4.4 Article

Comparison of minirhizotron and soil core methods for quantifying root biomass in a temperate alley cropping system

期刊

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 161-168

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010667921970

关键词

alley cropping; below groundinteractions; minirhizotron; root dynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was carried out in southern Indiana, USA with the objective of comparing soil core sampling and the minirhizotron technique in quantifying fine root biomass and root distribution patterns in an alley cropping system with black walnut (Juglans nigra L.), northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) and maize (Zea mays L.). Spatial variation in tree rooting pattern was investigated prior to planting maize. Tree fine root biomass was quantified at distances of 0, 1.1, 2.3, 3.5, and 4.3 m where 0 m represents the tree row and 4.3 m represents the middle of the alley. Root samples were collected to a depth of 90 cm using a hydraulic auger. Maize rooting pattern was determined 65 days after planting to the same depth. Using plexiglass access tubes installed near the actual soil core locations and a minirhizotron camera root images were recorded on a VHS tape. These images were later analyzed using a raster based GIS software (ERDAS-IMAGINE). Regression analysis revealed significant relationships between root surface area measurements from minirhizotron observations and fine root biomass data from soil coring for all species. Predicted fine root biomass data were also in close agreement with actual fine root biomass for all species examined. Maize root biomass was slightly, but not significantly, underestimated by the minirhizotron technique in the top 30 cm soil layer. No significant underestimation or overestimation of root biomass in surface or deeper soil layers was observed for the tree species. The results indicate that minirhizotron can be used in quantifying fine root biomass if site and species specific predictive models can be developed.

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

4.4
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