4.7 Article

The influence of cellulose content on tensile strength in tree roots

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 278, Issue 1-2, Pages 1-9

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-005-8768-6

Keywords

biomechanics; Castanea sativa Mill; Pinus pinaster Ait; root reinforcement; slope stability; soil fixation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Root tensile strength is an important factor to consider when choosing suitable species for reinforcing soil on unstable slopes. Tensile strength has been found to increase with decreasing root diameter, however, it is not known how this phenomenon occurs. We carried out tensile tests on roots 0.2-12.0 mm in diameter of three conifer and two broadleaf species, in order to determine the relationship between tensile strength and diameter. Two species, Pinus pinaster Ait. and Castanea sativa Mill., were then chosen for a quantitative analysis of root cellulose content. Cellulose is responsible for tensile strength in wood due to its microfibrillar structure. Results showed that in all species, a significant power relationship existed between tensile strength and root diameter, with a sharp increase of tensile strength in roots with a diameter < 0.9 mm. In roots > 1.0 mm, Fagus sylvatica L. was the most resistant to failure, followed by Picea abies L. and C. sativa., P. pinaster and Pinus nigra Arnold roots were the least resistant in tension for the same diameter class. Extremely high values of strength (132-201 MPa) were found in P. abies, C. sativa and P. pinaster, for the smallest roots (0.4 mm in diameter). The power relationship between tensile strength and root diameter cannot only be explained by a scaling effect typical of that found in fracture mechanics. Therefore, this relationship could be due to changes in cellulose content as the percentage of cellulose was also observed to increase with decreasing root diameter and increasing tensile strength in both P. pinaster and C. sativa.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available