| Literature DB >> 25834289 |
G Bodner1, D Leitner2, H-P Kaul1.
Abstract
AIMS: Small scale root-pore interactions require validation of their impact on effective hydraulic processes at the field scale. Our objective was to develop an interpretative framework linking root effects on macroscopic pore parameters with knowledge at the rhizosphere scale.Entities:
Keywords: Conceptual model; Cover crops; Pore evolution; Pore size distribution; Root system; Soil structure
Year: 2014 PMID: 25834289 PMCID: PMC4372837 DOI: 10.1007/s11104-014-2079-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Soil ISSN: 0032-079X Impact factor: 4.192
Soil properties of the experimental field
| Horizon | Depth cm | Sand | Silt | Clay | Texture USDA | Corg
| Field capacity | Wilting point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0–40 | 0.19 | 0.56 | 0.24 | SiL | 0.025 | 0.32 | 0.15 |
| AC | 40–55 | 0.23 | 0.54 | 0.23 | SiL | 0.015 | 0.27 | 0.10 |
| C | > 55 | 0.22 | 0.62 | 0.16 | SiL | 0.008 | 0.25 | 0.07 |
Investigated cover crop species and their respective plant families
| Species | Family |
|---|---|
|
| Fabaceae |
|
| Fabaceae |
|
| Fabaceae |
|
| Fabaceae |
|
| Brassicaceae |
|
| Brassicaceae |
|
| Boraginaceae |
|
| Linaceae |
|
| Polygonaceae |
|
| Poaceae |
| Mixture 1 ( | – |
| Mixture 2 ( | – |
Traits of root morphology and volume allocation of twelve cover crop species from different plant families. Values characterize the surface near (2–7 cm) rooting pattern of the species.
| RLDa
| RVD | RD | SRL | rm,root
| ςroot
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|
| 3.57def | 0.0053bc | 0.47a | 73.3gh | 0.31 | 0.65cde |
|
| 3.04def | 0.0058ab | 0.49a | 80.5fgh | 0.34 | 0.62de |
|
| 2.70ef | 0.0038 cd | 0.39bc | 118.3d-h | 0.35 | 0.76a-e |
|
| 1.88f | 0.0026de | 0.41b | 57.1 h | 0.33 | 0.77a-d |
|
| 3.04def | 0.0075a | 0.36 cd | 130.2c-g | 0.32 | 0.75b-e |
|
| 4.05cde | 0.0027de | 0.28e | 194.5abc | 0.33 | 0.90ab |
|
| 4.87bcd | 0.0033de | 0.30e | 161.9a-e | 0.32 | 0.99a |
|
| 6.64b | 0.0033de | 0.35 cd | 97.2e-h | 0.37 | 0.85a-d |
|
| 5.71bc | 0.0038 cd | 0.29e | 184.5a-d | 0.30 | 0.96ab |
|
| 11.02a | 0.0068ab | 0.31de | 212.4a | 0.21 | 0.86abc |
|
| 1.79f | 0.0018e | 0.34cde | 200.4ab | 0.41 | 0.82a-d |
|
| 2.41ef | 0.0020de | 0.33cde | 142.5b-f | 0.28 | 0.53e |
| Species | *** | *** | *** | *** | ns. | ** |
| LSDb | 2.03 | 0.0019 | 0.05 | 66.7 | 0.17 | 0.23 |
| CV%c | 64.8 | 50.5 | 19.7 | 44.6 | 33.0 | 22.2 |
Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; ns. not significant; ** significant at p ≤ 0.01; *** significant at p ≤ 0.001
a RLD Root length density, RVD Root volume density, RD Root diameter, SRL Specific root length, r Median root radius, ς Standard deviation of lognormal root volume distribution
b LSD Least significant difference
c CV%, Coefficient of variation
Fig. 1Species sharing similar rooting types determined from cluster analysis and using morphologically based principal components as classification variable
PSD parameters of soil under different cover crop species. Species with similar overall PSD are grouped together
| Species | θs
| rm,Kosugi
| ςKosugi
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 1 High porosity – high median radius |
| 0.471ab | 91.3a | 2.19abc |
|
| 0.478a | 79.1abc | 2.28abc | |
|
| 0.442bcd | 85.4ab | 2.15bc | |
|
| 0.463A | 85.3A | 2.21A | |
Group 2 High pore radius range |
| 0.446abc | 33.7d | 2.46a |
|
| 0.469ab | 52.8bcd | 2.31ab | |
|
| 0.457abc | 52.7bcd | 2.40ab | |
|
| 0.463ab | 65.8abcd | 2.34ab | |
|
| 0.459A | 51.3B | 2.38B | |
Group 3 Low pore radius range |
| 0.456abc | 50.8bcd | 1.89c |
|
| 0.465ab | 81.7abc | 1.90c | |
|
| 0.436bcd | 89.0ab | 1.84c | |
|
| 0.452A | 73.8A | 1.88C | |
Group 4 Low porosity – low median radius |
| 0.431 cd | 47.0de | 2.25abc |
|
| 0.413d | 46.0 cd | 1.95bc | |
|
| 0.422B | 46.5B | 2.10 AC |
Common lower-case letters at the respective parameters indicate non-significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. Group means are compared by linear contrasts. Significant differences in parameter means at p ≤ 0.05 between groups are indicated by upper-case letters
aIntermediate species not clearly related to a single groups
Fig. 2Relations between macroscopic PSD parameters and best root predictor variables. Non-linear functions are shown in case of providing better fit compared to linear regressions
Fig. 3Conceptual model of root influences on the parameters of Kosugi’s macroscopic model of soil PSD. Beyond a minimum rooting density (effect vs. no effect threshold) two distinct pathways for coarse vs. fine axes dominated root system and the resulting changes in pore size distribution are shown. (Graphs of root-pore relations are schematic representations of the regressions shown in Fig. 2)
Fig. 4Example of changes in PSD between unplanted soil and soil influenced by roots of species with (a) coarse and (b) fine root axes morphology. Small figures at the top highlight differentiation in micropore and macropore range (log-log scale; light grey shows range with higher pore frequency of planted vs. un-planted, black shows range of lower pore frequency, dark gray shows overlapping pore frequency)
Volume of different pore radius classes in soil influenced by species with coarse and fine root axes morphology exemplified by L. sativus and P. tanacetifolia respectively
| Pore volume | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Unplanted | Coarse root axes | Fine root axes | |
| Micropores1 (r < 2.5 µm) | 0.023 | 0.019 | 0.055 |
| Micropores2 (2.5 ≤ r < 15 µm) | 0.074 | 0.061 | 0.086 |
| Mesopores (15 ≤ r < 37.5 µm) | 0.061 | 0.055 | 0.055 |
| Macropores1 (37.5 ≤ r < 500 µm) | 0.149 | 0.178 | 0.131 |
| Macropores2 (r ≥ 500 µm) | 0.038 | 0.091 | 0.052 |
Fig. 5Example of changes in PSD due to different ςKosugi induced by high and low rm,root for the groups with species having (a) coarse and (b) fine root axes morphology. Small figures at the top highlight differentiation in micropore and macropore range (log-log scale; light grey shows range with higher pore frequency of planted vs. un-planted, black shows range of lower pore frequency, dark gray shows overlapping pore frequency)
Volume of different pore radius classes in soil influenced by species with different median root radius within sub-groups of coarse and fine rooted species exemplified by P. tanacetifolia vs. Mixture 2 and V. sativa vs. T. alexandrinum
| Pore volume | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coarse root dominated type | Fine root dominated type | |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Micropores1 (r < 2.5 µm) | 0.032 | 0.010 | 0.055 | 0.013 |
| Micropores2 (2.5 ≤ r < 15 µm) | 0.072 | 0.052 | 0.086 | 0.061 |
| Mesopores (15 ≤ r < 37.5 µm) | 0.056 | 0.056 | 0.055 | 0.062 |
| Macropores1 (37.5 ≤ r < 500 µm) | 0.159 | 0.187 | 0.131 | 0.195 |
| Macropores2 (r ≥ 500 µm) | 0.077 | 0.064 | 0.052 | 0.068 |
Fig. 6Measured and predicted PSD of soil under coarse and fine rooted species using a pore evolution model. a Evolution from an unplanted soil to a rooted soil, and (b) evolution driven by root volume allocation between a soil planted with high and low rm,root-species. Statistical indicators compare measured and predicted pore volume in different radius ranges given in Table 7
Measured and simulated pore volume in different radius classes for the PSDs shown in Fig. 7
| Pore volume | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Measured | Simulated (a) | Simulated (b) | Measured | Simulated | Measured | Simulated | |
Micropores1
| 0.055 | 0.050 | 0.049 | 0.019 | 0.055 | 0.032 | 0.031 |
Micropores2
| 0.086 | 0.078 | 0.077 | 0.061 | 0.063 | 0.072 | 0.070 |
Mesopores
| 0.055 | 0.050 | 0.041 | 0.055 | 0.057 | 0.056 | 0.046 |
Macropores1
| 0.131 | 0.140 | 0.159 | 0.178 | 0.152 | 0.159 | 0.168 |
Macropores2
| 0.052 | 0.019 | 0.028 | 0.091 | 0.019 | 0.077 | 0.029 |
Fig. 7Dominant processes involved in root induced effects on PSD for different rooting types