Plant and Soil

, 316:205 | Cite as

Evaluation of a core sampling scheme to characterize root length density of maize

  • Uwe Buczko
  • Rolf O. Kuchenbuch
  • Horst H. Gerke
Regular Article


Information about root distribution is important for characterization and modeling of water and nutrient uptake, biomass, and yield. Due to the heterogeneous distribution of roots in row crops, the reliability and representativeness of estimates of RL and root morphology using core sampling depend on the number of samples and their location. The objectives of this study were to evaluate errors when assessing RLD and root morphology from auger core sampling schemes, to estimate 2D distributions of RLD by auger core sampling, and to assess the number of samples necessary for representative estimates of RLD and RD classes. The reference dataset utilized in this study is based on completely sampled 3D soil monoliths under maize, taken at three different dates (55, 78, and 104 days after planting) and two different row spacings (75 and 37.5 cm). A hypothetical auger core sampling scheme with one core within the row and another midway between rows mostly overpredicted total RLD. Bias was lower when using an 1:3 weighting scheme. Estimation of 2D vertical RLD distribution by calculating the ratio of RLD in the plant row to RLD midway between rows yielded reasonable estimates only when the average of eight cores was used. An assessment of the proportions of RD classes yielded high bias values, even when using the average of eight cores. An analysis of sampling errors using successively more cores revealed that for total RLD, to attain a bias <20%, more than ten samples would be necessary. This suggests that the number of core samples taken in many root studies could be too low. This bias was even higher when taking core samples for estimation of proportions of RD classes, where a reasonably low bias between estimated and “true” values could not be attained in this study even with ten core samples. Consequently, when taking samples for measurement of root morphological parameters, more detailed and site-adapted sampling schemes have to be devised. For estimating total averaged RLD, two core samples (within-row and midway between rows) could be sufficient when using a 1:3 weighting scheme for calculating the average RLD. When samples are taken in a more random manner and no weighting is applied, the necessary number of samples would be at least ten.


Maize (Zea mays L.) Root length density Row spacing Spatial variability Sampling scheme Root diameter 



days after planting (d)


root diameter (mm)


root fresh mass (g)


root length (cm)


root length density (cm cm−3)


mean value of RLD estimated by core sampling


mean value of RLD estimated by monolith sampling


RLD row ratio: ratio between RLD in the plant row to RLD midway between rows


root mass density (g cm−3)


weighting factor (−)


