4.7 Article

Leaf litter thickness, but not plant species, can affect root detection by ground penetrating radar

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 408, Issue 1-2, Pages 271-283

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-016-2931-0

Keywords

Coarse roots; Leaf litter; Nondestructive root detection; Phyllostachys pubescens; Root diameter

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan [22380090, 25252027]
  2. Program for Supporting Activities for Female Researchers
  3. MEXT's Special Coordination Fund for Promoting Science and Technology
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25252027, 22380090] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ground penetrating radar (GPR), a nondestructive tool that can detect coarse tree roots, has not yet become a mature technology for use in forests. In this study, we asked two questions concerning this technology: (i) Does the leaf litter layer influence root detection and major indices based on the time interval between zero crossings (T) and the amplitude area (A)? (ii) Can GPR images discriminate roots of different plant species? Roots buried in a sandy bed, which was covered with different thicknesses of leaf litter, were scanned using a 900 MHz GPR antenna. Roots of four plant species in the bed were also scanned. Leaf litter decreased root reflections without distorting the shape of the hyperbolas in the radar profile. A values decreased with increasing litter thickness, whereas T was independent of litter thickness. For all species combined, GPR indices were significantly correlated with root diameter. Leaf litter dramatically decreased root detection, but the influence of the litter could be ignored when the sum of T for all reflection waveforms (I T) pound is adopted to estimate root diameter. To use A values to detect roots, litter should be removed or equalized in thickness. Radar profiles could not reliably differentiate among roots belonging to plants of different species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available