Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Methods to estimate changes in soil water for p...

Research

Associated organisational units

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Methods to estimate changes in soil water for phenotyping root activity in the field

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Methods to estimate changes in soil water for phenotyping root activity in the field. / Whalley, William R.; Binley, Andrew Mark; Watts, C. W. et al.
In: Plant and Soil, Vol. 415, No. 1-2, 06.2017, p. 407-422.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Whalley, WR, Binley, AM, Watts, CW, Shanahan, P, Dodd, IC, Ober, ES, Ashton, RW, Webster, CP, White, RP & Hawkesford, MJ 2017, 'Methods to estimate changes in soil water for phenotyping root activity in the field', Plant and Soil, vol. 415, no. 1-2, pp. 407-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3161-1

APA

Whalley, W. R., Binley, A. M., Watts, C. W., Shanahan, P., Dodd, I. C., Ober, E. S., Ashton, R. W., Webster, C. P., White, R. P., & Hawkesford, M. J. (2017). Methods to estimate changes in soil water for phenotyping root activity in the field. Plant and Soil, 415(1-2), 407-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3161-1

Vancouver

Whalley WR, Binley AM, Watts CW, Shanahan P, Dodd IC, Ober ES et al. Methods to estimate changes in soil water for phenotyping root activity in the field. Plant and Soil. 2017 Jun;415(1-2):407-422. Epub 2017 Jan 12. doi: 10.1007/s11104-016-3161-1

Author

Whalley, William R. ; Binley, Andrew Mark ; Watts, C. W. et al. / Methods to estimate changes in soil water for phenotyping root activity in the field. In: Plant and Soil. 2017 ; Vol. 415, No. 1-2. pp. 407-422.

Bibtex

@article{3c7d35a66b104c47890b81f4e07cc3d4,
title = "Methods to estimate changes in soil water for phenotyping root activity in the field",
abstract = "Background and AimsThere is an urgent need to develop new high throughput approaches to phenotype roots in the field. Excavating roots to make direct measurements is labour intensive. An alternative to excavation is to measure soil drying profiles and to infer root activity.MethodsWe grew 23 lines of wheat in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In each year we estimated soil water profiles with electrical resistance tomography (ERT), electromagnetic inductance (EMI), penetrometer measurements and measurements of soil water content. We determined the relationships between the measured variable and soil water content and matric potential.ResultsWe found that ERT and penetrometer measurements were closely related to soil matric potential and produced the best discrimination between wheat lines. We found genotypic differences in depth of water uptake in soil water profiles and in the extent of surface drying.ConclusionsPenetrometer measurements can provide a reliable approach to comparing soil drying profiles by different wheat lines, and genotypic rankings are repeatable across years. EMI, which is more sensitive to soil water content than matric potential, and is less effective in drier soils than the penetrometer or ERT, nevertheless can be used to rapidly screen large populations for differences in root activity.",
keywords = "Phenotyping, Roots, Soil water profiles, ERT, EMI, Penetrometer",
author = "Whalley, {William R.} and Binley, {Andrew Mark} and Watts, {C. W.} and Peter Shanahan and Dodd, {Ian Charles} and Ober, {E. S.} and Ashton, {R. W.} and Webster, {C. P.} and White, {R. P.} and Hawkesford, {Malcolm J.}",
year = "2017",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1007/s11104-016-3161-1",
language = "English",
volume = "415",
pages = "407--422",
journal = "Plant and Soil",
issn = "0032-079X",
publisher = "Springer International Publishing AG",
number = "1-2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methods to estimate changes in soil water for phenotyping root activity in the field

AU - Whalley, William R.

AU - Binley, Andrew Mark

AU - Watts, C. W.

AU - Shanahan, Peter

AU - Dodd, Ian Charles

AU - Ober, E. S.

AU - Ashton, R. W.

AU - Webster, C. P.

AU - White, R. P.

AU - Hawkesford, Malcolm J.

PY - 2017/6

Y1 - 2017/6

N2 - Background and AimsThere is an urgent need to develop new high throughput approaches to phenotype roots in the field. Excavating roots to make direct measurements is labour intensive. An alternative to excavation is to measure soil drying profiles and to infer root activity.MethodsWe grew 23 lines of wheat in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In each year we estimated soil water profiles with electrical resistance tomography (ERT), electromagnetic inductance (EMI), penetrometer measurements and measurements of soil water content. We determined the relationships between the measured variable and soil water content and matric potential.ResultsWe found that ERT and penetrometer measurements were closely related to soil matric potential and produced the best discrimination between wheat lines. We found genotypic differences in depth of water uptake in soil water profiles and in the extent of surface drying.ConclusionsPenetrometer measurements can provide a reliable approach to comparing soil drying profiles by different wheat lines, and genotypic rankings are repeatable across years. EMI, which is more sensitive to soil water content than matric potential, and is less effective in drier soils than the penetrometer or ERT, nevertheless can be used to rapidly screen large populations for differences in root activity.

AB - Background and AimsThere is an urgent need to develop new high throughput approaches to phenotype roots in the field. Excavating roots to make direct measurements is labour intensive. An alternative to excavation is to measure soil drying profiles and to infer root activity.MethodsWe grew 23 lines of wheat in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In each year we estimated soil water profiles with electrical resistance tomography (ERT), electromagnetic inductance (EMI), penetrometer measurements and measurements of soil water content. We determined the relationships between the measured variable and soil water content and matric potential.ResultsWe found that ERT and penetrometer measurements were closely related to soil matric potential and produced the best discrimination between wheat lines. We found genotypic differences in depth of water uptake in soil water profiles and in the extent of surface drying.ConclusionsPenetrometer measurements can provide a reliable approach to comparing soil drying profiles by different wheat lines, and genotypic rankings are repeatable across years. EMI, which is more sensitive to soil water content than matric potential, and is less effective in drier soils than the penetrometer or ERT, nevertheless can be used to rapidly screen large populations for differences in root activity.

KW - Phenotyping

KW - Roots

KW - Soil water profiles

KW - ERT

KW - EMI

KW - Penetrometer

U2 - 10.1007/s11104-016-3161-1

DO - 10.1007/s11104-016-3161-1

M3 - Journal article

VL - 415

SP - 407

EP - 422

JO - Plant and Soil

JF - Plant and Soil

SN - 0032-079X

IS - 1-2

ER -