Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:31:10.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Root morphology of young Glycine max, Senna obtusifolia, and Amaranthus palmeri

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Shawn R. Wright ,
Michael W. Jennette ,
Harold D. Coble  and
Thomas W. Rufty Jr.
Michael W. Jennette
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Harold D. Coble
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Root development and the associated acquisition of water and nutrients are an important part of weed competitiveness. Characterization of root morphological development, however, is inherently problematic because of the complexities of soil–plant interactions. In this study, we used hydroponically grown plants and digital imaging to examine root characteristics of Glycine max and the competing weeds Senna obtusifolia and Amaranthus palmeri. The purpose was to define inherent differences in root length and surface area that would contribute to growth responses during the establishment phase in the field. The methodology involved growing plants for 16 to 22 d, dissecting and staining root segments, mounting subsamples on slides, and imaging using a stereomicroscope and digital camera. Microscopy was required because of the small diameters of a significant proportion of the weed roots. With plants of similar root fresh weights (4.5 to 5.0 g), counting of individual roots revealed that 5. obtusifolia and A. palmeri had 2 and 3.7 times more roots than G. max (4,616 and 7,781 vs. 2,120, respectively). The imaging analyses indicated that roots of S. obtusifolia and A. palmeri had 2.9 and 5 times more length than G. max (10,042 and 17,192 cm vs. 3,418 cm, respectively). Furthermore, the analysis of length in different root diameter classes indicated that weed roots were noticeably finer then those of G. max. Approximately 84% of S. obtusifolia root length was contributed by roots in the 0.1- to 0.25-mm range, whereas 45% of the G. max roots were in the 0.1- to 0.25-mm range and 48% were in the 0.25- to 0.75-mm range. In contrast, 68% of A. palmeri length was contributed by roots smaller than 0.1 mm in diameter with 26% in the 0.1- to 0.25-mm range. Based on the expression of root characteristics observed here, root systems of these weed species would have finer roots with much greater length that would occupy a much larger volume of soil than those of G. max. Presumably, this would result in a competitive advantage in the acquisition of water and nutrients, especially when availability is limited.

Keywords

Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPA, Palmer amaranthSenna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby CASOB, sicklepodGlycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Essex,’ soybeanAMAPACASOBcontrolled environmenthydroponicnutrient solutionroot measurementweed competition
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 6 , December 1999 , pp. 706 - 711
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

References

Literature Cited

Barber, S. A. and Silberbush, M. 1984. Plant root morphology and nutrient uptake. In Roots, Nutrient and Water Influx, and Plant Growth. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. 49:65–87.Google Scholar
Böhm, W. 1979. Methods of Studying Root Systems. In Billings, W. D., Golley, F., Lange, O. L., Olson, J. S., eds. Ecological Studies: Analysis and Synthesis, Vol. 33. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bozsa, R. C. and Oliver, L. R. 1990. Competitive mechanisms of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and soybean (Glycine max) during seedling growth. Weed Sci. 38:344–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, J. E. Jr. 1996. Modern methods for root investigations. Pages 193–237 in Waisel, Y., Eshel, A., Kafkafi, U., eds. Plant Roots: The Hidden Half. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Brown, D. A. and Scott, H. D. 1984. Dependence of crop growth and yield on toot development and activity. In Roots, Nutrient and Water Influx, and Plant Growth. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. 49:101–136.Google Scholar
Dowdy, R. H., Nater, E. A., and Dolan, M. S. 1995. Quantification of the length and diameter of root segments with public domain software. Comnum. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 26:459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, M. C. 1975. Comparison of the effects of a localized supply of phosphate, nitrate, ammonium, and potassium on the growth of the seminal root system, and the shoot, of barley. New Phytol. 75:479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, M. C. 1979. Root development and activities. Pages 573–606 in Perry, R. A. and Goodall, D. W., eds. Arid-Land Ecosystems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eissenstat, D. M. 1992. Costs and benefits of constructing roots of small diameter. J. Plant Nutr. 15:763–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, G. A. and Campbell, G. S. 1989. Automated quantification of roots using a simple image analyzer. Agron. J. 81:935–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebowitz, R. J. 1988. Digital image analysis measurement of root length and diameter. Environ. Exp. Bot. 28:267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, J. 1995. Root architecture and plant productivity. Plant Physiol. 109:7–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, J. and Beebe, S. E. 1995. Adaptation of beans to low soil phosphorus availability. Hort. Sci. 30:1165–1171.Google Scholar
Newman, E. I. 1966. A method of estimating the total length of root in a sample. J. Appl. Ecol. 3:139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddiraju, V. G., Beyl, C. A., Barker, P. A., and Stutte, G. W. 1994. Container size alters root growth of Western black cherry as measured via image analysis. Hort. Sci. 29:910–913.Google Scholar
Ottman, M. J. and Timm, H. 1984. Measurement of viable plant roots with the image analyzing computer. Agron. J. 76:1018–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, W. L. and Bolton, R. P. 1991. Root quantification by edge discrimination using a desktop scanner. Agron. J. 83:1047–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peat, H. J. and Fitter, A. H. 1993. The distribution of mycorrhizae in the British flora. New Phytol. 125:845–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, C. M., Klepper, B., Pumphrey, F. V., and Rickman, R. W. 1984. Restricted rooting decreases tillering and growth of winter wheat. Agron. J. 76:861–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. 1994. The responses of plants to non-uniform supplies of nutrients. New Phytol. 127:635–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, J. P. and Harper, J. E. 1970. Effect of endogone mycorrhiza on soybean yields. Phytopathol. 60:1552–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. The SAS System for Windows, 7.0. Cary NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Smika, D. E. and Klute, A. 1982. Surface area measurement of corn root systems. Agron. J. 74:1091–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smucker, A.J.M. 1993. Soil environmental modification of root dynamics and measurement. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 31:191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliavini, M., Veto, L. J., and Looney, N. E. 1993. Measuring root surface area and mean root diameter of peach seedlings by digital image analysis. Hort. Sci. 28:1129–1130.Google Scholar
Tester, M., Smith, S. E., and Smith, F. A. 1987. The phenomenon of “non-mycorrhizal” plants. Can. J. Bot. 65:419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. F. and Downs, R. J. 1991. Phytotron Procedural Manual for Controlled-Environment Research at the Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratory. Raleigh, NC: Tech. Bull. 244 (Revised) North Carolina Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. F. and Raper, C. D. Jr. 1983. Photoperiod and temperature regulation of floral initiation and anthesis in soya bean. Ann. Bot. 51:481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vessey, J. K., York, E. K., Henry, L. T., and Raper, C. D. Jr. 1988. Uniformity of environmental conditions and plant growth in a hydroponic culture system for use in a growth room with aerial CO2 control. Biotronics 17:79–94.Google Scholar
Wright, S. R., Coble, H. D., Raper, C. D. Jr., and Rufty, T. W. Jr. 1999. Comparative responses of soybean (Glycine max), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to root-zone and aerial temperatures. Weed Sci. 47:167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobel, R. W. 1975. The genetics of root development. Pages 261–275 in Torrey, J. G. and Clarkson, D. T., eds. The Development and Function of Roots. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar