Skip to main content
Log in

Quantifying root water extraction by rangeland plants through soil water modeling

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We used soil water modeling as a tool to quantify water use of non-cultivated plant communities based on easily measured field data of soil water contents, soil hydraulic properties, and leaf area index. The model was applied in the mixed-grass prairie, considering a dynamic and non-uniform root distribution, the effect of soil water stress on plant water uptake, as well as the compensation effect of root water uptake. The simulation was conducted for the 111 days from mid May to early September of 2009. A good agreement between the model simulated and field measured soil water contents was obtained, with a maximum rooting depth estimated within the depth range of 1.3–1.6 m. The results suggest that a reasonable estimate of soil water retention parameters, and especially the use of the root uptake compensation significantly improved both numerical accuracy in predicted soil water dynamics, and the biological importance in the predicted seasonal root water extraction. In particular, the model gave a reasonable simulation of the seasonal progression of the drying zone in the soil profile in the summer of 2009. The method and analyses used in this paper may be useful in a wider context of soil-plant relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adiku SGK, Rose CW, Braddock RD, Ozier-Lafontaine H (2000) On the simulation of root water extraction: examination of a minimum energy hypothesis. Soil Sci 165:226–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arya LM, Paris JF (1981) A physicoempirical model to predict the soil moisture characteristic from particle-size distribution and bulk density data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:1023–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biondini ME, Patton BD, Nyren PE (1998) Grazing intensity and ecosystem processes in a northern mixed-grass prairie, U.S.A. Ecol Appl 8(2):469–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake GR, Hartge KH (1986) Particle density. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. 2nd ed. Agronomy 9: 377-382

  • Coupland RT, Johnson RE (1965) Rooting characteristcs of native grassland species in Saskatchewan. J Ecol 53:475–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlman RC, Kucera CL (1965) Root productivity and turnover in native prairie. Ecology 46:84–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirkanli DI, Molz FJ, Kaplan DI, Fjeld RA (2008) A fully transient model for long-term plutonium transport in the Savannah River site vadose zone: root water uptake. Vadose Zone J 7:1099–1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doughty S (1995) Solve it: computer-aided mathematics for science and engineering. Gulf, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerich WE (2007) Ecosystem water use efficiency in a semiarid shrubland and grassland community. Rangeland Ecol Manage 60:464–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feddes RA, Kowalik PJ, Zaradny H (1978) Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Tech. Rep., Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank AB, Sims PL, Bradford JA, Mielnick PC, Dugas WA, Mayeux HS (2001) Carbon dioxide fluxes over three Great Plains grasslands. In: Follett RF, Kimble JM, Lal R (eds) The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 167–187, Chap 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao Q, Zhao P, Zeng X, Cai X, Shen W (2002) A model of stomatal conductance to quantify the relationship between leaf transpiration, microclimate and soil water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:1373–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner FP, Pearce RB, Mitchell RL (1985) Physiology of crop plants. Iowa State University, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna OT, Sandall OC (1995) Computational methods in chemical engineering. Prentice Hall International Series in the Physical and Chemical Engineering Sciences, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Heitschmidt RK, Klement KD, Haferkamp MR (2005) Interactive effects of drought and grazing on Northern Great Plains rangelands. Rangeland Ecol Manage 58:11–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkland MR, Hills RG, Wierenga PJ (1992) Algorithms for solving Richards’ equation for variably saturated soils. Wat Resources Res 28:2049–2058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klute A (1986) Water retention: laboratory methods. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. 2nd ed Agronomy 9: 635-662

  • Lappala EG, Healy RW, Weeks EP (1987) Documentation of computer program VS2D to solve the equations of fluid flow in variably saturated porous media. Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4099, US Geological Survey, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Lado M, Paz A, Ben-Hur M (2004) Organic matter and aggregate-size interactions in saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:234–242

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li KY, Boisvert JB, De Jong R (1999) An exponential root-water-uptake model. Can J Soil Sci 79:333–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai CT, Katul G (2000) The dynamic role of root water uptake in coupling potential to actual transpiration. Adv Water Resour 23:427–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li KY, De Jong R, Boisvert JB (2001) An exponential root-water-uptake model with water stress compensation. J Hydrol 252:189–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Graham WD, Jacobs JM (2005) Daily potential evapotranspiration and diurnal climate forcings: influence on the numerical modelling of soil water dynamics and evapotranspiration. J Hydrol 309:39–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz RJ, Rogler GA (1967) Grazing and fertilization affect root development of range grasses. J Range Manage 20:129–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mbagwu JSC, Auerswald K (1999) Relationship of percolation stability of soil aggregates to land use, selected properties, structural indices and simulated rainfall erosion. Soil Tillage Res 50:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathur S, Rao S (1999) Modeling water uptake by plant roots. J Irrig Drain Eng 125:159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musters PAD, Bouten W (2000) A method for identifying optimum strategies of measuring soil water contents for calibrating a root water uptake model. J Hydrol 227:273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemes A, Rawls WJ, Pachepsky YA (2005) Influence of organic matter on the estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1330–1337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ojha CSP, Rai AK (1996) Nonlinear root water uptake model. J Irrig Drain Eng 122:198–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ojha CSP, Hari Prasad KS, Shankar V, Madramootoo CA (2009) Evaluation of a nonlinear root-water uptake model. J Irrig Drain Eng 135:303–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton BD, Nyren PE (1998) The effect of grazing intensity on soil water and rangeland productivity in south-central North Dakota. In: Potts DF (ed) Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association Special Conference, Rangeland Management and Water Resources, American Water Resources Association, Herndon VA, TPS-98-1, pp 219-228

  • Patton BD, Dong X, Nyren PE, Nyren A (2007) Effects of grazing intensity, precipitation, and temperature on forage production. Rangeland Ecol Manage 60:656–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelton J (1953) Studies on the life-history of Symphoricarpos occidentalis Hook. in Minnesota. Ecol Monograph 23:17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penning de Vries FWT, Jansen DM, ten Berge HFM, Bakema A (1989) Simulation of ecophysiological processes of growth of several annual crops. Tech. Rep.,Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad R (1988) A linear root water uptake model. J Hydrol 99:297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie JT (1972) Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Wat Resources Res 8:1204–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaap MG, Leij FJ, van Genuchten MT (2001) ROSETTA: a computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J Hydrol 251:163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott HD (2000) Soil physics: agricultural and environmental applications. Iowa State University, Ames, p 176

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyman HA (1998) Dynamics and sustainable utilization of rangeland ecosystems in arid and semi-arid climates of southern Africa. J Arid Environ 39:645–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svejcar T, Angell R, Bradford JA, Dugas W, Emmerich W, Frank AB, Gilmanov T, Haferkamp M, Johnson DA, Mayeux H, Mielnick P, Morgan J, Saliendra NZ, Schuman GE, Sims PL, Snyder K (2008) Carbon fluxes on North American rangelands. Rangeland Ecol Manage 61:465–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderschaeghe AM, Debergh PC (1987) Technical aspects of the control of the relative humidity in tissue culture containers. In: Ducaté G, Jacob M, Simeon A (eds) Plant micropropagation in horticultural industries. University of Liège, Liège, pp 68–76

    Google Scholar 

  • van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Genuchten MT, Leij FJ, Yates SR (1991) The RETC code for quantifying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils. EPA Report 600/2-91/065, U. S. Salinity Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Riverside, California

  • Wang E, Smith CJ (2004) Modeling the growth and water uptake function of plant root systems: a review. Aust J Agric Res 55:501–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang T, Wedin D, Zlotnik VA (2009) Field evidence of a negative correlation between saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil carbon in a sandy soil. Wat Resources Res 45:W07,503, doi:10.1029/2008WR006,865

  • Warrick AW (2003) Soil water dynamics. Oxford University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver JE, Albertson FW (1943) Resurvey of grasses, forbs, and underground plant parts at the end of the great drought. Ecol Monograph 13:63–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver JE, Darland RW (1949) Soil-root relationships of certain native grasses in various soil types. Ecol Monograph 19:303–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams MA, Rice CW, Owensby CE (2000) Carbon dynamics and microbial activity in tallgrass prairie exposed to elevated CO for 8 years. Plant Soil 227:127–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Zhang R, Gui S (1999) Modeling soil water movement with water uptake by roots. Plant Soil 215:7–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav BK, Mathur S (2008) Modeling soil water uptake by plants using nonlinear dynamic root density distribution function. J Irrig Drain Eng 134:430–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav BK, Mathur S, Siebel MA (2009a) Soil moisture dynamics modeling considering the root compensation mechanism for water uptake by plants. J Hydrol Eng 14:913–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav BK, Mathur S, Siebel MA (2009b) Soil moisture flow modeling with water uptake by plants (wheat) under varying soil and moisture conditions. J Irrig Drain Eng 135:375–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang D, Zhang T, Zhang K, Greenwood DJ, Hammond JP, White PJ (2009) An easily implemented agro-hydrological procedure with dynamic root simulation for water transfer in the crop-soil system: validation and application. J Hydrol 370:177–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuo Q, Jie F, Zhang R, Meng L (2004) A generalized function of wheat’s root length density distributions. Vadose Zone J 3:271–277

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was part of North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station projects ND 6146 and ND 6147. We appreciate the support of staff members of Central Grassland Research Extension Center, North Dakota State University. We thank Dr. Brijesh Yadav at the Dept. of Environmental Resources, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, the Netherlands, for suggestions useful for solving the Richards Equation and Dr. Mark Liebig at USDA-Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, North Dakota USA for valuable discussions on the relationship between soil particle density and organic matter content. We especially thank two peer reviewers for offering valuable suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript and expanded its scientific scope. Finally, we thank Janet Patton for numerous detailed comments and suggestions that improved the manuscript both in use of the English language and accuracy of science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuejun Dong.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Rafael S. Oliveira.

Appendices

A list of main symbols used in this paper

Symbol:

Definition (Unit)

a g , b g :

Empirical root growth parameters (-,-)

α(h):

Reduction factor for water uptake as a function of h (-)

ARD :

Average relative discrepancy between simulation and measurement

β, λ:

Shape factor for root density distribution (-)

c :

Soil water capacity (m-1)

D1 :

Day of the start of root growth (=0 on April 15)

D2 :

The number of days required for the maturity of plants

Δt :

Time step of simulation (=100 s)

Δz :

Vertical increment of simulation (=0.025 m)

E a (t):

Actual soil evaporation at time t (m s-1)

E p (t):

Potential soil evaporation at time t (m s-1)

ET p (t) :

Potential evapotranspiration at time t (mm day-1)

γ,m,n :

Parameters for the water retention curves (m-1,-,-)

F i :

Fraction of root length in top 10% of the root zone

g :

Acceleration due to gravity (=9.81 m s-2)

h :

Soil matric potential based on unit weight (m)

h 1 :

Soil matric potential at anaerobiosis point (m)

h 2 :

Upper matric potential for optimal uptake (m)

h 3 , \( h_3^1,h_3^2 \):

Lower matric potential for optimal uptake (m)

h 4 :

Soil matric potential at wilting point (m)

h (1) :

Soil matric potential at soil surface (m)

K c :

Average canopy transmission coefficient (=0.4)

K(h):

Hydraulic conductivity as a function of h (m s-1)

\( K_{sat}^s \) :

K sat at soil surface (m s-1)

K sat :

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (m s-1)

\( {K_{{z_{\max }}}} \) :

Hydraulic conductivity at soil bottom (m s-1)

K (1) :

Hydraulic conductivity at soil surface (m s-1)

LAI :

Leaf area index (m2 m-2)

L nrd :

Normalized root density (-)

