utilizing the latter method when comparing root dry weights. Surface area of roots extracted from soil samples was estimated using a calcium nitrate slurry dip. This technique was found to be unreliable.Vitis champini cv. Dogridge maintained the greatest above-ground canopy and the most extensive root system. In measuring root numbers and dry weight,V. rotundifolia cv. Noble ranked at or near the bottom withV. vinifera cv. Barbera andV. labruscana cv. Concord being intermediate. Overall schematic root system patterns for each cultivar indicate that Noble is shallow rooted, having more than 35% of the total roots in the 0–15 cm depth. In contrast, ten percent of the total Dogridge roots were found at the 90–105 cm depth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adriance G W and Hampton H E 1949 Root distribution in citrus as influenced by environment. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 53, 103–108.
Anonymous 1971 Muscadine grapes, a fruit for the south. USDA Farmers Bull. #2157, 14p.
Bilan M V 1969 Some aspects of tree root distribution. pp 69–80.In Mycorrhizae. Ed. E Hacsckaylo. Proc. 1st. N. Am. Conf. Mycorrhizae, Misc. Publ. #1189 USDA.
Böhm W 1979 Methods of studying Root Systems. Springer-Verlag, NY. 188 p.
Brooks J F 1972 Muscadine grapes production, guide for North Carolina., N. C. State Coop. ext. Service Bull. 32 p.
Cahoon G A and Stolzy L H 1959 Estimating root density and distribution in citrus orchards by the neutron moderation methods. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 74, 322–327.
Carley H E and Watson R D 1966 A new gravimetric method for estimating root surface areas. Soil Sci. 102, 289–291.
Castle W S and Krezdorn A H 1974 Effect of citrus rootstocks on root distribution and leaf mineral content of Orlando Tangelo trees. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 100, 1–4.
Castle W S and Krezdorn A H 1977 Soil water use and apparent root efficiencies of citrus trees on four rootstocks. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 102, 403–406.
Conrad J P and Veihmeyer F J 1929 Root development and soil moisture. Hilgardia 4, 113–134.
Ford H W 1959 Growth and root distribution of orange trees on two different rootstocks as influenced by depth to subsoil clay. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 74, 313–321.
Kasimatis A N and Lider L 1975 Grape rootstock varieties. Univ. Calif. Coop. Ext. Leafl. #2780, 16p.
Kramer P J 1969 Plant and Soil Water Relationships: a modern Synthesis, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
Oskamp J 1932 The rooting habits of deciduous fruits on different soils. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 29, 213–219.
Perry R L and Bowen H H 1974 A feasibility study for grape production in Texas. Tex. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep. 74-43.
Rogers W S and Beakbane A G 1956 Stock and scion relations. Annu. Rev. Plant. Physiol. 8, 217–236.
Rogers W S and Vyvyan M C 1934 Rootstock and soil effect on apple root systems. J. Pomol. Hortic. Sci. 12, 110–150.
Schuurman J J and Goedewaagen M A J 1971 Methods for the Examination of Root Systems and Roots. Agric. Publ. and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Tukey H B and Brase K D 1933 Influence of the scion and of an intermediate stem-piece upon the character and development of roots of young apple trees. N.Y. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 281.
Wiersum L K 1980 The effect of soil physical conditions on roots and uptake. pp 11–121.In Mineral Nutrition of Fruit Trees. Eds. D Atkinson, J E Jackson, R O Sharples and W M Walter. Butterworths, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article No 10517.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perry, R.L., Lyda, S.D. & Bowen, H.H. Root distribution of fourVitis cultivars. Plant Soil 71, 63–74 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02182642
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02182642