Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Species-specific root architecture and its role in soil nutrient dynamics in a multispecies tree stand

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11898
Submitted
24 September 2025
Published
24-03-2026
Versions

Abstract

Root system architecture (RSA) is important for determining tree stability, nutrient uptake and soil health, as well as for understanding interspecies differences in subtropical agro-ecosystems. Understanding RSA helps clarify species differences in nutrient uptake and soil interactions. The work was conducted to assess root intensity and soil properties of tree species (Pongamia pinnata, Cassia fistula, Tectona grandis, Aegle marmelos  and Dalbergia sissoo) at Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST), Jammu, India. Fine roots and coarse roots, as well as total root intensity, were measured using the profile wall method at five depth intervals (0–10, 10–20,  20–30, 30–40 and 40–50 cm). Soil nutrient parameters were measured at four soil depth intervals (0–15, 15–30, 30–45 and 45–60 cm). Root intensity demonstrated significant interspecific variation, with D. sissoo showing the highest fine root intensity (FRI) (2523.50 no. m-²), followed by P. pinnata and T. grandis, with most fine roots concentrated in the upper 30 cm. Tectona grandis recorded the highest coarse root intensity (1425.75 no. m-²). Soil analysis showed that P. pinnata and D. sissoo had higher surface nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and organic carbon compared to other species. These findings highlight the promising roles of D. sissoo, T. grandis and P. pinnata, which exhibited intensive root spread, in promoting soil stabilisation and nutrient cycling in subtropical agroforestry systems.

References

  1. 1. Danjon F, Fourcaud T, Bert D. Root architecture and wind-firmness of mature Pinus pinaster. New Phytol. 2005;168(2):387–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01497.x
  2. 2. McCormack ML, Guo D, Iversen CM, Chen W, Eissenstat DM, Fernandez CW, et al. Building a better foundation: improving root-trait measurements to understand and model plant and ecosystem processes. New Phytol. 2017;215(1):27–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14507
  3. 3. Iversen CM, McCormack ML, Powell AS, Blackwood CB, Freschet GT, Kattge J, et al. A global fine-root ecology database to address below-ground challenges in plant ecology. New Phytol. 2017;215(1):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14486
  4. 4. Freschet GT, Roumet C. Sampling roots to capture plant and soil functions. Funct Ecol. 2017;31(8):1506–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12883
  5. 5. Mao W, Felton AJ, Ma Y, Zhang T, Sun Z, Zhao X, et al. Relationships between aboveground and belowground trait responses of a dominant plant species to alterations in watertable depth. Land Degrad Dev. 2018;29(11):4015–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3159
  6. 6. Prieto I, Roumet C, Cardinael R, Dupraz C, Jourdan C, Kim JH, et al. Root functional parameters along a land-use gradient: evidence of a community-level economics spectrum. J Ecol. 2015;103(2):361–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12351
  7. 7. Zhang X, Wang W. The decomposition of fine and coarse roots: their global patterns and controlling factors. Sci Rep. 2015;5:9940. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09940
  8. 8. Raz-Yaseef N, Koteen LE, Baldocchi D. Coarse root distribution of a semi-arid oak savanna estimated with ground-penetrating radar. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2013;118(1):135–47. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JG002160
  9. 9. Blume-Werry G, Lindén E, Andresen L, Classen AT, Sanders NJ, van Oppen J, et al. Proportion of fine roots, but not plant biomass allocation below ground, increases with elevation in arctic tundra. J Veg Sci. 2018;29(2):226–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12605
  10. 10. Men X, Yue Y, Gu H, Wang X, Chen X. Effects of tree competition on biomass allocation of stump and coarse roots of Larix olgensis of different site classes. Forests. 2023;14(7):1431. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071431
  11. 11. Luo Z, Niu J, Xie B, Zhang L, Chen X, Berndtsson R, et al. Influence of root distribution on preferential flow in deciduous and coniferous forest soils. Forests. 2019;10(11):986. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10110986
  12. 12. Kell DB. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann Bot. 2011;108(3):407–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr175
  13. 13. Ruan L, Li X, Song Y, Li J, Palansooriya KN. Effects of tea plant varieties with high- and low-nutrient efficiency on nutrients in degraded soil. Plants. 2023;12(4):905. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040905
  14. 14. Huxley PA. Some characteristics of trees to be considered in agroforestry. In: Huxley PA, editor. Plant Research and Agroforestry. Nairobi (Kenya): ICRAF; 1983. p. 3–12.
  15. 15. Toky OP, Bisht RP. Observations on the rooting patterns of some agroforestry trees in an arid region of north-western India. Agrofor Syst. 1992;18(3):245–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705216
  16. 16. Zou L, Wang Y, Giannakis I, Tosti F, Alani AM, Sato M. Mapping and assessment of tree roots using ground-penetrating radar with low-cost GPS. Remote Sens. 2020;12(8):1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081300
  17. 17. Maherali H. Is there an association between root architecture and mycorrhizal growth response?. New Phytol. 2014;204(1):192–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12927
  18. 18. Sharma V, Sharma UC. Groundwater management in Kandi region of Jammu province, Jammu and Kashmir, India. In: Findikakis AN, Sato K, editors. Groundwater Management Practices. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2011. p. 83–91.
  19. 19. Peterson RG, Calvin LD. Sampling. In: Black CA, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy; 1965. p. 33–51.
  20. 20. Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934;37:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  21. 21. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for estimation of available nitrogen in soil. Curr Sci. 1956;25:259–60.
  22. 22. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium carbonate. In: Black CA, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Madison (WI): ASA; 1954. p. 1044–6.
  23. 23. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi (India): Prentice Hall of India; 1967. p. 183–92.
  24. 24. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis: Advanced. Madison (WI): The Author; 1973.
  25. 25. Wang F, Xu Y, Han L. Soil microbial biomass and its relationship with root biomass in subtropical forests. Sci Total Environ. 2019;664:865–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.051
  26. 26. Wang C, Brunner I, Wang J, Wei G, Geng Z, Yang X, et al. The right-skewed distribution of fine-root size in three temperate forests in northeastern China. Front Plant Sci. 2022;12:772463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.772463
  27. 27. King WL, Yates CF, Guo J, Fleishman SM, Trexler RV, Centinari M, et al. The hierarchy of root branching order determines bacterial composition, microbial carrying capacity and microbial filtering. Commun Biol. 2021;4:1988. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01988-4
  28. 28. Srivastava SK, Singh KP, Upadhyay RS. Fine root growth dynamics in teak (Tectona grandis Linn. f.). Can J For Res. 1986;16(6):1360–4. https://doi.org/10.1139/x86-240
  29. 29. Schenk HJ, Jackson RB. Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. J Ecol. 2002;90(3):480–94. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2002.00682.x
  30. 30. Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Schulze ED. A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area and nutrient contents. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;94(14):7362–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.14.7362
  31. 31. Misra CM, Singh SL, Behal S. Germination of tropical leguminous tree species under high pH. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Res Rep. 1988;6:13.
  32. 32. Gajjar NN, Nesmith JE, Holdø RM. Root morphological differences in tree and grass species from a southern African savanna. Res Sq. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1851138/v1
  33. 33. Li Z, Tian D, Wang B, Wang J, Wang S, Chen HYH, et al. Microbes drive global soil nitrogen mineralization and availability. Glob Change Biol. 2019;25(3):1078–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14557
  34. 34. Yang Q, Zhang H, Wang L, Ling F, Wang Z, Li T, et al. Topography and soil content contribute to plant community composition and structure in subtropical evergreen–deciduous broadleaved mixed forests. Plant Divers. 2021;43(4):264–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2021.03.003
  35. 35. Ahirwal J, Kumar A, Maiti S. Effect of fast-growing trees on soil properties and carbon storage in an afforested coal mine land (India). Minerals. 2020;10(10):840. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10100840
  36. 36. Girard CE, Schorran DE, Germain P. Influences of tree species selection on soil health in agroforestry systems. J For Res. 2021;30(4):1227–38.
  37. 37. Tian J, He N, Hale L, Niu S, Yu G, Liu Y, et al. Soil organic matter availability and climate drive latitudinal patterns in bacterial diversity from tropical to cold temperate forests. Funct Ecol. 2018;32(1):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12952
  38. 38. Moeneclaey I, Baeten L, Verheyen K, Van Coillie F. Disentangling the effects of phosphorus, nitrogen and species identity on the vegetation reflectance spectrum. Appl Veg Sci. 2022;25(4):e12688. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12688
  39. 39. Das D, Chaturvedi O. Root biomass and distribution of five agroforestry tree species. Agrofor Syst. 2008;74(3):223–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9159-9
  40. 40. Tan Y, Wang X, Jin W, Kang Y. Differences in metabolic characteristics of rhizosphere fungal communities of arboreal, shrubby and herbaceous species in an arid oasis. J Fungi. 2024;10(8):565. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10080565
  41. 41. Schweiger AK, Schütz M, Risch AC, Kneubühler M, Haller R, Schaepman ME. How to predict plant functional types using imaging spectroscopy: linking vegetation community traits, plant functional types and spectral response. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;8(1):86–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12642
  42. 42. Yuan ZY, Chen HYH. A global analysis of fine root production as affected by soil nitrogen and phosphorus. Proc R Soc B. 2012;279(1736):3796–802. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0955
  43. 43. Espeleta JF, Clark DA. Multi-scale variation in fine-root biomass in a tropical rain forest: a seven-year study. Ecol Monogr. 2007;77(3):377–404. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1257.1

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.