Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Using radius frequency distribution functions as a metric for quantifying root systems

Root radius frequency distributions

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Root radius frequency distributions have been measured to quantify the effect of plant type, environment and methodology on root systems, however, to date the results of such studies have not been synthesised. We propose that cumulative frequency distribution functions can be used as a metric to describe root systems because (1) statistical properties of the frequency distribution can be determined, (2) the parameters for these can be used as a means of comparison, and (3) the analytical expressions can be easily incorporated into models that are dependent upon root geometry. We collated a database of 96 root radii frequency distributions and botanical and methodology traits for each distribution. To determine if there was a frequency distribution function that was best suited to root radii measurements we fitted the exponential, Rayleigh, normal, log-normal, logistic and Weibull cumulative distribution functions to each distribution in our database. We found that the log-normal function provided the best fit to these distributions and that none of the distribution functions was better or worse suited to particular shapes. We derived analytical expressions for root surface and volume and found that they are a valid, and simpler method for incorporating root architectural traits into analytical models. We also found that growth habit and growth media had a significant effect on mean root radius.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Amacher M, Selim HM, Iskandar I (1988) Kinetics of chromium (VI) and cadmium retention in soils: a nonlinear multireaction model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 52:398–408

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Amato M, Pardo A (1994) Root length and biomass losses during sample preparation with different screen mesh sizes. Plant Soil 161:299–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson T, Starmer W, Thorne M (2007) Bimodal root diameter distributions in Serengeti grasses exhibit plasticity in response to defoliation and soil texture: implications for nitrogen uptake. Funct Ecol 21:50–60

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blouin M, Barot S, Roumet C (2007) A quick method to determine root biomass distribution in diameter classes. Plant Soil 290:371–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boot R, Mensink M (1990) Size and morphology of root systems of perennial grasses from contrasting habitats as affected nitrogen supply. Plant Soil 129:291–299

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bouma T, Nielsen KL, Koutstaal B (2000) Sample preparation and scanning protocol for computerised analysis of root length and diameter. Plant Soil 218:185–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen N, Barber SA (1977) Potassium influx characteristics of corn roots and interaction with N, P, Ca, and Mg influx. Agron J 69(5):860–864

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clemente E, Schaefer C, Novais R, Viana J, Barros N (2005) Soil compaction around Eucalyptus grandis roots: a micromorphological study. Aust J Soil Res 43:139–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa C, Dwyer LM, Hamel C, Muamba DF, Wang XL, Nantais L, Smith DL (2001) Root contrast enhancement for measurement with optical scanner-based image analysis. Can J Bot 79(1):23–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa C, Dwyer L, Zhou X, Dutilleul P, Hamel C, Reid L, Smith D (2002) Root morphology of contrasting maize genotypes. Agron J 94:96–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronquist A (1981) An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Danjon F, Bert D, Godin C, Trichet P (1999) Structural root architecture of 5-year-old Pinus pinaster measured by 3D digitising and analysed with AMAPod. Plant Soil 217:49–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dittmer HJ (1949) Root hair variations in plant species. Am J Bot 36(2):152–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbabin V, Diggle A, Rengel Z (2003) Is there an optimal root architecture for nitrate capture in leaching environments? Plant Cell Environ 26:835–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy L, Vignes M, Mckenzie BM, White PJ (2010) The dynamics of root meristem distribution in the soil. Plant Cell Environ 33:358–369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eissenstat D (1991) On the relationship between specific root length and the rate of root proliferation: a field study using citrus rootstocks. New Phytol 118(1):63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans P (1977) Comparative root morphology of some pasture grasses and clovers. N Z J Agric Res 20:331–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Fusseder A (1984) Effect of soil type, soil aeration, nitrogen supply and rhizosphere flora on the morphology of the seminal root system of maize. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 147:553–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner W (1960) Dynamic aspects of water availability to plants. Soil Sci 89:63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill R, Jackson R (2000) Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytol 147:13–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabarnik P, Pagés L, Bengough AG (1998) Geometrical properties of simulated maize root systems: consequences for length density and intersection density. Plant Soil 200(2):157–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hainsworth JM, Aylmore LAG (1986) Water extraction by single plant roots. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50(4):841–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Schulze ED (1997) A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94(14):7362–7366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaspar TC, Ewing RP (1997) ROOTEDGE: software for measuring root length from desktop scanner images. Agron J 89(6):932–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller C, Hammer D, Kayser A, Richner W, Brodbeck M, Sennhauser M (2003) Root development and heavy metal phytoextraction efficiency: comparison of different plant species in the field. Plant Soil 249:67–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuchenbuch R, Ingram K, Buczko U (2006) Effects of decreasing soil water content on seminal and lateral roots of young maize plants. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 169:841–848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lebowitz R (1988) Digital image analysis measurement of root length and diameter. Environ Exp Bot 28:267–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon S, Allmaras R (1991) Maize and soybean clustering as indicated by root mapping. Plant Soil 131:169–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D (1981) Studies of root function in Zea mays. II. Dimensions of the root system. Can J Bot 59:811–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney H (2002) Root distribution, phenology and carbon balance. Tech. rep., Stanford University

