Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:32:16.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monitoring Russian Thistle (Salsola iberica) Root Growth Using a Scanner-Based, Portable Mesorhizotron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William L. Pan ,
Frank L. Young  and
Ronald P. Bolton
William L. Pan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Frank L. Young*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Ronald P. Bolton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A mesorhizotron and scanning system was modified to study the development of Russian thistle root systems during the 1996 and 1997 growing seasons at Lind, WA. Our imaging equipment combined the full profile images afforded by conventional rhizotrons with the portability of cylinder-based minirhizotron systems at a fraction of the cost of either system. Root development of Russian thistle in early spring was rapid and extensive compared with shoot growth. In 1996, 30 d after planting (DAP) Russian thistle roots were at least five times as long as the corresponding plant's shoots. During the next 20 d, shoots grew a maximum of 20 cm, whereas roots grew a maximum of 120-cm deep. Maximum root elongation rate reached 2 to 3 mm/cm2/d at the 70- to 120-cm depths 30 to 50 DAP in 1996 and 55 to 70 DAP in 1997. More than one (multiaxial grouping) Russian thistle root was often observed growing through the same soil channels. After the rapid early season growth, roots began to shrink or die back until shoots were clipped to simulate wheat harvest. Within 7 d after harvest, roots regenerated in old root channels. Our mesorhizotron system is a promising inexpensive tool for monitoring root morphological development of Russian thistle under field conditions.

Keywords

Russian thistle, Salsola iberica Sennen and Pau # SASKRwheat, Triticum aestivum L.Root development in situDAP, days after plantingRER, root elongation rates
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 762 - 766
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Bohm, W. 1974. Methods of Studying Root Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.Google Scholar
Box, J. E. Jr., Smucker, A.J.M., and Ritchie, J. T. 1989. Minirhizotron installation techniques for investigating root responses to drought and oxygen stresses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53: 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cave, H. W., Riddell, W. H., and Hughes, J. S. 1936. The digestibility and feeding value of Russian thistle hay. J. Dairy Sci. 19: 285–290.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Coleman, D. C., and Box, J. E. Jr. 1991. Measuring root turnover using the minirhizotron technique. Agric., Ecosyst., Environ. 34: 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doty, J., Kennedy, A. C., and Pan, W. L. 1995. A rapid bioassay for inhibitory rhizobacteria using digital image analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55: 1,699–1,701.Google Scholar
Evans, R. A. and Young, J. A. 1982. Russian thistle and barbwire Russian thistle seed and seedbed ecology. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Agric. Res. Serv. Results ARR-25. 40 p.Google Scholar
Glinski, D. S., Karnok, K. J., and Carrow, R. N. 1993. Comparison of reporting methods for root growth data from transparent-interface measurements. Crop Sci. 33: 310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heeraman, D. A. and Juma, N. G. 1993. A comparison of minirhizotron, core and monolith methods for quantifying barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and fababean (Vicia faba L.) root distribution. Plant Soil 148: 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodhi, M.A.K. 1979. Allelopathic potential of Salsola kali L. and its possible role in rapid disappearance of weedy stage during revegetation. J. Chem. Ecol. 5: 429–437.Google Scholar
Majdi, H., Smucker, A.J.M., and Persson, H. 1992. A comparison between minirhizotron and monolith sampling methods for measuring root growth of maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Soil 147: 127–134.Google Scholar
McMichael, B. L. and Taylor, H. M. 1987. Applications and limitations of rhizotrons and minirhizotrons. In Taylor, , ed. Minirhizotron Observation Tubes: Methods and Applications for Measuring Rhizosphere Dynamics. Am. Soc. Agron. Special Publ. 50. Madison, WI: Am. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. Am., and Soil Sci. Soc. Am. pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Pan, W. L. and Bolton, R. P. 1991. Root quantification by edge discrimination using a desktop scanner. Agron. J. 83: 1,047–1,052.Google Scholar
Pan, W. L. and Hiller, L. K. 1992. Growth and development of potato root types: implication for placement and timing strategies in fertility management. Proc. Wash. State Potato Conf. 31: 105–111.Google Scholar
Pan, W. L., Bolton, R. P., Lundquist, E. J., and Hiller, L. H. 1998. Portable rhizotron and color scanner system for monitoring root development. Plant Soil 200: 107–112.Google Scholar
Parker, C.J., Carr, M.K.V., Jarvis, N. J., Puplampu, B. O., and Lee, V. H. 1991. An evaluation of the minirhizotron technique for estimating root distribution in potatoes. J. Agric. Sci. 116: 341–350.Google Scholar
Pavlychenko, T. 1937. Quantitative study of the entire root system of weed and crop plants under field conditions. Ecology 18: 62–79.Google Scholar
Pavlychenko, T. and Harrington, J. 1934. Competitive efficiency of weeds and cereal crops. Can. J. Res. 10: 77–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlychenko, T. and Harrington, J. 1935. Root development of weeds and crops in competition under dry farming. Scientific Agric. 16: 151–160.Google Scholar
Samson, B. K. and Sinclair, T. R. 1994. Soil core and minirhizotron comparison for the determination of root length density. Plant Soil 161: 225–232.Google Scholar
Schillinger, W. F. and Young, F. L. 2000. Soil water use and growth of Russian thistle after wheat harvest. Agron. J. 92: 167–172.Google Scholar
Schillinger, W. F., Papendick, R. I., Veseth, R. J., and Young, F. L. 1999. Russian thistle skeletons provide residue in wheat-fallow cropping systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54: 506–509.Google Scholar
Smit, A. L., Groenwold, J., and Vos, J. 1994. The Wageningen Rhizolab—a facility to study soil-root-shoot atmosphere interactions in crops. II. Methods of root observations. Plant Soil 161: 289–298.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. M., Huck, M. G., Klepper, B., and Lund, Z. F. 1970. Measurement of soil-grown roots in a rhizotron. Agron. J. 62: 807–809.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. F. 1983. Weed surveys of Saskatchewan cereal and oilseed crops from 1976-1979. Weed Survey Series Pub. 83-6. Agric. Can., Regina, SK. 260 p.Google Scholar
Upchurch, D. R. and Ritchie, J. T. 1983. Battery-operated color video camera for root observations in mini-rhizotrons. Agron. J. 76: 1,015–1,017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L. 1986. Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) growth and development in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 34: 990–905.Google Scholar
Young, F. L. 1988. Effect of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) interference on spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 36: 594–598.Google Scholar
Young, F. L. and Gealy, D. R. 1986. Control of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) with chlorsulfuron in wheat (Triticum aestivum) summer fallow rotation. Weed Sci. 34: 318–324.Google Scholar