Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Root and Shoot Relation of the Quinoa and Forage Plants in Salt-Affected Clay Soil

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Emerging Research in Alternative Crops

Part of the book series: Environment & Policy ((ENPO,volume 58))

Abstract

Plant green biomass and morphology are closely related aspects of organ development; however, biomass accumulation patterns of agricultural crops are often complex and influenced by the growth environment. The objectives of this study were to evaluate (1) the effects of salinity and drought stress on the root mass (RM) to shoot mass (SM) ratio (RSR) of six agricultural crops (ICBA quinoa line Q3 compared with local maize, sorghum, amaranth, proso millet, and alfalfa) grown on the salt-affected (electrical conductivity [EC] = 6–12 dS m−1) semi-arid clay soils, (2) the relationship between stem diameter (SD) and root biomass (RM) of plants, and (3) the impact of soil texture (loam and clay) on biomass accumulation of quinoa. At two fertilizer levels, three deficit irrigation regimes (0.4, 0.6, and 0.9 × I, where I is full irrigation) were applied to quinoa, and for the rest of the plants, only one irrigation regime (0.6 × I) was used.

The results revealed that (1) the combination of salinity and drought stress reduced SM and RM, resulting in a lower RSR (at harvest) by altering water deficit or fertilizer level. Quinoa had a greater allocation of biomass to roots and shoot (quinoa > maize > sorghum > amaranth > proso millet > alfalfa) and similar or lower RSR than other forages (quinoa = maize = sorghum = amaranth < proso millet < alfalfa) and could be categorized by a higher level of salt tolerance than other crops to grow and produce viable biomass and improve physical and chemical properties of soil. However, the harvest index of quinoa is less affected by treatments and was considerably lower than reported in the literature (e.g., grown in course textured and well-watered soils), showing that continuing relevant research is essential, (2) a unique relationship between RM on SD was established using a power function (R2 = 0.9, p < 0.001) with the coefficient and exponent range of 0.03–0.1 and 1.5–2.1 respectively, showing that parameters of allometric relationships could be used to characterize the contributions of plants species and growing condition, and predict root biomass for carbon sequestration purposes, and (3) the RSR of quinoa planted in loamy soil was about two times higher than that grown in clay soil; the soil texture significantly changed the biomass allocation to shoot and roots, but slightly affected the exponent of the scaling relationship between SD and RM, suggesting that generally environmental factors controlled the biomass allocation to roots and leaves and ontogenetic drift dominated the biomass allocation to stems. The anticipated outcomes may allow understanding of the plant response to environmental incline, the selection of cultivars adapted to the most diverse abiotic stresses, and improving the productivity of economically essential quinoa or forages for agricultural sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acosta-Motos JR, Ortuno MF, Bernal-Vicente A, Diaz-Vivancos P, Sanchez-Blanco MJ, Hernández JA (2017) Plant responses to salt stress: adaptative mechanisms. Agronomy 7:18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7010018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adolf VI, Jacobsen SE, Shabala S (2013) Salt tolerance mechanisms in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Environ Exp Bot 92:43–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Alandia G, Jacobsen SE, Kyvsgaard NC, Condori B, Liu F (2016) Nitrogen sustains seed yield of Quinoa under intermediate drought. J Agron Crop Sci 202:281–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Algosaibi AM, El-Garawany MM, Badran AE, Almadini AM (2015) Effect of irrigation water salinity on the growth of quinoa plant seedlings. J Agric Sci 7:205–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez S, Gomez-Bellot MJ, Castillo M, Banon S, Sanchez-Blanco MJ (2012) Osmotic and saline effect on growth, water relations, and ion uptake and translocation in Phlomis purpurea plants. Environ Exp Bot 78:138–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez-Flores R, Winkel T, Nguyen-Thi-Truc A, Joffre R (2014) Root foraging capacity depends on root system architecture and ontogeny in seedlings of three Andean Chenopodium species. Plant Soil 380:415–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin MH (2011) Effect of different nitrogen sources on growth, yield and quality of fodder maize (Zea mays L.). J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 10:17–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Aurita-Silva A, Jacobsen SE, Razzaghi F, Alvarez Flores R, Ruiz K, Morales A, Silva H (2015) Quinoa drought responses and adaptation, Chapter 2.4. In: Bazile D, Bertero D, Nieto C (eds) State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. FAO/CIRAD, Santiago, Chile, pp 157–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels D, Sunkar R (2005) Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:23–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin JG, Nielsen DC (2004) A method to separate plant roots from soil and analyze root surface area. Plant Soil 267:225–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertero HD (2001) Effects of photoperiod, temperature and radiation on the rate of leaf appearance in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) under field conditions. Ann Bot 87:495–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi S, Ruiz KB, Martinez Dominguez B, Zurita-Silva A, Orsini F, Antognoni F, Dinelli G, Marotti I, Gianquinto G, Maldonado S, Burrieza HP, Bazile D, Adolf VI, Jacobsen SE (2015) Tolerance to saline conditions, Chapter 2.3. In: Bazile D, Bertero D, Nieto C (eds) State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. FAO/CIRAD, Santiago, Chile, pp 143–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinder MA, Angers DA, Belanger G, Michaud R, Laverdiere MR (2002) Root biomass and shoot to root ratios of perennial forage crops in eastern Canada. Can J Plant Sci 82:731–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosque-Sanchez H, Lemeur R, Van Damme P (2000) Análisis ecofisiológico del cultivo de la quínua (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) en condiciones de estrés de la sequía y la salinidad. Tropicultura 18:198–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosque-Sanchez H, Lemeur R, Van Damme P, Jacobsen SE (2003) Ecophysiological analysis of drought and salinity stress of quinoa. Food Rev Intl 19:111–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai H, Chen T, Liu H, Gao D, Zheng G, Zhang J (2010) The effect of salinity and porosity of sewage sludge compost on the growth of vegetable seedlings. Sci Hortic 124:381–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Castroluna A, Ruiz OM, Quiroga AM (2014) Effects of salinity and drought stress on germination, biomass and growth in three varieties of Medicago sativa L. Avances en Investigacion Agropecuaria 18:39–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Choukr-Allah R, Rao NK, Hirich A, Shahid M, Alshankiti A, Toderich K, Gill S, Butt K, Ur R (2016) Quinoa for marginal environments: toward future food and nutritional security in MENA and Central Asia regions. Front Plant Sci 7:1–11. (paper 346)

    Google Scholar 

  • Claeys H, Inze D (2013) The agony of choice: how plants balance growth and survival under water-limiting conditions. Plant Physiol 162:1768–1779

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocozza C, Pulvento C, Lavini A, Riccardi M, d’Andria R, Tognetti R (2013) Effects of increasing salinity stress and decreasing water availability on ecophysiological traits of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) grown in a Mediterranean-type agroecosystem. J Agron Crop Sci 199:229–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Daynes CN, Field DJ, Saleeba JA, Cole MA, McGee PA (2013) Development and stabilisation of soil structure via interactions between organic matter, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant roots. Soil Biol Biochem 57:683–694

    Google Scholar 

  • De Swaef T, De Schepper V, Vandegehuchte MW, Steppe K (2015) Stem diameter variations as a versatile research tool in ecophysiology. Tree Physiol 35:1047–1061

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisa S, Hussin S, Geissler N, Koyro HW (2012) Effect of NaCl salinity on water relations, photosynthesis and chemical composition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as a potential cash crop halophyte. Aust J Crop Sci 6:357–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Esechie HA, Al-Barhi B, Al-Gheity S, Al-Khanjari S (2002) Root and shoot growth in salinity-stressed alfalfa in response to nitrogen source. J Plant Nutr 25:2559–2569

    Google Scholar 

  • Estefan G, Sommer R, Ryan J (2013) Methods of soil, plant, and water Analysis. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Beirut, 244p

    Google Scholar 

  • Fageria NK (2013) The role of plant roots in crop production. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Fageria NK, Moreira A (2011) The role of mineral nutrition on root crop growth of crop plants. Adv Agron 80:63–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Fageria NK, Baligar VC, Clark RB (2006) Physiology of crop production. The Howarth Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2016) Climate change and food security: risks and responses. FAO, Rome, 110p

    Google Scholar 

  • Faucon MP, Houben D, Lambers H (2017) Plant functional traits: soil and ecosystem services. Trends Plant Sci 22:385–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez JE, Cuevas MV (2010) Irrigation scheduling from stem diameter variations: a review. Agric For Meteorol 150:135–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitter A (2002) Characteristics and functions of root systems. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Beeckman T, Kafkafi U (eds) Plant roots: the hidden half, 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 15–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortier J, Truax B, Gagnon D, Lambert F (2015) Plastic allometry in coarse root biomass of mature hybrid poplar plantations. Bioenergy Res 8:1691–1704

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvan-Ampudia CS, Testerink C (2011) Salt stress signals shape the plant root. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:296–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Geerts S, Mamani RS, Garcia M, Raes D (2006) Response of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to differential drought stress in the Bolivian Altiplano: towards a deficit irrigation strategy within a water scarce region. In: Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on land and water management for sustainable irrigated agriculture, CD-Rom

    Google Scholar 

  • Geerts S, Raes D, Garcia M, Vacher J, Mamani R, Mendoza J, Huanca R, Morales B, Miranda R, Cusicanqui J, Taboada C (2008) Introducing deficit irrigation to stabilize yields of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Eur J Agron 28:427–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Pando LR, Ivarez-Castro RA, Eguiluz-De La Barra A (2010) Effect of salt stress on Peruvian germplasm of Chenopodium quinoa Willd.: a promising crop. J Agron Crop Sci 196:391–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez JA, Gallardo M, Hilal M, Rosa M, Prado FE (2009) Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning. Bot Stud 50:35–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez JA, Bruno M, Valoy M, Prado FE (2011) Genotypic variation of gas exchange parameters and leaf stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in ten quinoa cultivars grown under drought. J Agron Crop Sci 197:81–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray SB, Brady SM (2016) Plant developmental responses to climate change. Dev Biol 419:64–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamed KB, Ellouzi H, Talbi OZ, Hessini K, Slama I, Ghnaya T, Munne Bosch S, Savoure A, Abdelly C (2013) Physiological response of halophytes to multiple stresses. Funct Plant Biol 40:883–896

    Google Scholar 

  • Hariadi Y, Marandon K, Tian Y, Jacobsen SE, Shabala S (2011) Ionic and osmotic relations in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants grown at various salinity levels. J Exp Bot 62:185–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield JL (2013) Climate change: challenges for future crop adjustments. In: Climate change and plant abiotic stress tolerance, vol 1. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermans C, Hammond JP, White PJ, Verbruggen N (2006) How do plants respond to nutrient shortage by biomass allocation? Trends Plant Sci 11:610–617

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirich A (2013) Using deficit irrigation with treated wastewater to improve crop water productivity of sweet corn, chickpea, fava bean and quinoa. Moroccan Rev Agron Vet Sci 2:15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirich A, Choukr-Allah R, Jacobsen SE, El-Yousfi L, El-Omari H (2012a) Using deficit irrigation with treated wastewater in the production of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in Morocco. Revista Cientifica UDO Agricola 12:570–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirich A, Choukr-Allah R, Ragab R, Jacobsen SE, El-Youssfi L, El-Omari H (2012b) The SALTMED model calibration and validation using field data from Morocco. J Mater Environ Sci 3:342–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirich A, Choukr-Allah R, Jacobsen SE (2013) The combined effect of deficit irrigation by treated wastewater and organic amendment on quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) productivity. Desalin Water Treat 52:2208–2213

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirich A, Choukr-Allah R, Jacobsen SE (2014a) Deficit irrigation and organic compost improve growth and yield of quinoa and pea. J Agron Crop Sci 200:390–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirich A, Choukr-Allah R, Jacobsen SE (2014b) Quinoa in Morocco–effect of sowing dates on development and yield. J Agron Crop Sci 200:371–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirich A, Jelloul A, Choukr-Allah R, Jacobsen SE (2014c) Saline water irrigation of quinoa and chickpea: seedling rate, stomatal conductance and yield responses. J Agron Crop Sci 200:378–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang YX, Zhao XY, Zhou DW, Zhao HL, Zhang HX et al (2009) Allometry of Salsola collina in response to soil nutrients, water supply and population density. Nord J Bot 27:539–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudek C, Stanchi S, D’Amico M, Freppaz M (2017) Quantifying the contribution of the root system of alpine vegetation in the soil aggregate stability of moraine. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5:36–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam MS, Akhter MM, El-Sabagh A, Liu LY, Nguyen NT, Ueda A et al (2011) Comparative studies on growth and physiological responses to saline and alkaline stresses of Foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) and Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Aust J Crop Sci 5:1269–1277

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismailov AI (2013) Soil resources of Azerbaijan. In: Yigini Y, Panagos P, Montanarella L (eds) Soil resources of mediterranean and caucasus countries extension of the European soil database. Publications Office EU, Luxembourg, pp 16–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen SE, Mujica A, Jensen CR (2003) The resistance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to adverse abiotic factors. Food Rev Intl 19:99–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen SE, Liu F, Jensen CR (2009) Does root-sourced ABA play a role for regulation of stomata under drought in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoaWilld.). Sci Hortic 122(2):281–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Javed Q, Wu Y, Azeem A, Ullah I (2017) Evaluation of irrigation effects using diluted salted water based on electrophysiological properties of plants. J Plant Interact 12:219–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan M, Baran O, Unlukara A, Kale H, Rslan M, Kara K, Beyzi SB, Konca Y, Ulas A (2016) The effects of different nitrogen and irrigation levels on yield, nutritive value, fermentation and gas production of corn silage. Turkish J Field Crops 21:101–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Karyotis T, Iliadis C, Noulas C, Mitsibonas T (2003) Preliminary research on seed production and nutrient content for certain quinoa varieties in a saline–sodic soil. J Agron Crop Sci 189:402–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Klute A (ed) (1986) Methods of soil analysis, Part 1, 2nd edn. Argonomy monograpph No. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • Koevoets IT, Venema JH, Elzenga JTM, Testerink C (2016) Roots withstanding their environment: exploiting root system architecture responses to abiotic stress to improve crop tolerance. Front Plant Sci 7:1335. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavini A, Polenta C, Deandra R, Riccardo M, Chukor-Allah R, Belabor O et al (2014) Quinoa’s potential in the Mediterranean region. J Agron Crop Sci 200:344–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Xu H, Cohen S (2005) Long-term hydraulic acclimation to soil texture and radiation load in cotton. Plant Cell Environ 28:492–499

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima GS, Nobre RG, Gheyi HR, Soares LAA, Silva EM (2015) Irrigation water salinity and nitrogen doses affect the cultivation of castor bean (Ricinus communus L.) at different phonological stages. Aust J Crop Sci 9:870–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Lux A, Rost TL (2012) Plant root research: the past, the present and the future. Ann Bot 110:201–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance – current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div ASCE 103:115–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamedov AI, Gasimova Kh, Farzaliyev V, Toderich K, Ali-zade VM (2016) Forage crop research in a changing climate. Proceedings of international conference “innovative approaches to conservation of biodiversity.” Baku, ANAS, 6 p, CDRom

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS (1999) Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:2581–2593

    Google Scholar 

  • Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Munns R, Gilliham M (2015) Salinity tolerance of crops–what is the cost? New Phytol 208:668–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681

    Google Scholar 

  • Negrao S, Schmockel SM, Tester M (2017) Evaluating physiological responses of plants to salinity stress. Ann Bot 119:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklas KJ (1993) The allometry of plant reproductive biomass and stem diameter. Am J Bot 80:461–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklas KJ, Enquist BJ (2004) Canonical rules for plant organ biomass partitioning and annual allocation. Am J Bot 89:812–819

    Google Scholar 

  • Noulas C, Karyotis T, Iliadis C (2015) Greece. Experimentation and current distribution, Chapter 6.1.6. In: Bazile D, Bertero D, Nieto C (eds) State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. FAO/CIRAD, Santiago, Chile, pp 492–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurbekov A, Kassam A, Sydyk D, Ziyadullaev Z, Jumshudov I, Muminjanov H, Feindel D (2016) Conservation agriculture in irrigated areas of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. FAO, Ankara, 84p

    Google Scholar 

  • Omami EN, Hammes PS (2006) Interactive effects of salinity and water stress on growth, leaf water relations, and gas exchange in amaranth (Amaranthus spp.). N Z J Crop Hortic Sci 34:33–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) (1986) Methods of soil analysis, Part 2, Agronomy monograph No. 9, 2nd edn. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Nagel OW (2000) The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Aust J Plant Physiol 27:595–607

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012a) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. Tansley review. New Phytol 193:30–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Buhler J, van Dusschoten D, Climent J, Postma JA (2012b) Pot size matters: a meta-analysis of the effects of rooting volume on plant growth. Func Plant Biol J 39:839–850

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Jagodzinski AM, Ruiz-Peinado R, Kuyah S, Luo Y, Oleksyn J, Usoltsev VA et al (2015) How does biomass distribution change with size and differ among species? An analysis for 1200 plant species from five continents. New Phytol 208:736–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Price C, Munns R (2016) Growth analysis: a quantitative approach. In: Munns R, Schmidt S, Beveridge C (eds). Plant in action. Australian Society of Plant Scientists, New Zealand Society of Plant Biologists, and New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science

