HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cook, F. J. Articles by Kelliher, F. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cook, F. J. Articles by Kelliher, F. M. Agricola Articles by Cook, F. J. Articles by Kelliher, F. M. Related Collections Microbial Processes Soil Systems Root Growth Soil Analysis

Determining Vertical Root and Microbial Biomass Distributions from Soil Samples

^a CSIRO Land and Water, 120 Meiers Road, Indooroopilly, QLD 4068, Australia, and The Univ. of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia
^b Manaaki Whenua–Landcare Research, P.O. Box 69, Lincoln, New Zealand

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Relations between the sampling depth interval, zi, and depth at the top of the sample, zi, for different values of the length scale bias, , according to Eq. [11]. A constant and negative bias of 10% was used in the calculations.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (a) Relations between root biomass density, R, and depth, z, beneath a tropical forest according to Veldkamp et al. (2003). The lines and data points are explained in the legend. (b) Same data as in (a), plotted as log-linear to highlight differences.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Relation between a normalized root biomass density, R* from Eq. [A6], and depth, z, for three values of ß. The insert shows the relationship between RGG and z according to Eq. [A5] based on the reasoning of Gale and Grigal (1987; see their Fig. 3).

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Relations between the maximum bias and parameter C determined for a vertical root biomass distribution and 1, a sampling depth interval to length scale ratio, according to Eq. [10]. The maximum bias is denoted by negative values to indicate the required correction.

View larger version (6K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationship between Y0*/Y0, ratio of apparent to actual soil property at the surface, and i, a sampling depth interval to length scale ratio, according to Eq. [11].

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. (a) Relations between root biomass density, R, and depth, z, according to Eq. [5] and [7]. For Eq. [7], values of i were calculated using characteristic length scale (Zr) = 0.184, R0 = 1111 g m–3, and discrete soil sample depth intervals, z, of 0.1 (five solid circles between the surface and z = 0.5 m), 0.5 (2 solid squares shown at z = 0.75 and 1.25 m) and 1.0 m (3 open squares shown at z = 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 m). The data points were calculated to a depth of 4 m. The three curves were derived by least squares fitting of i and i to Eq. [5] using all the values calculated for a single z, and led to a single value of Zr (= 0.184), but three values of R0 including 1115, 1487, and 3092 g m–3 for z of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 m, respectively. (b) Same data plotted as log-linear to better illustrate the intercept shift.