Abstract
Vertical distribution of root density (length per unit soil volume) and abundance (length per unit ground surface area) to a depth of 1.5 m or to the depth of the water table and their relationships with soil properties and tree basal area were examined in 36 soil profiles of pine-oak and oak-pine forests of the New Jersey Pinelands. Soil morphology were almost uniform within the forest type and characterized by the presence of high coarse fragment contents in the C horizon in oak-pine uplands; by the spodic B horizon and water table in the C horizon in pine-oak lowlands; by the sandy soil throughout the profile in pine-oak uplands; and by the firm argillic B horizon in pine-oak plains. Root density decreased from ranges of 44423–133369 m m-3 in the 0–5 cm depth in all the forest types to 1900–5593 m m-3 in the 100–150 cm depth in all the forest types except in pine-oak lowlands. Total profile root density and abundance was in the order: oak-pine uplands>pine-oak lowlands>pine-oak uplands>pine-oak plains. Root density correlated positively with organic C, total N, water soluble P, exchangeable Ca, Mg, K, Al, Fe, and cation exchange capacity, and negatively with bulk density, coarse fraction content, and pH, whereas root abundance correlated positively with organic C, total N, water soluble P, exchangeable Ca, Mg, K, and Fe, and negatively with bulk density. No correlation existed between root density and abundance with tree basal area. Higher root density in the E horizon of oak-pine uplands as compared to the other forest types was associated with high nutrient content; higher root density in the C horizon of pine-oak lowlands was associated with a shallow water table beneath the horizon; and lower root densities in the B and C horizons of pine-oak plains were associated with the presence of a firm clay layer in the B horizon.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barber S A 1984 Soil nutrient bioavailability. Wiley, New York.
Bremner J M and Mulvaney C S 1982 Nitrogen-total.In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Eds. A L Page R H Miller and D R Keeney. pp 595–624. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Carbon B A, Bartle G A, Murray A M and McPherson D K 1980 The distribution of root length and the limits to flow of soil water to roots in a dry sclerophyll forest. For. Sci. 26, 656–664.
Davis G R, Nielsen W A and McDavitt J G 1983 Root distribution ofPinus radiata related to soil characteristics in five Tasmanian soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 21, 165–171.
Gary H L 1962 Root distribution of five-stamen tamarisk, seep willow, and arrowweed. For. Sci. 9, 311–314.
Gee G W and Bauder J M 1986 Particle-size analysis.In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Ed. A Klute. pp 383–411. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Good R E, Good N F and Andresen J W 1979 The Pine Barren plains.In The Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Ed. R T T Forman. pp 283–295. Academic Press New York.
Hendershot W H and Duquette M 1986 A simple barium chloride method for determining cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50, 605–608.
Kalisz P J, Zimmerman R W and Muller R N 1987 Root density, abundance, and distribution in the mixed mesophytic forest of eastern Kentucky. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 220–225.
Markley M L 1979 Soil series of the Pine Barrens.In Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Ed. R T T Forman pp 81–93. Academic Press, New York.
McCormick J 1979 The vegetation of the New Jersey Pine-lands.In Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Ed. R T T Forman. pp 94–106. Academic Press, New York.In
Nelson D W and Sommers L E 1982 Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter.In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Eds. A L Page, R H Miller and D R Keeney. pp 539–594. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Newman E I 1969 Resistance to water flow in soil and plant I. Soil resistance in relation to amount of root: Theoretical estimates. J. Appl. Ecol. 6, 1–12.
Oliver C D 1978 Subsurface geological formation and site variation in the upper sandhills of South Carolina. J. For. 76, 352–354.
Olsen S R and Sommers L E 1982 Phosphorus.In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Eds. A L Page, R H Miller and D R Keeney. pp 403–430. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Preston R J 1942 The growth and development of the root systems of Juvenile lodgepole pine. Ecol. Monogr. 12, 449–468.
Reynolds E R C 1970 Root distribution and the cause of its spatial variability inPseudotsuga taxifolia (Poir.) Britt. Plant and Soil 32, 501–517.
Rhodehamel E C 1979a Hydrology of the New Jersey Pine Barrens.In Pine Barrens: Exosystem and Landscape. Ed. R T T Forman. pp 147–167. Academic Press, New York.
Rhodehamel E C 1979b Geology of the Pine Barrens of New Jersey.In Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Ed. R T T Forman. pp 39–60. Academic Press, New York.
Roberts J 1976 A study of root distribution and growth in aPinus sylvestris L. (Scots pine) plantation in East Anglia. Plant Soil 44, 607–662.
Sainju U M and Kalisz P J 1990 Characteristics of “coal bloom” horizons in undisturbed forest soils in eastern Kentucky. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 879–882.
St. John T V 1983 Response of free roots to decomposing organic matter in two lowland Amazonian rain forests. Can. J. For. Res. 13, 346–349.
Tennant D 1975 A test of a modified line-intersect method of estimating root length. J. Ecol. 63, 995–1001.
United States Department of Agriculture/New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (USDA/NJAES) 1971 Soil Survey of Burlington County, New Jersey. Washington, DC.
Van Rees K C J and Comerford N B 1986 Vertical root distribution and strotium uptake of a slash pine stand on a Florida spodosol. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50, 1042–1046.
Wilde S A 1958 Forest soils. Ronald Press Co., New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sainju, U.M., Good, R.E. Vertical root distribution in relation to soil properties in New Jersey Pinelands forests. Plant Soil 150, 87–97 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00779179
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00779179