  • Newman E (1966) A method of estimating the total length of root in a sample. J Appl Ecol 3:139–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagliai M, De Nobili M (1993) Relationship between soil porosity, root development and soil enzyme activity in cultivated soils. Geoderma 56:243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant E, Holmgren R, Schuler G, McCracken K, Drbal B (1993) Using a fine root extraction device to quantify small diameter corn roots (>0.025 mm) in field soils. Plant Soil 153:273–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan WL, Bolton RP (1991) Root quantification by edge discrimination using a desktop scanner. Agron J 83(6):1047–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng H, Tian S, Yang X (2005) Changes of root morphology and Pb uptake by two species of Elsholtzia under Pb toxicity. J Zhejiang Univ Sci 6B:546–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pierret A, Moran C, Pankhurst C (1999) Differentiation of soil properties related to the spatial association of wheat roots and soil macropores. Plant Soil 211:51–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pierret A, Moran C, Doussan C (2005) Conventional detection methodology is limiting our ability to understand the roles and functions of fine roots. New Phytol 166:967–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pierret A, Doussan C, Capowiez Y, Bastardie F, Pages L (2007) Root functional architecture: a framework for modeling the interplay between roots and soil. Vadose Zone J 6(2):269–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pregitzer K, Kubiske M, Yu C, Hendrick R (1997) Relationships among branch order, carbon, and nitrogen in four temperate species. Oecologica 111:302–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pregitzer K, DeForest J, Burton A, Allen M, Ruess R, Hendrick R (2002) Fine root architecture of nine North American trees. Ecol Monogr 72(2):293–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin R, Stamp P, Richner W (2004) Impact of tillage system on winter wheat. Agron J 96:1523–1530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing (ISBN 3-900051-07-0). Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org

  • Reinhardt D, Miller R (1990) Size classes of root diameter and mycorrhizal fungal colonization in two temperate grassland communities. New Phytol 116:129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resh S, Battaglia M, Worledge D, Ladiges S (2003) Course root biomass for eucalypt plantations in Tasmania, Australia: sources of variation and methods for assessment. Trees 17:389–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryser P, Lambers H (1995) Root and leaf attributes accounting for the performance of fast- and slow-growing grasses at different nutrient supply. Plant Soil 170:251–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skaggs T, Shouse P (2002) Method of moments. In: Dane J, Topp GC (eds) methods of soil analysis part 4. Physical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison pp 1416–1418

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan WM, Jiang Z, Hull RJ (2000) Root morphology and its relationship with nitrate uptake in Kentucky bluegrass. Crop Sci 40(3):765–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennant D (1975) A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. J Ecol 63(3):995–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torssell B, Begg J, Rose C, Byrne G (1968) Stand morphology of townsville lucerne (Stylosanthes humilis). Aust J Exp Agric Anim Husb 8:533–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2008) The plants database. Electronic source. http://plants.usda.gov/

  • Šimůnek J, Hopmans J (2002) Parameter optimization and nonlinear fitting. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4 physical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 139–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisstein E (2008a) Central moment. From mathworld—a Wolfram Web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CentralMoment.html

  • Weisstein E (2008b) Log normal distribution. From mathworld—a Wolfram Web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LogNormalDistribution.html

  • Weisstein E (2008c) Raw moment. From mathworld—a Wolfam Web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram. com/RawMoment.html

  • Weisstein E (2008d) Wolfram mathworld. http://mathworld.wolfram.com

  • Zobel RW (2003a) Fine roots: discarding flawed assumptions. New Phytol 160(2):276–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel RW (2003b) Sensitivity analysis of computer-based diameter measurement from digital images. Crop Sci 43(2):583–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel RW (2008) Hardware and software efficacy in assessment of fine root diameter distributions. Comput Electron Agric 60(2):178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel RW, Kinraide B Thomas, Baligar V (2007) Fine root diameters can change in response to changes in nutrient concentrations. Plant Soil 297:243–254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation and the Department of Agriculture and Food, W.A.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Craig A. Scanlan

    Present address: Centre for Cropping Systems, Department of Agriculture and Food WA, Northam, WA, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth and Environment, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    Craig A. Scanlan & Christoph Hinz

Authors
  1. Craig A. Scanlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Hinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig A. Scanlan.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Tim Simon George.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scanlan, C.A., Hinz, C. Using radius frequency distribution functions as a metric for quantifying root systems. Plant Soil 332, 475–493 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0314-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0314-5

Keywords