4.7 Article

Plant exudates improve the mechanical conditions for root penetration through compacted soils

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 421, 期 1-2, 页码 19-30

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-017-3424-5

关键词

Plant exudates; Void ratio; Cone penetration resistance; Compression index; Root growth modelling

资金

  1. Tertiary Education Trust Funds (TETFund)
  2. Ambrose Alli University
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/L026058/1]
  4. BBSRC [BB/L026058/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L026058/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant exudates greatly affect the physical behaviour of soil, but measurements of the impact of exudates on compression characteristics are missing. Our aim is to provide these data and explore how plant exudates may enhance the restructuring of compacted soils following cycles of wetting and drying. Two soils were amended with Chia (Salvia hispanica) seed exudate at 5 concentrations, compacted in cores to 200 kPa stress (equivalent to tractor stress), equilibrated to -50 kPa matric potential, and then compacted to 600 kPa (equivalent to axial root stress) followed by 3 cycles of wetting and drying and recompression to 600 kPa at -50 kPa matric potential. Penetration resistance (PR), compression index (C-C) and pore characteristics were measured at various steps. PR decreased and C-C increased with increasing exudate concentration. At 600 kPa compression, 1.85 mg exudate g(-1) soil increased C-C from 0.37 to 0.43 for sandy loam soil and from 0.50 to 0.54 for clay loam soil. After 3 wetting-drying cycles the clay loam was more resillient than the sandy loam soil, with resilience increasing with greater exudate concentration. Root growth modelled on PR data suggested plant exudates significantly eased root elongation in soil. Plant exudates improve compression characteristics of soils, easing penetration and enhancing recovery of root induced soil compaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据