Paper · 2008 · Irriga

ROOT VOLUME AND DRY MATTER OF PEANUT PLANTS AS A FUNCTION OF SOIL BULK DENSITY AND SOIL WATER STRESS.

Charles Duruoha; Cassio Roberto Piffer; Paulo Roberto Arbex Silva

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

ROOT VOLUME AND DRY MATTER OF PEANUT PLANTS AS A FUNCTION OF SOIL BULK DENSITY AND SOIL WATER STRESS. Charles Duruoha1; Cassio Roberto Piffer2; Paulo Roberto Arbex Silva21United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-ARS), National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL - U.S.A., duruohan@juno.com2Departamento de Engenharia Rural, Faculdade de Ciências Agronômicas, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, São Paulo 1 ABSTRACT Soil compaction may be defined as the pressing of soil to make it denser. Soil compaction makes the soil denser, decreases permeability of gas and water exchange as well as alterations in thermal relations, and increases mechanical strength of the soil. Compacted soil can restrict normal root development. Simulations of the root restricting layers in a greenhouse are necessary to develop a mechanism to alleviate soil compaction problems in these soils. The selection of three distinct bulk densities based on the standard proctor test is also an important factor to determine which bulk density restricts the root layer. This experiment aimed to assess peanut (Arachis hypogea) root volume and root dry matter as a function of bulk density and water stress. Three levels of soil density (1.2, 1.4, and 1.6g cm-3), and two levels of the soil water content (70 and 90% of field capacity) were used. Treatments were arranged as completely randomized design, with four replications in a 3x2 factorial scheme. The result showed that peanut yield generally responded favorably to subsurface compaction in the presence of high mechanical impedance. This clearly indicates the ability of this root to penetrate the hardpan with less stress. Root volume was not affected by increase in soil bulk density and this mechanical impedance increased root volume when roots penetrated the barrier with less energy. Root growth below the compacted layer (hardpan), was impaired by the imposed barrier. This stress made it impossible for roots to grow well even in the presence of optimum soil water content. Generally soil water content of 70% field capacity (P<0.0001) enhanced greater root proliferation. Nonetheless, soil water content of 90% field capacity in some occasions proved better for root growth. Some of the discrepancies observed were that mechanical impedance is not a good indicator for measuring root growth restriction in greenhouse. Future research can be done using more levels of water to determine the lowest soil water level, which can inhibit plant growth. KEY WORDS: Soil compaction; water stress; soil bunk; root volume; root growth DURUOHA, C.; PIFFER, C. R.; SILVA, P. R. A. MATÉRIA SECA E VOLUME DE RAÍZES DE PLANTAS DE AMENDOIMEM FUNÇÃO DADENSIDADEE DO DÉFICIT DE ÁGUA DO SOLO. 2 RESUMO O conceito de compactação do solo não inclui apenas a redução do solo, mas também no resultante decréscimo em permeabilidade para trocas gasosas e água, assim como alterações em relação térmica e aumento na resistência mecânica do solo. Um solo compactado pode restringir o desenvolvimento radicular normal da planta. Simulações de camadas de restrição de raízes em casa de vegetação são necessárias para desenvolver mecanismos que reduzam problemas de compactação dos solos. A seleção de três diferentes densidades de solo, baseadas no ensaio de Proctor, é também um fator importante para determinar qual densidade restringe a penetração da raiz. O presente trabalho foi realizado para avaliar o volume e matéria seca radicular em função da densidade do solo e da disponibilidade hídrica em amendoim (Arachis hypogea). Foram utilizados três níveis de densidade do solo (1,2; 1,4 e1,6 gcm-3) e dois níveis de teor de água no solo (70 e 90% da capacidade de campo). Os tratamentos foram inteiramente casualizados com quatro repetições em arranjo fatorial (3 x 2). Os resultados sugerem que a produção de amendoim geralmente responde favoravelmente à compactação subsuperficial, na presença de impedância mecânica elevada. Este resultado claramente indica a habilidade da raiz em penetrar na camada de impedimento com menor densidade. O volume radicular não foi afetado pelo aumento da densidade do solo e esta impedância mecânica aumentou o volume radicular quando as raízes penetraram em barreiras com menor compactação. O crescimento radicular abaixo da camada compactada foi afetado pela barreira imposta. Esta compactação impossibilitou que as raízes crescessem mesmo na presença de teor de água ótimo. O teor de água de 70 % da capacidade de campo (P<0,0001) proporcionou maior proliferação radicular. Foi observado que a impedância mecânica não é um bom indicador para a avaliação da restrição de crescimento radicular no trabalho em casa de vegetação. UNITERMOS: compactação do solo, capacidade de campo e crescimento radicular.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peanut yield responded favorably to subsurface compaction with high mechanical impedance.

Treatment
subsurface compactione0
Outcome
peanut yielde0
Direction
favorablye0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“peanut yield generally responded favorably to subsurface compaction in the presence of high mechanical impedance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1461–1573 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root volume was unaffected by increasing soil bulk density.

Treatment
increase in soil bulk densitye0
Outcome
Root volumee0
Direction
not affectede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Root volume was not affected by increase in soil bulk density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1666–1727 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEANUT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mechanical impedance increased root volume where roots penetrated the barrier with less energy.

Treatment
mechanical impedancee0
Outcome
root volumee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“this mechanical impedance increased root volume when roots penetrated the barrier with less energy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1732–1830 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEANUT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The imposed barrier impaired root growth below the compacted layer.

Treatment
imposed barriere0
Outcome
Root growth below the compacted layere0
Direction
impairede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Root growth below the compacted layer (hardpan), was impaired by the imposed barrier”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1832–1916 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEANUT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The barrier prevented good root growth even at optimum soil water content.

Treatment
This stresse0
Outcome
roots to grow welle0
Direction
impossiblee0
Qualifier
optimum soil water contente0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This stress made it impossible for roots to grow well even in the presence of optimum soil water content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1918–2022 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEANUT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil water at 70% field capacity increased root proliferation.

Treatment
soil water content of 70% field capacitye0
Outcome
root proliferatione0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil water content of 70% field capacity (P<0.0001) enhanced greater root proliferation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2034–2121 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEANUT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At times 90% field capacity was better for root growth.

Treatment
soil water content of 90% field capacitye0
Outcome
root growthe0
Direction
bettere0
Qualifier
in some occasionse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil water content of 90% field capacity in some occasions proved better for root growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2136–2224 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEANUT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mechanical impedance was judged unsuitable for measuring greenhouse root-growth restriction.

Outcome
not a good indicator for measuring root growth restrictione0
Setting
greenhousee0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“mechanical impedance is not a good indicator for measuring root growth restriction in greenhouse”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2271–2367 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEANUT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ

90 papers: 66 positive, 24 negative or no effect

65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

86 papers more in this group

See all 90 papers →

trap barrier · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

soil water · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 6 positive, 4 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.