HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Böhm, W. Articles by Taylor, H. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Böhm, W. Articles by Taylor, H. M. Agricola Articles by Böhm, W. Articles by Taylor, H. M.

Comparison of Five Methods for Characterizing Soybean Rooting Density and Development¹

Many methods are used to study plant root system development and function. Most methods are tedious and time-consuming. Some require expensive, sophisticated equipment and frequently require highly trained operators. Few studies are published where several methods are compared for their time requirements, equipment needs, soil applicability, and validity of the results. This study determined usefulness of five methods for characterizing soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) rooting depth and density in a loess [fine, silty, mixed (calcareous) mesic family of Typic Udorthents] soil. The methods were: (a) soil water-depletion, (b) framed-monolith and pinboard, (c) core-sampling, (d) mini-rhizotron, and (e) trench-profile. Each method was used or attempted on several dates during the 1975 growing season. The soil water-depletion method was fast, required only simple equipment, and provided satisfactory estimates of rooting depth but did not provide reliable estimates of rooting density. The framed-monolith method was very time-consuming, but provided quantitative estimates of rooting density with depth and could have provided rooting density estimates with distance from the row. The core-sampling method was faster than the framed-monolith method. Cores could he obtained either with a hand-turned bucket auger or with a coring machine, but several profiles were required to obtain rooting density distributions with depth and distance from the row. The mini-rhizotron method was fast, but did not provide accurate results, presumably because the mini-rhizotrons were installed too late. The trench-profile method provided semiquantitative estimates of rooting density with depth and distance from the row. The trench-profile method was rapid and required no time-consuming separation of live roots from debris of previous years. The hand-augered core, soil water-depletion, and the trench-profile methods could be used through the entire growing season, but the framed-monolith and the mechanized-core methods were not satisfactory during a drought period because the soil column collapsed during sampling.

Key Words: Mini-rhizotron • Soil monolith • Root length • Soil cores • Trench-profile • Soil water depletion

² Visiting lecturer, Iowa State Univ.; research assistant, Iowa State Univ.; and soil scientist, USDA. Ames, Iowa, respectively. Present address of the senior author is Institut fur Pflanzenbau, von-Siebold-Strasse 8, D-3400 Goettingen, Western Germany.

Received for publication August 18, 1976.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. van der Ploeg, H. P. A. Gooren, G. Bakker, and G. H. de Rooij Matric Potential Measurements by Polymer Tensiometers in Cropped Lysimeters under Water-Stressed Conditions Vadose Zone J., August 13, 2008; 7(3): 1048 - 1054. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. B. Myers, N. R. Kitchen, K. A. Sudduth, R. E. Sharp, and R. J. Miles Soybean Root Distribution Related to Claypan Soil Properties and Apparent Soil Electrical Conductivity Crop Sci., July 30, 2007; 47(4): 1498 - 1509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]