L r (t):

Rooting depth at time t (m)

L m :

Maximum rooting depth (m)

RMSE :

Root mean square error

M w :

Molecular weight of water (=0.018 kg g mol-1)

n′:

Number of depths of soil water measurement (m)

ψ:

Pressure potential at soil-atmosphere interface (m)

R :

Gas constant (kg m2 s-2 K-1 g mol-1)

R ain :

Daily rainfall (mm day-1)

R h :

Average daily relative humidity of air (as a fraction)

S(z,t):

Root water uptake at depth z and time t (s-1)

S e :

Effective saturation (-)

t :

Time (s, day)

T :

The absolute temperature (K)

T a :

Average daily air temperature (°C)

T d :

Average daily dew point temperature (°C)

θ :

Volumetric soil water content (m3 m-3)

θr , θs :

Residual and saturated water content (m3 m-3)

θsi :

Simulated water content in ith depth (m3 m-3)

θmi :

Measured water content in ith depth (m3 m-3)

θm :

Average of measured water contents (m3 m-3)

T p :

Daily potential transpiration (mm day-1)

z :

Vertical axis pointing downwards from soil surface (m)

z max :

Vertical coordinate at the bottom of soil profile (m)

z r (=z/L r ):

Normalized soil depth containing plant roots (-)

Appendix

According to Lai and Katul (2000) and Liu et al. (2005), the integration of the root distribution function g(z,t) along the root zone must equal to unity, so that the potential transpiration is partitioned along the whole root zone:

$$ \int\limits_0^{{L_r}(t)} {g\left( {z,t} \right)} \,dz = 1. $$
(A1)

Using the root density function of Ojha and Rai (1996), we show that Eq. A1 is satisfied:

$$ \begin{gathered} \int\limits_0^{{L_r}\left( t \right)} {g\left( {z,t} \right)} \,dz = \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\int\limits_0^{{L_r}\left( t \right)} {\frac{{\beta + 1}}{{{L_r}\left( t \right)}}{{\left[ {1 - \frac{z}{{{L_r}\left( t \right)}}} \right]}^\beta }\,dz} } \hfill \\ { = \frac{{\beta + 1}}{{{L_r}\left( t \right)}}\int\limits_0^{{L_r}(t)} {{{\left[ {1 - \frac{z}{{{L_r}\left( t \right)}}} \right]}^\beta }dz} } \hfill \\ { = \frac{{\beta + 1}}{{{L_r}\left( t \right)}}\int\limits_1^0 {z{\prime ^\beta }[ - {L_r}\left( t \right)]\,dz\prime } } \hfill \\ { = \frac{{\beta + 1}}{{{L_r}\left( t \right)}}\int\limits_0^1 {z{\prime ^\beta }{L_r}\left( t \right)\,dz\prime } } \hfill \\ { = \left( {\beta + 1} \right)\int\limits_0^1 {z{\prime ^\beta }\,dz\prime } } \hfill \\ { = \frac{{\beta + 1}}{{\beta + 1}}\,z{\prime ^{\left( {\beta + 1} \right)}}\left| {_0^1} \right.} \hfill \\ { = 1,} \hfill \\ \end{array} \hfill \\ \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$
(A2)

where we defined a new variable \( z\prime = 1 - \frac{z}{{{L_r}(t)}} \), with differential \( dz\prime = - \frac{1}{{{L_r}(t)}}dz \). When \( z = {L_r}(t) \), we have \( z\prime = 1 - \frac{{{L_r}(t)}}{{{L_r}(t)}} = 0 \); when z = 0, we have z′ = 1. So, the lower and upper limits of the integration need to be changed accordingly, if z is replaced by z′. In deriving Eq. A2, we assumed that both Lr(t) and β are constants, given time t.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dong, X., Patton, B.D., Nyren, A.C. et al. Quantifying root water extraction by rangeland plants through soil water modeling. Plant Soil 335, 181–198 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0401-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0401-7

Keywords

Navigation