Abstract
During rapid urbanization, it is necessary to increase soil permeability and soil porosity for reducing urban runoff and waterlogging risk. Woody plants are known to increase soil porosity and preferential flow in soil via living roots growth and dead roots decay. However, the primary results of dead woody plant roots on soil porosity and permeability have been discussed based only on the hypotheses or assumptions of different researchers. In this study, living and dead roots (decayed under natural conditions for more than 5 years) of Gansu poplar trees (Populus gansuensis) were selected. They were selected to compare the influence between living and dead roots on water infiltration rate and soil porosity in a cylindrical container (diameter = 20 cm, height = 66 cm) under laboratory conditions. Results indicated that the steady-state water fluxes at the bottom of the containers without roots (control), with living roots, and with dead roots were 54.75 ± 0.80, 61.31 ± 0.61, and 55.97 ± 0.59 cm d−1, respectively. Both living roots and dead roots increased the water infiltration rates in soil and also increased the water storage capacity of soil. The water storage capacities of soil without roots, with living roots, and with dead roots were 0.279, 0.317, and 0.322 cm3 cm−3, respectively. The results from SEM indicated that smaller pores (30–50 μm) were in living roots and larger pores (100–1000 μm) were in dead roots. The soil permeability was increased by living roots possibly due to the larger channels generated on the surface of the roots; however, water absorbed into the dead roots resulted in greater water storage capacity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
with living roots root treatment yielded 61.31 ± 0.61 steady-state water flux.
- Treatment
- with living rootse0
- Outcome
- steady-state water fluxese0
- Value
- 61.31 ± 0.61e0
- Comparator
- without roots (control)e0
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“the steady-state water fluxes at the bottom of the containers without roots (control), with living roots, and with dead roots were 54.75 ± 0.80, 61.31 ± 0.61, and 55.97 ± 0.59 cm d−1, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
with dead roots root treatment yielded 55.97 ± 0.59 cm d−1 steady-state water flux.
- Treatment
- with dead rootse0
- Outcome
- steady-state water fluxese0
- Value
- 55.97 ± 0.59 cm d−1e0
- Comparator
- without roots (control)e0
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“the steady-state water fluxes at the bottom of the containers without roots (control), with living roots, and with dead roots were 54.75 ± 0.80, 61.31 ± 0.61, and 55.97 ± 0.59 cm d−1, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Living roots increased soil water infiltration.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Both living roots and dead roots increased the water infiltration rates in soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Dead roots increased soil water infiltration.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Both living roots and dead roots increased the water infiltration rates in soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Living roots increased soil water storage capacity.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Both living roots and dead roots increased the water infiltration rates in soil and also increased the water storage capacity of soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Dead roots increased soil water storage capacity.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“also increased the water storage capacity of soil”
t0“Living and Dead Roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water storage capacity was 0.279 without roots.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The water storage capacities of soil without roots, with living roots, and with dead roots were 0.279, 0.317, and 0.322 cm3 cm−3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water storage capacity was 0.317 with living roots.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The water storage capacities of soil without roots, with living roots, and with dead roots were 0.279, 0.317, and 0.322 cm3 cm−3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water storage capacity was 0.322 with dead roots.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The water storage capacities of soil without roots, with living roots, and with dead roots were 0.279, 0.317, and 0.322 cm3 cm−3, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Living roots contained smaller pores of 30–50 μm.
Verbatim
e0“smaller pores (30–50 μm) were in living roots”
t0“Gansu Poplar”
Claim · model-written summary
Dead roots contained larger pores of 100–1000 μm.
Verbatim
e0“larger pores (100–1000 μm) were in dead roots”
t0“Gansu Poplar”
Claim · model-written summary
Channels on living root surfaces may explain increased soil permeability.
- Organ / stage
- living rootse0
- Outcome
- soil permeabilitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- possibly due to the larger channels generated on the surface of the rootse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“soil permeability was increased by living roots possibly due to the larger channels generated on the surface of the roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Water absorption into dead roots increased soil water storage capacity.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“water absorbed into the dead roots resulted in greater water storage capacity”