  1. Amato M, Ritchie JT (2002) Spatial distribution of roots and water uptake of Maize (Zea mays L.) as affected by soil structure. Crop Sci 42:773–780Google Scholar
  2. Anderson EL (1987) Corn root growth and distribution as influenced by tillage and nitrogen fertilization. Agron J 79:544–549Google Scholar
  3. Ball-Coelho BR, Roy RC, Swanton CJ (1998) Tillage alters corn root distribution in coarse-textured soil. Soil Tillage Res 45:237–249 doi: 10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00086-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bengough AG, Castrignano A, Pages L, Van Noordwijk M (2000) Sampling strategies, scaling, statistics. In: Smit AL, Bengough AG, Engels C, Van Noordwijk M, Pellerin S, Van der Geijn SC (eds) Root methods, a handbook. Springer, Berlin, pp 147–173Google Scholar
  5. Böhm W (1979) Methods of studying root systems. Ecological studies 33. Springer, Berlin, p 188Google Scholar
  6. Chassot A, Stamp P, Richner W (2001) Root distribution and morphology of maize seedlings as affected by tillage and fertilizer placement. Plant Soil 231:123–135 doi: 10.1023/A:1010335229111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dwyer LM, Ma BL, Stewart DW, Hayhoe HN, Balchin D, Culley JLB et al (1996) Root mass distribution under conventional and conservation tillage. Can J Soil Sci 76:23–28Google Scholar
  8. Ewel J, Gliessman S, Amador M, Benedict F, Berish C, Bermudez R et al (1982) Leaf area, light transmission, roots and leaf damage in nine tropical plant communities. Agro-ecosyst 7:305–326 doi: 10.1016/0304-3746(82)90023-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. FAO (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006. A framework for international classification, correlation and communication. World Soil Resources Report No. 103. 2006 edition, Rome.Google Scholar
  10. Gajri PR, Arora VK, Kumar K (1994) A procedure for determining average root length density in row crops by single-site augering. Plant Soil 160:41–47 doi: 10.1007/BF00150344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerke HH, Kuchenbuch RO (2007) Root effects on soil water and hydraulic properties. Biologia (Bratisl) 62(5):557–561 doi: 10.2478/s11756-007-0110-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang G, Zhao X-y, Su Y-g, Zhao H-l, Zhang T-h (2008) Vertical distribution, biomass, production and turnover of fine roots along a topographical gradient in a sandy shrubland. Plant Soil 308:201–212 doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9620-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuchenbuch RO, Barber SA (1987) Yearly variation of root distribution with depth in relation to nutrient uptake and corn yield. Comm. Soil Sci Plant Anal 18:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kumar K, Prihar SS, Gajri PR (1993) Determination of root distribution of wheat by auger sampling. Plant Soil 143:245–253 doi: 10.1007/BF00016615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mengel DB, Barber SA (1974) Development and distribution of the corn root system under field conditions. Agron J 66:341–344Google Scholar
  16. Oikeh SO, Kling JG, Horst WJ, Chude VO, Carsky RJ (1999) Growth and distribution of maize roots under nitrogen fertilization in plinthite soil. Field Crops Res 62:1–13 doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(98)00169-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pierret A, Moran CJ, Doussan C (2005) Conventional detection methodology is limiting our ability to understand the roles and functions of fine roots. New Phytol 166:967–980 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01389.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Qin RJ, Stamp P, Richner W (2005) Impact of tillage and banded starter fertilizer on maize root growth in the top 25 centimeters of the soil. Agron J 97:674–683 doi: 10.2134/agronj2004.0059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schenk MK, Barber SA (1980) Potassium and phosphorus uptake by corn genotypes grown in the field as influenced by root characteristics. Plant Soil 54:65–76 doi: 10.1007/BF02182000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schuurman JJ, Goedewaagen MAJ (1971) Methods for the examination of root systems and roots. Pudoc, Wageningen, p 86Google Scholar
  21. Sharratt BS, McWilliams DA (2005) Microclimatic and rooting characteristics of narrow-row versus conventional-row corn. Agron J 97:1129–1135 doi: 10.2134/agronj2004.0292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tennant D (1975) A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. J Ecol 63:995–1001 doi: 10.2307/2258617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Noordwijk M, van de Geijn SC (1996) Root, shoot and soil parameters required for process-oriented models of crop growth limited by water or nutrients. Plant Soil 183:1–25 doi: 10.1007/BF02185562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Noordwijk M, Floris J, de Jager A (1985) Sampling schemes for estimating root density distribution in cropped fields. Neth J Agric Sci 33:241–262Google Scholar
  25. Wang EL, Smith CJ (2004) Modelling the growth and water uptake function of plant root systems: a review. Aust J Agric Res 55:501–523 doi: 10.1071/AR03201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wiesler F, Horst WJ (1994) Root growth of maize cultivars under field conditions as studied by the core and minirhizotron method and relationships to shoot growth. Z Pflanzenernahr Bodenk 157:351–358 doi: 10.1002/jpln.19941570506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zobel R (2003) Fine roots—discarding flawed assumptions. New Phytol 160:276–278 doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00893.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uwe Buczko
    • 1
  • Rolf O. Kuchenbuch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Horst H. Gerke
    • 3
  1. 1.Plant Nutrition, Institute for Land UseUniversity of RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Agricultural Analysis and Research Institute (LUFA) RostockRostockGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Soil Landscape ResearchLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany

Personalised recommendations