Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:27:16.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Root biomass in timothy and red clover leys estimated by soil coring and mesh bags

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. Steen
E. Steen
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Environmental Research, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7072, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Root biomass of timothy grass (Phleum pratense L.), at low and high N fertilization rates, and of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) were estimated with soil cores and in mesh bags in a field trial on a sandy loam in central Sweden. First and second full-harvest year leys were sampled three times each year from May to October. Mesh bags were inserted in the soil in autumn shortly after sowing (longterm bags); in spring and autumn of the first year and in spring of the second year (medium-term bags); and every third month during both years (short-term bags). Mesh bags of each type were sampled when the soil cores were taken.

Root biomass in the long-term bags was generally about the same as that in the soil cores, but taproot biomass in the clover crop was underestimated in the bags. In the grass plots, differences between soil cores and mesh bags were probably caused by ingrowth of weed roots in bags and by larger root biomass in plant rows than between rows. If soil cores and long-term mesh bags are sampled in exactly the same way identical estimates of biomass should be obtained.

Root biomass in short-term and medium-term bags was about the same as that in the soil cores and long-term bags on many of the sampling occasions. Thus a stable level of biomass was reached in a rather short time, i.e. after 3 months or less. Then root production, root mortality and root decomposition occurred simultaneously at a fairly constant level.

The bags did not contain residues from earlier crops, which reduced the amount of separation work necessary. The absence of crop residues in the bags did not seem to affect root biomass.

The mesh bag method is a useful alternative to soil core sampling for studying root biomass and root dynamics in perennial and annual crops. However, the bags must be inserted into the soil just after sowing and they must be placed in, as well as between, plant rows.

Type
Review
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 113 , Issue 2 , October 1989 , pp. 241 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andrén, O. (1987). Decomposition of shoot and root litter of barley, lucerne and meadow fescue under field conditions. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 113–122.Google Scholar
Ares, J. (1976). Dynamics of the root system of blue grama. Journal of Range Management 29, 208–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, M. M. (1979). Root structure. The considerable cost of below ground function. In Topics in Plant Population Biology (Eds Solbris, O. T., Jain, S., Johnson, G. B. & Raven, P. H.), pp. 409–427. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dickinson, N. M. (1982). Investigations and measurement of root turnover in semi-permanent grassland. Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol 19, 307–314.Google Scholar
Fabiao, A., Persson, H. Å. & Steen, E. (1985). Growth dynamics of superficial roots in Portuguese plantations of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. studied with a mesh bag technique. Plant and Soil 83, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garwood, E. A. (1967). Seasonal variation in appearance and growth of grass roots. Journal of the British Grassland Society 22, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, A.-C. (1987). Roots of arable crops: production, growth dynamics and nitrogen content. PhD thesis, Department of Ecology and Environmental Research, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. [Published as] Report 28, 28 pp.Google Scholar
Hansson, A.-C. & Andrén, O. (1986). Below-ground plant production in a perennial grass ley (Festuca pratensis Huds.) assessed with different methods. Journal of Applied Ecology 23, 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, A.-C., Pettersson, R. & Paustian, K. (1987). Shoot and root production and nitrogen uptake in barley, with and without nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 158, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, A.-C. & Steen, E. (1984). Methods of calculating root production and nitrogen uptake in an annual crop. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 191–200.Google Scholar
Larsson, K. & Steen, E. (1984). Nitrogen and carbohydrates in grass roots sampled with a mesh bag technique. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 159–164.Google Scholar
Larsson, K. & Steen, E. (1988). Changes in mass and chemical composition of grass roots during decomposition. Grass and Forage Science 43, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parton, W. J., Singh, J. S. & Coleman, D. C. (1978). A model of production and turnover of roots in shortgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 515–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, H., Messing, I. & Steen, E. (1987). Influence of root mass on saturated hydraulic conductivity in arid soils of central Tunisia. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 1, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, R., Hansson, A.-C., Andrén, O. & Steen, E. (1986). Above- and below-ground production and nitrogen uptake in lucerne (Medicago sativa). Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 16, 167–177.Google Scholar
Santantonio, D. & Grace, J. C. (1987). Estimating fine-root production and turnover from biomass and decomposition data: a compartment-flow model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17, 900–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, E. (1983). The net stocking method for studying quantitative and qualitative variation with time of grass roots. In Root Ecology and its Practical Application(Eds Böhm, W., Kutschera, L. & Lichtenegger, E.), pp. 63–74. Gumpenstein, Irdning: Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Landwirtschaft.Google Scholar
Steen, E. (1984). Variation of root growth in a grass ley studied with a mesh bag technique. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 93–97.Google Scholar
Steen, E. (1985). Root and rhizome dynamics in a perennial grass crop during an annual growth cycle. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 15, 25–30.Google Scholar
Steen, E. & Al-Windi, I. (1984). Effects of pre-emergence soil herbicides (Lenacil and Metamitron) on sugar beets (Beta vulgaris L.). Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 201–205.Google Scholar
Steen, E., Andrén, O. & Al-Windi, I. (1987). Reduced growth of potato roots caused by metribuzin. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 41–46.Google Scholar
Steen, E. & Håkansson, I. (1987). Use of ingrowth cores in mesh bags for studies of relations between soil compaction and root growth. Soil and Tillage Research 10, 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, E. & Larsson, K. (1986). Carbohydrates in roots and rhizomes of perennial grasses. New Phytologist 104, 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, E. & Lindén, B. (1987). Role of fine roots in the nitrogen economy of sugar beet. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 158, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, E., Persson, H. & Al-Windi, I. (1984). Effects of herbicides on the ingrowth of lateral roots of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in mesh bags. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 103–105.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. A., Grier, C. C., Gower, S. T., Sprugel, D. G. & Vogt, D. J. (1986). Overestimation of net root production: a real or imaginary problem? Ecology 67, 577–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar