, Volume 70, Issue 11, pp 1439–1443 | Cite as

Using dye tracer for visualizing roots impact on soil structure and soil porous system

  • Radka KodešováEmail author
  • Karel Němeček
  • Anna Žigová
  • Antonín Nikodem
  • Miroslav Fér


Plants influence the water regime in soil by both water uptake and an uneven distribution of water infiltration at the soil surface. The latter process is more poorly studied, but it is well known that roots modify soil structure by enhancing aggregation and biopore production. This study used a dye tracer to visualize the impact of plants on water flow in the topsoil of a Greyic Phaeozem. Brilliant blue was ponded to 10 cm height in a 1 m × 1 m frame in the field immediately after harvest of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). After complete infiltration, the staining patterns within the vertical and horizontal field-scale sections were studied. In addition, soil thin sections were made and micromorphological images were used to study soil structure and dye distribution at the microscale. The field-scale sections clearly documented uneven dye penetration into the soil surface, which was influenced by plant presence and in some cases by mechanical compaction of the soil surface. The micromorphological images showed that root activities compress soil and increases the bulk density near the roots (which could be also result of root water uptake and consequent soil adhesion). On the other hand in few cases a preferential flow along the roots was observed.

Key words

field sections macro-scale micro-scale micromorphological images plant ponding dye infiltration roots soil structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



Authors acknowledge the financial support of the Czech Science Foundation (No. 526/08/0434 and 13-12477S).


  1. Anderson A.E., Weiler M., Alila Y. & Hudson R.O. 2009. Dye staining and excavation of a lateral preferential flow network. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13: 935–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachmair S., Weiler M. & Nutzmann G. 2009. Controls of land use and soil structure on water movement: Lessons for pollutant transfer through the unsaturated zone. J. Hydrol. 369: 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengough A.G., McKenzie B.M., Hallett P.D. & Valentine T.A. 2011. Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: a review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. J. Exp. Bot. 62: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogner C., Wolf B., Schlather M. & Huwe B. 2008. Analysing flow patterns from dye tracer experiments in a forest soil using extreme value statistics. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 59: 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cey E.E. & Rudolph D.L. 2009. Field study of macropore flow processes using tension infiltration of a dye tracer in partially saturated soils. Hydrol. Process. 23. 1768–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Etana A., Larsbo M., Keller T., Arvidsson J., Schjřnning P., Forkman J. & Jarvis N. 2013. Persistent subsoil compaction and its effects on preferential flow patterns in a loamy till soil. Geoderma 192: 430–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fér M. & Kodešová R. 2012. Estimating hydraulic conductivities of the soil aggregates and their clay-organic coatings using numerical inversion of capillary rise data. J. Hydrol. 468–469: 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flury M., Flühler H., Jury W.A. & Leuenberger J. 1994. Susceptibility of soils to preferential flow of water–Field-studies. Water Resour. Res. 30. 1945–1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flury M. & Flühler H. 1995. Tracer characteristic of Brilliant Blue FCF. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59: 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flury M. & Wai N.N. 2003. Dyes as tracers for vadose zone hydrology. Rev. Geophys. 41: Art. No. 1002.Google Scholar
  11. Gerke K.M., Roy C., Sidle R.C. & Mallants D. 2013. Criteria for selecting fluorescent dye tracers for soil hydrological applications using Uranine as an example. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 61: 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hallett P.D., Karim K.H., Bengough A.G. & Otten W. 2013. Biophysics of the vadose zone: From reality to model systems and back again. Vadose Zone J. 12(4), DOI: 10.2136/vzj2013.05.0090Google Scholar
  13. Hardie M.A., Cotching W.E., Doyle R.B., Holz G., Lisson S. & Mattern K. 2011. Effect of antecedent soil moisture on preferential flow in a texture-contrast soil. J. Hydrol. 398: 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hillel D. 2004. Introduction to Environmental Soil Physics. Elsevier Academic Press. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Homolák M., Capuliak J., Pichler V. & Lichner L. 2009. Estimating hydraulic conductivity of a sandy soil under different plant covers using minidisk infiltrometer and a dye tracer experiment. Biologia 64: 600–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jirků V., Kodešová R., Nikodem A., Mühlhanselová M. & Žigová A. 2013. Temporal variability of structure and hydraulic properties of topsoil of three soil types. Geoderma 204–205: 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kasteel R., Vogel H.-J. & Roth K. 2002. Effect of non-liner adsorption on the transport behavior of Brilliant Blue in field soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 53: 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasteel R., Burkhardt M., Giesa S. & Vereecken H. 2005. Characterization of field tracer transport using high-resolution images. Vadose Zone J. 4: 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kasteel R., Garnier P., Vachier P. & Coquit Y. 2007. Dye tracer infiltration in the plough layer after straw incorporation. Geoderma 137: 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kočárek M., Kodešová R., Kozák J., Drábek O. & Vacek O. 2005. Chlorotoluron behaviour in five different soil types. Plant Soil Environ. 51: 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kočárek M., Kodešová R., Kozák J. & Drábek O. 2010. Field study of chlorotoluron transport and its prediction by the BPS mathematical model. Soil Water Res. 5: 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kodešová R., Kodeš V., Žigová A. & Šimůnek J. 2006. Impact of plant roots and soil organisms on soil micromorphology and hydraulic properties. Biologia 61(Suppl. 19): S339–S343.Google Scholar
  23. Kodešová R., Pavlů L., Kodeš V., Žigová A. & Nikodem A. 2007. Impact of spruce forest and grass vegetation cover on soil micromorphology and hydraulic properties of organic matter horizon. Biologia 62: 565–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kodešová R., Kočárek M., Kodeš V., Šimůnek J. & Kozák J. 2008. Impact of soil micromorphology features on water flow and herbicide transport in soils. Vadose Zone J. 7: 798–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kodešová R., Rohošková M. & Žigová A. 2009a. Comparison of aggregate stability within six soil profiles under conventional tillage using various laboratory tests. Biologia 64: 550–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kodešová R., Vignozzi N., Rohošková M., Hájková T., Kočárek M., Pagliai M., Kozák J. & Šimůnek J. 2009b. Impact of varying soil structure on transport processes in different diagnostic horizons of three soil types. J. Contam. Hydrol. 104: 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kodešová R., Němeček K., Kodeš V. & Žigová, A. 2012. Using dye tracer for visualization of preferential flow at macro- and microscales. Vadose Zone J. 11: doi:10.2136/vzj2011.0088.Google Scholar
  28. Lichner L., Eldridge D.J., Schacht K., Zhukova N., Holko L., Šír M. & Pecho J. 2011. Grass cover influences hydrological parameters and heterogeneity of water flow in a sandy soil. Pedosphere 21: 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lichner L., Holko L., Zhukova N., Schacht K., Rajkai K., Fodor N. & Sándor R. 2012. Plants and biological soil crust influence the hydrophysical parameters and water flow in aeolian sandy soil. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 60: 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lichner Ľ., Capuliak J., Zhukova N., Holko L., Czachor H. & Kollár J. 2013a. Pines influence hydrophysical parameters and water flow in a sandy soil. Biologia 68. 1104–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lichner L., Dušek J., Dekker L.W., Zhukova N., Faško P., Holko L. & Šír M. 2013b. Comparison of two methods to assess heterogeneity of water flow in soils. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 61: 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loades K.W., Bengough A.G., Bransby M.F. & Hallett P.D. 2013. Biomechanics of nodal, seminal and lateral roots of barley: effects of diameter, waterlogging and mechanical impedance. Plant Soil 370: 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mooney S.J. & Morris C. 2008. A morphological approach to understanding preferential flow using image analysis with dye tracer and x-ray Computer Tomography. Catena 73: 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moran C.J., Pierret A. & Stevenson A.W. 2000. X-ray absorption and phase contrast imaging to study the interplay between plant roots and soil structure. Plant Soil 223: 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moradi A.B., Conesa H.M., Robinson B., Lehmann E., Kuehne G., Kaestner A., Oswald S. & Schulin R. 2009. Neutron radiography as a tool for revealing root development in soil: capabilities and limitations. Plant Soil 318: 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moradi A.B., Hopmans J.W., Oswald S.E., Menon M., Carminati A. & Lehmann E. 2013. Applications of Neutron Imaging in Soil–Water–Root Systems, pp. 113–136. In: Anderson S.A. & Hopmans J.W. (eds). Soil–Water–Root Processes: Advances in Tomography and Imaging, American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Madison, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Morris C. & Mooney S.J. 2004. A high-resolution system for the quantification of preferential flow in undisturbed soil using observations of tracers. Geoderma 118: 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris C., Mooney S.J. & Young S.D. 2008. Sorption and desorption characteristics of the dye tracer, Brilliant Blue FCF, in sandy and clay soils. Geoderma 146: 434–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nikodem A., Pavlů L., Kodešová R., Borůvka L. & Drábek O. 2013. Study of podzolization process under different vegetation cover in the Jizerské hory Mts. region. Soil Water Res. 8: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nobles M.M., Wilding L.P. & McInnes K.J. 2004. Submicroscopic measurements of tracer distribution related to surface features of soil aggregates. Geoderma 123: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nobles M.M., Wilding L.P. & Lin H.S. 2010. Flow pathways of bromide and Brilliant Blue FCF tracer in caliche soils. J. Hydrol. 393: 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oswald S.E., Menon M., Carminati A., Vontobel P., Lehmann E. & Schulin R. 2008. Quantitative imaging of infiltration, root growth, and root water uptake via neutron radiography. Vadose Zone J. 7. 1035–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Persson M. 2005. Accurate tracer concentration estimations using image analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69: 967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rudolph N., Esser H.G., Carminati A., Moradi A.B., Hilger A., Kardjilov N., Nagl S. & Oswald S.E. 2012. Dynamic oxygen mapping in the root zone by fluorescence dye imaging combined with neutron radiography. J. Soil Sediment. 12: 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rudolph-Mohr N., Vontobel P. & Oswald S.E. 2014. A multiimaging approach to study the root–soil interface. Ann. Bot. 114. 1779–1787.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Sander T. & Gerke H.H. 2007. Preferential flow patterns in paddy fields using a dye tracer. Vadose Zone J. 6: 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sander T. & Gerke H.H. 2009. Modelling field-data of preferential flow in paddy soil induced by earthworm burrows. J. Contam. Hydrol. 104: 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stingaciu L., Schulz H., Pohlmeier A., Behnke S., Zilken H., Javaux M. & Vereecken H. 2013. In situ root system architecture extraction from magnetic resonance imaging for water uptake modeling. Vadose Zone J. 12(1). doi: 10.2136/vzj2012.0019.Google Scholar
  49. Stoops G. 2003. Guidelines for Analysis and Desription of Soils and Regolith Thin Sections (with CD-ROM). Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 184 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Young I.M. 1998. Biophysical interactions at the root-soil interface: a review. J. Agr. Sci. 130: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Slovak Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radka Kodešová
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karel Němeček
    • 1
  • Anna Žigová
    • 2
  • Antonín Nikodem
    • 1
  • Miroslav Fér
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Agrobiology Food and Natural Resources, Dept. of Soil Science and Soil ProtectionCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Geology of the CAS, v.v.iPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations