Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level

The relationship of global climate change to plant growth and the role of forests as sites of carbon sequestration have encouraged the refinement of the estimates of root biomass and production. However, tremendous controversy exists in the literature as to which is the best method to determine fine...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Plant and soil 1998-03, Vol.200 (1), p.71-89
Hauptverfasser: Vogt, Kristiina A., Vogt, Daniel J., Bloomfield, Janine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 89
container_issue 1
container_start_page 71
container_title Plant and soil
container_volume 200
creator Vogt, Kristiina A.
Vogt, Daniel J.
Bloomfield, Janine
description The relationship of global climate change to plant growth and the role of forests as sites of carbon sequestration have encouraged the refinement of the estimates of root biomass and production. However, tremendous controversy exists in the literature as to which is the best method to determine fine root biomass and production. This lack of consensus makes it difficult for researchers to determine which methods are most appropriate for their system. The sequential root coring method was the most commonly used method to collect root biomass data in the past and is still commonly used. But within the last decade the use of minirhizotrons has become a favorite method of many researchers. In addition, due to the high labor-intensive requirements of many of the direct approaches to determine root biomass, there has been a shift to develop indirect methods that would allow fine root biomass and production to be predicted using data on easily monitored variables that are highly correlated to root dynamics. Discussions occur as to which method should be used but without gathering data from the same site using different methods, these discussions can be futile. This paper discusses and compares the results of the most commonly used direct and indirect methods of determining root biomass and production: sequential root coring, ingrowth cores, minirhizotrons, carbon fluxes approach, nitrogen budget approach and correlations with abiotic resources. No consistent relationships were apparent when comparing several sites where at least one of the indirect and direct methods were used on the same site. Until the different root methods can be compared to some independently derived root biomass value obtained from total carbon budgets for systems, one root method cannot be stated to be the best and the method of choice will be determined from researcher's personal preference, experiences, equipment, and/or finances.
doi_str_mv 10.1023/a:1004313515294
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16482758</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>42948273</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>42948273</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-e37d214db504b2a529ca11b5a79308a20dbf51bd67cb6b52594250451fae108d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU1LBDEMhosouK6ePQlFxNto04-ZWW8ifoHgRcHb0Gk72mVmujZdcf-9XXfx4CmEPHnzJiHkGNgFMC4u9RUwJgUIBYrP5A6ZgKpEoZgod8mEMcELVs3e9skB4pytcygn5Pt61P0KPdLQUQyDo9ZHZxLVo6V-3CaDSx_BIu1CpA6TH3Ty4zuNISTa-jBoxN-GRQx2aZIP41ou0xnOlbUadSbgCpMbaO--XH9I9jrdozvaxil5vbt9uXkonp7vH2-unwojKpkKJyrLQdpWMdlynTczGqBVupoJVmvObNspaG1ZmbZsFVczyTOqoNMOWG3FlJxvdLO3z2X20wwejet7PbqwxAZKWfNK1Rk8_QfOwzLm62BTKQClOGcZOttCGo3uu6hH47FZxHySuGq4ELUsIWMnG2yOKcS_ssx_ycOE-AFL3oMp</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>751155220</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Vogt, Kristiina A. ; Vogt, Daniel J. ; Bloomfield, Janine</creator><contributor>Box, JE Jr</contributor><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Kristiina A. ; Vogt, Daniel J. ; Bloomfield, Janine ; Box, JE Jr</creatorcontrib><description>The relationship of global climate change to plant growth and the role of forests as sites of carbon sequestration have encouraged the refinement of the estimates of root biomass and production. However, tremendous controversy exists in the literature as to which is the best method to determine fine root biomass and production. This lack of consensus makes it difficult for researchers to determine which methods are most appropriate for their system. The sequential root coring method was the most commonly used method to collect root biomass data in the past and is still commonly used. But within the last decade the use of minirhizotrons has become a favorite method of many researchers. In addition, due to the high labor-intensive requirements of many of the direct approaches to determine root biomass, there has been a shift to develop indirect methods that would allow fine root biomass and production to be predicted using data on easily monitored variables that are highly correlated to root dynamics. Discussions occur as to which method should be used but without gathering data from the same site using different methods, these discussions can be futile. This paper discusses and compares the results of the most commonly used direct and indirect methods of determining root biomass and production: sequential root coring, ingrowth cores, minirhizotrons, carbon fluxes approach, nitrogen budget approach and correlations with abiotic resources. No consistent relationships were apparent when comparing several sites where at least one of the indirect and direct methods were used on the same site. Until the different root methods can be compared to some independently derived root biomass value obtained from total carbon budgets for systems, one root method cannot be stated to be the best and the method of choice will be determined from researcher's personal preference, experiences, equipment, and/or finances.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-079X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-5036</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1023/a:1004313515294</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PLSOA2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomass ; Biomass production ; Carbon ; Carbon sequestration ; Climate change ; Ecosystems ; Forest ecosystems ; Forest soils ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General agronomy. Plant production ; Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development ; Global climate ; Methods ; Plant growth ; Plant roots ; Plants ; Production estimates ; Root biomass ; Root growth ; Soil ecology ; Soils</subject><ispartof>Plant and soil, 1998-03, Vol.200 (1), p.71-89</ispartof><rights>1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers</rights><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-e37d214db504b2a529ca11b5a79308a20dbf51bd67cb6b52594250451fae108d3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42948273$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/42948273$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,799,23909,23910,25118,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2338461$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Box, JE Jr</contributor><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Kristiina A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bloomfield, Janine</creatorcontrib><title>Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level</title><title>Plant and soil</title><description>The relationship of global climate change to plant growth and the role of forests as sites of carbon sequestration have encouraged the refinement of the estimates of root biomass and production. However, tremendous controversy exists in the literature as to which is the best method to determine fine root biomass and production. This lack of consensus makes it difficult for researchers to determine which methods are most appropriate for their system. The sequential root coring method was the most commonly used method to collect root biomass data in the past and is still commonly used. But within the last decade the use of minirhizotrons has become a favorite method of many researchers. In addition, due to the high labor-intensive requirements of many of the direct approaches to determine root biomass, there has been a shift to develop indirect methods that would allow fine root biomass and production to be predicted using data on easily monitored variables that are highly correlated to root dynamics. Discussions occur as to which method should be used but without gathering data from the same site using different methods, these discussions can be futile. This paper discusses and compares the results of the most commonly used direct and indirect methods of determining root biomass and production: sequential root coring, ingrowth cores, minirhizotrons, carbon fluxes approach, nitrogen budget approach and correlations with abiotic resources. No consistent relationships were apparent when comparing several sites where at least one of the indirect and direct methods were used on the same site. Until the different root methods can be compared to some independently derived root biomass value obtained from total carbon budgets for systems, one root method cannot be stated to be the best and the method of choice will be determined from researcher's personal preference, experiences, equipment, and/or finances.</description><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Biomass production</subject><subject>Carbon</subject><subject>Carbon sequestration</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Forest ecosystems</subject><subject>Forest soils</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General agronomy. Plant production</subject><subject>Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development</subject><subject>Global climate</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Plant growth</subject><subject>Plant roots</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Production estimates</subject><subject>Root biomass</subject><subject>Root growth</subject><subject>Soil ecology</subject><subject>Soils</subject><issn>0032-079X</issn><issn>1573-5036</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU1LBDEMhosouK6ePQlFxNto04-ZWW8ifoHgRcHb0Gk72mVmujZdcf-9XXfx4CmEPHnzJiHkGNgFMC4u9RUwJgUIBYrP5A6ZgKpEoZgod8mEMcELVs3e9skB4pytcygn5Pt61P0KPdLQUQyDo9ZHZxLVo6V-3CaDSx_BIu1CpA6TH3Ty4zuNISTa-jBoxN-GRQx2aZIP41ou0xnOlbUadSbgCpMbaO--XH9I9jrdozvaxil5vbt9uXkonp7vH2-unwojKpkKJyrLQdpWMdlynTczGqBVupoJVmvObNspaG1ZmbZsFVczyTOqoNMOWG3FlJxvdLO3z2X20wwejet7PbqwxAZKWfNK1Rk8_QfOwzLm62BTKQClOGcZOttCGo3uu6hH47FZxHySuGq4ELUsIWMnG2yOKcS_ssx_ycOE-AFL3oMp</recordid><startdate>19980301</startdate><enddate>19980301</enddate><creator>Vogt, Kristiina A.</creator><creator>Vogt, Daniel J.</creator><creator>Bloomfield, Janine</creator><general>Kluwer Academic Publishers</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TV</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980301</creationdate><title>Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level</title><author>Vogt, Kristiina A. ; Vogt, Daniel J. ; Bloomfield, Janine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-e37d214db504b2a529ca11b5a79308a20dbf51bd67cb6b52594250451fae108d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Biomass production</topic><topic>Carbon</topic><topic>Carbon sequestration</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Forest ecosystems</topic><topic>Forest soils</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General agronomy. Plant production</topic><topic>Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development</topic><topic>Global climate</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Plant growth</topic><topic>Plant roots</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Production estimates</topic><topic>Root biomass</topic><topic>Root growth</topic><topic>Soil ecology</topic><topic>Soils</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Kristiina A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bloomfield, Janine</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Plant and soil</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vogt, Kristiina A.</au><au>Vogt, Daniel J.</au><au>Bloomfield, Janine</au><au>Box, JE Jr</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level</atitle><jtitle>Plant and soil</jtitle><date>1998-03-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>200</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>71</spage><epage>89</epage><pages>71-89</pages><issn>0032-079X</issn><eissn>1573-5036</eissn><coden>PLSOA2</coden><abstract>The relationship of global climate change to plant growth and the role of forests as sites of carbon sequestration have encouraged the refinement of the estimates of root biomass and production. However, tremendous controversy exists in the literature as to which is the best method to determine fine root biomass and production. This lack of consensus makes it difficult for researchers to determine which methods are most appropriate for their system. The sequential root coring method was the most commonly used method to collect root biomass data in the past and is still commonly used. But within the last decade the use of minirhizotrons has become a favorite method of many researchers. In addition, due to the high labor-intensive requirements of many of the direct approaches to determine root biomass, there has been a shift to develop indirect methods that would allow fine root biomass and production to be predicted using data on easily monitored variables that are highly correlated to root dynamics. Discussions occur as to which method should be used but without gathering data from the same site using different methods, these discussions can be futile. This paper discusses and compares the results of the most commonly used direct and indirect methods of determining root biomass and production: sequential root coring, ingrowth cores, minirhizotrons, carbon fluxes approach, nitrogen budget approach and correlations with abiotic resources. No consistent relationships were apparent when comparing several sites where at least one of the indirect and direct methods were used on the same site. Until the different root methods can be compared to some independently derived root biomass value obtained from total carbon budgets for systems, one root method cannot be stated to be the best and the method of choice will be determined from researcher's personal preference, experiences, equipment, and/or finances.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Kluwer Academic Publishers</pub><doi>10.1023/a:1004313515294</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-079X
ispartof Plant and soil, 1998-03, Vol.200 (1), p.71-89
issn 0032-079X
1573-5036
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16482758
source Jstor Complete Legacy; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions
Biological and medical sciences
Biomass
Biomass production
Carbon
Carbon sequestration
Climate change
Ecosystems
Forest ecosystems
Forest soils
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General agronomy. Plant production
Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development
Global climate
Methods
Plant growth
Plant roots
Plants
Production estimates
Root biomass
Root growth
Soil ecology
Soils
title Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T00%3A20%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analysis%20of%20some%20direct%20and%20indirect%20methods%20for%20estimating%20root%20biomass%20and%20production%20of%20forests%20at%20an%20ecosystem%20level&rft.jtitle=Plant%20and%20soil&rft.au=Vogt,%20Kristiina%20A.&rft.date=1998-03-01&rft.volume=200&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=71&rft.epage=89&rft.pages=71-89&rft.issn=0032-079X&rft.eissn=1573-5036&rft.coden=PLSOA2&rft_id=info:doi/10.1023/a:1004313515294&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E42948273%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=751155220&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=42948273&rfr_iscdi=true