Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T16:39:28.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth of corn roots under low-input and conventional farming systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Eric Pallant ,
David M. Lansky ,
Jessica E. Rio ,
Lawrence D. Jacobs ,
George E. Schulera  and
Walter G. Whimpenny
Eric Pallant*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335;
David M. Lansky
Affiliation:
Research Assistants, Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335;
Jessica E. Rio
Affiliation:
Research Assistants, Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335;
Lawrence D. Jacobs
Affiliation:
Research Assistants, Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335;
George E. Schulera
Affiliation:
Research Assistants, Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335;
Walter G. Whimpenny
Affiliation:
Consulting Statistician, Searle A1-E, 4901 Searle Pkwy., Skokie, IL 60077.
*
Corresponding author is Eric Pallant (epallant@alleg.edu).
Get access

Abstract

Changes in soil physical and chemical properties following conversion from conventional to low-input farming systems could alter root growth in com and hence aboveground growth and yield. The main hypothesis we tested is that low-input and conventional farming systems produce different amounts of corn roots. We compared low-input and conventional farming systems, row position (row and interrow), and soil depth for effects on root length density in a Comly silt loam (Typic Fragiudalf) at the Rodale Institute Research Center in Kutztown, Pennsylvania. On all sampling dates studied (two each in 1989 and 1990) root length density under low-input farming systems was significantly greater than under conventional farming systems. We used analysis of covariance to correct for soil factors that could not be directly controlled. Soil water and bulk density had no clear effect on root length density. In contrast, there was significant covariance of soil organic matter with root length density on two of the four sample dates. Root networks were more dense in soil pockets rich in organic matter for every farming system, row position, and depth. These findings indicate that low-input farmers may be manipulating root production of corn to allow com to absorb more nutrients and water when water in the topsail is limited.

Keywords

low-input agriculturesoil physical properties
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 173 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ball, D.F. 1964. Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter/organic carbon in non-calcareous soils. J. Soil Sci. 15:84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Barber, S.A., Mackay, A.D., Kuchenbuch, R.O., and Barraclough, P.B.. 1988. Effects of soil temperature and water on maize root growth. Plant Soil 111:267–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.De Willigen, P., and Van Noordwijk, M.. 1987. Roots, Plant Production and Nutrient Use Efficiency. Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
4.JrDouds, D.D., Janke, R. R., and Peters, S.E.. 1993. VAM fungus spore populations and colonization of roots of maize and soybean under conventional and low-input sustainable agriculture. Agric., Ecosystems and Environment 43:325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Jackson, R.B., and Caldwell, M.M.. 1989. The timing and degree of root proliferation in fertile-soil microsites for three cold-desert perennials. Oecologia 81:149–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Jackson, R.B., Manwaring, J.H., and Caldwell, M.M.. 1990. Rapid physiological adjustment of roots to localized soil enrichment. Nature 344:58–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Kaspar, T.C., Brown, H.J., and Kassmeyer, E.M.. 1991. Corn root distribution as affected by tillage, wheel traffic, and fertilizer placement. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 55:1390–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Kovar, J.L., Barber, S.A., Kladivko, E.J., and Griffith, D.R.. 1992. Characterization of soil temperature, water content, and maize root distribution in two tillage systems. Soil Tillage Research 24:11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Kuchenbuch, R.O., and Barber, S.A.. 1987. Yearly variation of root distribution with depth in relation to nutrient uptake and corn yield. Communications in Soil Sci. and Plant Analysis 18:255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Kuchenbuch, R.O., and Barber, S.A.. 1988. Significance of temperature and precipitation for maize root distribution in the field. Plant Soil 106:9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Kurle, J.E., and Pfleger, E.L.. 1994. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus spore populations respond to conversions between low-input and conventional management practices in a corn-soybean rotation. Agronomy J. 86:467–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Liebhardt, W.C., Andrews, R.W., Culik, M.N., Harwood, R.R., Janke, R.R., Radke, J.K., and Rieger-Schwartz, S.L.. 1989. Crop production during conversion from conventional to low-input methods. Agronomy J. 81:150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Mackay, A.D., and Barber, S.A.. 1986. Effect of nitrogen on root growth of two corn genotypes in the field. Agronomy J. 78:699–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Maizlish, N.A., Fritton, D.D., and Kendall, W.A.. 1980. Root morphology and early development of maize at varying levels of nitrogen. Agronomy J. 72:25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Mengel, D.B., and Barber, S.A.. 1974. Development and distribution of the corn root system under field conditions. Agronomy J. 66:341–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Newell, R.L., and Wilhelm, W.W.. 1981. Conservation tillage and irrigation effects on corn root development. New Phytologist 88:160–165.Google Scholar
17.Passioura, J.B. 1983. Roots and drought resistance. Agric. Water Management 7:265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Peters, S., Janke, R.R., and Bohlke, M.. 1992. Rodale's farming systems trial: 1986–1990. Research report. Rodale Institute Research Center, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
19.Robertson, W.K., Hammond, L.C., Johnson, J.T., and Boote, K.J.. 1980. Effects of plant-water stress on root distribution of corn, soybeans, and peanuts in sandy soil. Agronomy J. 72:548–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Sahs, W., and Lesoing, G.. 1985. Crop rotations and manure vs. agricultural chemicals in dryland grain production. J. Soil and Water Conservation 40:511–516.Google Scholar
21.SAS Institute. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistical Methods. 7th ed. Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
22.Scheffe, H. 1959. The Analysis of Variance. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N. Y.Google Scholar
23.Smucker, A.J.M. 1990. Quantification of root dynamics in agroecological systems. Remote Sensing Review 5:237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Smucker, A.J.M., McBurney, S.L., and Srivastava, A.K.. 1982. Quantitative separation of roots from compacted soil profiles by the hydropneumatic elutriation system. Agronomy J. 74:500–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Snedecor, G.G., and Cochran, W. G.. 1980. Statistical Methods 7th ed.Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
26.St. John, T.V., Coleman, D.C., and Reid, C.P.P.. 1983. Growth and spatial distribution of nutrient-absorbing organs: Selective exploitation of soil heterogeneity. Plant Soil 71:487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Voorhees, W.B., Johnson, J.F., Randall, G.W., and Nelson, W.W.. 1989. Corn growth and yield as affected by surface and subsoil compaction. Agronomy J. 81:294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar