CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil and Unsaturated FlowSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics

Root distribution and soil moisture retrieval in perennial and annual energy crops in Northern Italy

Monti, Andrea, Zatta, Alessandro·2009·Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
DOI 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study focused on root size and distribution of energy crops which may be a reliable indicator of the capability of these crops to accumulate significant C stocks in the soil. Alike, understanding root size and distribution may provide new insights into the knowledge of mechanisms involved in soil water uptake. The present research was performed in North Italy, Po Valley (32ma.s.l., 44°33'N, 11°21'E). The assessment of root distribution and biomass of Panicum virgatum (switchgrass=S), Miscanthus x giganteus (miscanthus=M), Arundo donax (giant reed=G) and Sorghum bicolor (fibre sorghum=FS), in a soil profile of 1.2m depth, aimed at providing new insights into carbon storage and water capture capacity. Despite a similar above ground biomass production, perennial crops exhibited different total root biomass, root shape and water uptake. G accumulated considerably higher total root biomass (13.6Mgha⁻¹, d.w. basis), while FS, being annual, produced clearly the lowest root biomass (2.1Mgha⁻¹). Root biomass distribution was described using the β model, through the relationships between root length density (RLD) and soil depth. In summary, M had a very superficial root shape (β =0.931) with almost 90% of total root biomass concentrated in the top 0.35m soil, while G and S exhibited a relative even root distribution (β =0.979 and 0.984, respectively). RLD and root weight showed diverse patterns among crops and along the soil profile due to different root diameters and root bulk densities of the crops. Root water capture capacity ([Greek Phi symbol]) was determined according to the King model through the relationship between soil moisture and RLD in vertically succeeding soil layers. Differences in [Greek Phi symbol] among crops were expressed through the constant k, which resumes many physiological and environmental details driving water uptake. Briefly, high k means a faster water uptake for a given RLD. M showed the highest k (2.50) followed by FS (1.02), G (0.54) and S (0.31). Importantly, k and β were closely and negatively related which would mean that top-rooted crops, though being more subjected to drought risks, have significant higher abilities in recovering soil water. This is an assertion which is consistent with the previous studies that showed M being highly productive under wet environment, but very sensitive to water shortage. This study shows that energy crops can greatly differ in terms of water capture and root distribution, a fact that should be taken into great account in optimizing the land use change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.007

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The contrasting results for giant reed could be a consequence of the lack of N fertilization in this study and the higher belowground biomass production reported by other authors.

    “These contrasting results could be a consequence of the lack of nitrogen (N) fertilization in this study and the higher belowground biomass production reported by other authors (Monti & Zatta, 2009).”

    From Carbon sequestration potential in perennial bioenergy crops: the importance of organic matter inputs and its physical protection (2016) · cites this paper as Monti & Zatta, 2009

  • PECs can allocate high amounts of atmospheric C in belowground biomass (BGB) thanks to deep and dense fine rooting systems.

    “PECs can allocate high amounts of atmospheric C in the belowground biomass (BGB; Chimento & Amaducci, 2015; Monti et al., 2012; Monti & Zatta, 2009) thanks to the deep and dense fine rooting systems (Chimento & Amaducci, 2015).”

    From Belowground biomass C outweighs soil organic C of perennial energy crops: Insights from a long‐term multispecies trial (2021) · cites this paper as Monti & Zatta, 2009

  • Both herbaceous crops/grasses and short-rotation woody crops can potentially deliver up to 40-50% of the carbon they capture from the atmosphere to the soil as litter and belowground biomass, with inputs varying from less than 1 to more than 4 Mg C ha−1 year−1.

    “Both HCG and SRWC can potentially deliver up to 40–50 % of the C they capture from the atmosphere to the soil as litter and BGB, which can vary from <1 to >4 Mg C ha−1 year−1 [59–61].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [61]

  • Belowground biomass is concentrated in the upper part of the profile; despite large amounts of roots under M. giganteus observed down to 1 to 1.8 m, more than 50% were in the top 30 cm.

    “BGB is concentrated in the upper part of the profile [61]; in spite of large amounts of roots under M. giganteus observed down to 1 to 1.8 m [57, 61, 66, 80, 84], more than 50 % were in the top 30 cm.”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [61]

  • Data for carbon inputs from belowground biomass are difficult to interpret, especially for roots, because they are based on many single observations rather than time series.

    “Data for C inputs from BGB are difficult to interpret, especially for roots because they are based on many single observations [45, 61, 62, 64, 80] rather than time series [26, 32, 81–83].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [61]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Monti, A., & Zatta, A.
Affiliations
University of Bologna (IT)
Corresponding author
Monti, Andrea
ORCID
Venue
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-08
Volume
132
Issue
3-4
Pages
252-259
ISSN
0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.007
OpenAlex
W2044963229
Cited by
213
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 8
FWCI
14.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Regione Emilia-Romagna
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Keywords
root distribution, root biomass, soil moisture retrieval, energy crops, perennial crops, annual crops, switchgrass, Miscanthus × giganteus, Arundo donax, root length density, King model, soil carbon storage, Po Valley, drought risk, root depth distribution, beta model, root diameter, soil water uptake

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review