    Google Scholar 

  • Price CA, Enquist BJ, Savage VM (2007) A general model for allometric covariation in botanical form and function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:13204–13209

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulvento C, Riccardi M, Lavini A, D’Andria R, Iafelice G, Marconi E (2010) Field trial evaluation of two Chenopodium quinoa genotypes grown under rain-fed conditions in a typical Mediterranean environment in south Italy. J Agron Crop Sci 196:407–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulvento C, Riccardi M, Lavini A, Iafelice G, Marconi E, d'Andria R (2012) Yield and quality characteristics of quinoa grown in open field under different saline and non-saline irrigation regimes. J Agron Crop Sci 198:254–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Qadir M, Quillerou E, Nangia V, Murtaza G, Singh M, Thomas RJ, Drechsel P, Noble AD (2014) Economics of salt-induced land degradation and restoration. Nat Res Forum 38:282–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahnama A, Munns R, Poustini K, Watt M (2011) A screening method to identify genetic variation in root growth response to a salinity gradient. J Exp Bot 62:69–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Razzaghi F, Ahmadi SH, Adolf VI, Jensen CR, Jacobsen SE, Andersen MN (2011a) Water relations and transpiration of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under salinity and soil drying. J Agron Crop Sci 197:348–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Razzaghi F, Ahmadi SH, Jacobsen SE, Jensen CR, Andersen MN (2011b) Effects of salinity and soil–drying on radiation use efficiency, water productivity and yield of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J Agron Crop Sci 198:173–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Razzaghi F, Plauborg F, Jacobsen SE, Jensen CR, Andersen MN (2012) Effect of nitrogen and water availability of three soil types on yield, radiation use efficiency and evapotranspiration in field-grown quinoa. Agric Water Manag 109:20–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy VR, Pachepsky YA, Whisler FD (1998) Allometric relationships in field grown soybean. Ann Bot 82:125–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengasamy P (2010) Soil processes affecting crop production in salt affected soils. Funct Plant Biol 37:613–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Roger-Estrade J, Richard G, Dexter AR, Boizard H, de Tourdonnet S, Bertrand M, Caneill J (2009) Integration of soil structure variations with time and space into models for crop management. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:135–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Roumet C, Birouste M, Picon-Cochard C, Ghestem M, Osman N, Vrignon-Brenas S, Cao K, Stokes A (2016) Root structure–function relationships in 74 species: evidence of a root economics spectrum related to carbon economy. New Phytol 210:815–826

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy SJ, Negrao S, Tester M (2014) Salt resistant crop plants. Curr Opin Biotechnol 26:115–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz KB, Biondi S, Oses R, Acuna-Rodriguez IS, Antognoni F, Martinez-Mosqueira EA et al (2014) Quinoa biodiversity and sustainability for food security under climate change. Agron Sustain Dev 34:349–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz KB, Aloisi I, Del Duca S, Canelo V, Torrigiani P, Silva H et al (2016) Salares versus coastal ecotypes of quinoa: salinity responses in Chilean landraces from contrasting habitats. Plant Physiol Biochem 101:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Blanco MJ, Alvarez S, Ortuno MF, Ruiz-Sanchez MC (2014) Root system response to drought and salinity: root distribution and water transport. In: Morte A, Varma A (eds) Soil biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 325–352

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute 1995 SAS guide for personal computers. 6.07, SAS Inst., Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk HJ, Jackson RB (2002) Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. J Ecol 90:480–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlick G, Bubenheim DL (1996) Quinoa: candidate crop for NASA’s controlled ecological life support systems. In: Janick J (ed) Progress in new crops. ASHS Press, Arlington, VA, pp 632–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalhevet J, Huck MG, Schoeder BP (1995) Root and shoot responses to salinity in maize and soybean. Agron J 87:512–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Six J, Bossuyt H, De Gryze S, Denef K (2004) A history of research on the link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res 79:7–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner RH, Comas LH (2010) Root distribution of temperate forage species subjected to water and nitrogen stress. Crop Sci 50:2178–2185

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith S, De Smet I (2012) Root system architecture: insights from Arabidopsis and cereal crops. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:1441–1452

