4.7 Article

Assessing the applicability of the earth impedance method for in situ studies of tree root systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 1857-1869

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erq370

关键词

Absorbing root surface area; conductance; electrical resistance; tree capacitance

资金

  1. Flanders-Czech bilateral scientific cooperation [BWS BOF 2006]
  2. foundation of the Mendel University Brno [IGA 9/2008, IGA 12/2010]
  3. EEA [A/CZ0046/2/0009]
  4. Czech Science Foundation [GA526/08/1050]
  5. Federal Environment Agency of Switzerland (BAFU)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several electrical methods have been introduced as non-invasive techniques to overcome the limited accessibility to root systems. Among them, the earth impedance method (EIM) represents the most recent development. Applying an electrical field between a cormus and the rooted soil, the EIM measures the absorptive root surface area (ARSA) from grounding resistance patterns. Allometric relationships suggested that this method was a valuable tool. Crucial assumptions for the applicability of the EIM, however, have not been tested experimentally. Focusing on tree root systems, the present study assesses the applicability of the EIM. Six hypotheses, deduced from the EIM approach, were tested in several experiments and the results were compared with conventional methods. None of the hypotheses could be verified and the results allow two major conclusions. First, in terms of an analogue electrical circuit, a tree-root-soil continuum appears as a serial circuit with xylem and soil resistance being the dominant components. Allometric variation in contact resistance, with the latter being the proxy for root surface area, are thus overruled by the spatial and seasonal variation of soil and xylem resistances. Second, in a tree-root-soil continuum, distal roots conduct only a negligible portion of the electric charge. Most of charge carriers leave the root system in the proximal parts of the root-soil interface.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据