    Google Scholar 

  • Soliz-Guerrero JB, De Rodriguez D, Rodriguez-Garcia R, Angulo-Sanchez JL, Mendez-Padilla G (2002) Quinoa saponins: concentration and composition analysis. In: Janick J, Whipkey A (eds) Trends in new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA, pp 110–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Song Y, Rui Y, Birch C, Hanan J (2015) Allometric relationships of maize organ development under different water regimes and plant densities. Plant Prod Sci 18:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza Miranda R, Ruppenthal V, Sousa Lopes L, Fontenele Vieira C, Braga Marques V, Alves Bezerra M, Feitosa Lacerda C (2013) Phosphorus fertilization improves soybean growth under salt stress. Int J Plant Anim Sci 2:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Stikic R, Jovanovic Z, Marjanovic M, Dordevic S (2015) The effect of drought on water regime and growth of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Ratarstvo i povrtarstvo. Field Veg Crops Res 52:80–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Strudley MW, Green TR, Ascough JC (2008) Tillage effects on soil hydraulic properties in space and time: state of the science. Soil Tillage Res 99:4–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdes-Rodriguez OA, Sanchez-Sanchez O, Perez-Vazquez A, Caplan JS, Danjon F (2013) Jatropha curcas L. Root structure and growth in diverse soils. Sci World J. Article ID 827295, 9 p. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/827295

  • Vasilakoglou I, Dhima K, Karagiannidis N, Gatsis T (2011) Sweet sorghum productivity for biofuels under increased soil salinity and reduced irrigation. Field Crops Res 120:38–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Bloomfield J (1998) Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level. Plant Soil 200:71–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Waisel T, Eshel A, Beeckman T, Kafkafi U (2002) Plant roots: the hidden half, 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York/Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Xie J, Li YJ (2016) Safety-efficiency trade-offs in the cotton xylem: acclimatization to different soil textures. Arid Land 8:443–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (2004) Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 6:207–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Q, Pages L, Wu J (2016a) Relationships between root diameter, root length and root branching along lateral roots in adult, field-grown maize. Ann Bot 117:379–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu G, Peterson AJ, Morris CF, Murphy KM (2016b) Quinoa seed quality response to sodium chloride and sodium sulfate salinity. Front Plant Sci 7:790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie JB, Tang LS, Wang ZY et al (2012) Distinguishing the biomass allocation variance resulting from ontogenetic drift or acclimation to soil texture. PLoS One 7:e41502

    Google Scholar 

  • Yazar A, Incekaya C, Sezen SM, Jacobsen SE (2015) Saline water irrigation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) under Mediterranean conditions. Crop Pasture Sci 66:993–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Zegada-Lizarazu W, Zatta A, Monti A (2012) Water uptake efficiency and above- and belowground biomass development of sweet sorghum and maize under different water regimes. Plant Soil 351:47–60

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr. A.I. Mamedov thanks to ALRC, Tottori University, Japan, and the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA), Dubai, UAE, for their support, which enabled him to contribute to the paper. This work was related to regional project “Toward a sustainable food production on marginal saline lands in Aral—Caspian Sea Basins,” supported by the IDB.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Agriculture, Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, Tottori, Japan

    A. I. Mamedov

  2. Institute of Botany, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS), Baku, Azerbaijan

    A. I. Mamedov, Kh. Gasimova, E. K. Husiyev & V. M. Alizade

  3. Central Botanical Garden, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS), Baku, Azerbaijan

    V. Farzaliyev

  4. International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA), Dubai, UAE

    K. Toderich

  5. CAC, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

    K. Toderich

Authors
  1. A. I. Mamedov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kh. Gasimova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. K. Husiyev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. Farzaliyev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. M. Alizade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. Toderich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. African Sustainable Agriculture Research Institute, Mohammed VI Polytechnic University, Laayoune, Morocco

    Abdelaziz Hirich

  2. Institute of Agronomy & Veterinary Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco

    Redouane Choukr-Allah

  3. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK

    Ragab Ragab

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mamedov, A.I., Gasimova, K., Husiyev, E.K., Farzaliyev, V., Alizade, V.M., Toderich, K. (2020). Root and Shoot Relation of the Quinoa and Forage Plants in Salt-Affected Clay Soil. In: Hirich, A., Choukr-Allah, R., Ragab, R. (eds) Emerging Research in Alternative Crops. Environment & Policy, vol 58. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90472-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90472-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90471-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90472-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation