International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 7, Issue 3, MayJune 2016, pp. 129135, Article ID: IJCIET_07_03_013

Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=3
Journal Impact Factor (2016): 9.7820 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
IAEME Publication

RELATING UPROOTING RESISTANCE TO

STEM BASAL DIAMETERS OF PLANTS
FOR EROSION MITIGATION
Nwoke, H.U., Dike, B.U., Nwite, S.A., Nwakwasi, N.L.
Department of Civil Engineering,
Federal University of Technology, Owerri. P.M.B 1526 Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
The strength with which a plant resists uprooting from erosion is
influenced by a number of morphological traits including the stem basal
diameter. The objective of this study is carry out in-situ lateral uprooting tests
for various plant species and develop models that relate uprooting resistance
to plant stem basal diameter. The study area is the erosion prone land of
Nguzu Edda in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Several lateral uprooting tests were
carried out to determine the uprooting forces for twelve plant species. The
stem basal diameters of the plants were also measured. Linear, quadratic and
cubic regression models were used in data analysis. The results showed that
maximum uprooting force has a linear relationship with stem basal diameter
with coefficients of determination ranging from 0.900 to 0.999. The r2 value
was 0.900 for Saccharum officinarum, 0.975 for chrysopogon zizanioides and
0.980 for paspalum notatum while other plants studied had r2 values ranging
from 0.996 to 0.999. The p-values for all species using linear regression were
less than 0.05 hence the model results are significant at 95% confidence level
for all plant species studied
Key words: Lateral Uprooting, Basal Diameter, Uprooting Force, Erosion,
Statistical Analysis.
Cite this Article: Nwoke, H.U., Dike, B.U., Nwite, S.A., Nwakwasi, N.L.,
Relating uprooting Resistance to Stem Basal Diameters of Plants for Erosion
Mitigation, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(3),
2016, pp. 129135.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=3

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

129

editor@iaeme.com

Nwoke, H.U., Dike, B.U., Nwite, S.A., Nwakwasi, N.L.

1. INTRODUCTION
The role played by lateral roots and root hairs in promoting plant anchorage and
specifically resistance to uprooting forces cannot be over emphasized in
Bioengineering. In terms of flash flood mitigation, it refers to the combination of
biological, mechanical and ecological concepts to reduce or control erosion, protect
soil and stabilize slopes using vegetation (Finney, 1993). The effects of roots in
protecting the soil from being eroded can therefore not be neglected (Gray and Sotir,
1996). Resistance to uprooting for plants could be resolved into series of events
associated with the breakage of individual roots. When a plant is pulled from the soil,
force is transmitted to the root system, which will fail at a point determined by the
strength of the root, the soil shear strength and soil bond. In non woody roots, such
failure generally occurs in the proximal region of the roots (Ennos, 1993). The role of
both lateral and tap roots in the anchorage of a plant remains unquantified. Stokes et
al. (1996) used wire model to predict that branching should increase uprooting
resistance, however, the rigid wire models are obviously not close mimics of nonwoody roots and indeed models that bent during uprooting behaved differently.
In most plants, a single force applied to stem will be transmitted to numerous roots
either because of lateral branching or because of adventitious roots from the stem
base. This allows more efficient transfer of the load to the soil because many narrow
roots have a greater surface area than a single thick one (Ennos, 1993). Quantifying
the role of laterals and more generally, root architecture on anchorage will allow a
better understanding of the relative importance in determining the evolution of the
diversity of root system form (Fitter, 1985). It has been demonstrated that when
subjected to mechanical stress, some species of plant have higher number of roots and
greater lateral root branching (Stokes et al, 1997, Mickovski and Ennos, 2002). It
should also be pointed out that other traits such as root stiffness (Mickovski et al,
2007), changes in cell wall properties (Scippa et al, 2006) and root system asymmetry
(Nicoll and Ray, 1996) can also play roles in plant anchorage.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in Nguzu-Edda Erosion site of Ebonyi State, Nigeria.
Twelve plant species from the local vegetation were sampled as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 sampling and classification of plant species
S/N

Species

Family

Growth form

Sampling site

1
2

Oxytenanthera abyssinica
Vernonia amygdalina

Poaceae
Asteraceae

Shrub
Shrub

1
1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Saccharum officinarum
Pennistum purpureum
Paspalum notatum
Chrysopogon zizanioides
Cynodon dactylon
Citrus sinensis
Mangifera indica
Anacardium occidentale
Azadirachta indica
Milicia excels

Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Rutaceae
Anacardiaceae
Anacardiaceae
Meliaceae
Moraceae

Shrub
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree

1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

130

editor@iaeme.com

Relating uprooting Resistance to Stem Basal Diameters of Plants for Erosion Mitigation

The species selected represent different families and were at juvenile stage of
growth. Uprooting tests were carried out at the peak of vegetative growth. During the
experiment, plants were selected to represent different stem-root basal diameters and
thus to represent species anchorage strength and morphology throughout the range of
diameters studied (2-20mm). Lateral in-situ uprooting tests were done using a scale
force gauge which measures the uprooting force. The tests were performed on six
samples per specie. Before each test, the superficial litter layer was removed to clear
the stem base. A non-stretch rope was bound to the stem base at one end and to a
portable force gauge at the other end. A horizontal traction force was then applied
slowly and regularly manually until the plant was uprooted. During the valid tests, the
maximum force (in each case) reached before uprooting was noted. To prevent soil
moisture content differences, the tests were carried out in the morning hours, about
two days after a rainfall of high intensity. Soil shear strength at 5cm and 10cm depths
were measured to determine the soils mechanical properties.
After uprooting, the plants were cleaned using stream of water to remove soil
particles, the stem basal diameters were measured using venire caliper and
micrometer screw gauge. Statistical tools were used in the analysis of results obtained
from the tests. The linear, quadratic and cubic models were applied to establish the
relationship between plant uprooting resistances and stem basal diameters as
presented in Equations 1 to 3.
+

(1)
(2)

(3)

Where a0, a1, a2 and a3 are regression coefficients.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Result of the soils shear strength measured at two points in the study area is
presented in Table 2. The result shows that the soil cohesion increased with soil depth
but there was no significant difference in soil shear strength between the two
locations.
Table 2 Soil shear strengths (KPa) at two points on the site
Depth
5cm

10cm

Characteristics

Point 1

Point 2

Mean

58.8

47.1

Standard error

3.6

3.6

121.4

150.8

9.2

10.9

Mean
Standard error

The results of the maximum uprooting forces (

) and the stem basal diameters
(D) of the twelve species studied are shown in Table 3.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

131

editor@iaeme.com

Nwoke, H.U., Dike, B.U., Nwite, S.A., Nwakwasi, N.L.

Table 3 Maximum Uprooting forces and stem basal diameters

Species

Test No

O. abyssinica
D(mm)
C. Sinensis
D(mm)
V. amygdalina
D(mm)
C.dactylon
D(mm)
P. Purpureum
D(mm)
S. officinarium
D(mm)
M. indica
D(mm)
A. occidentale
D(mm)
A. indica
D(mm)
M.excelsa
D(mm)
P.notatum
D(mm)
C.zizanioides
D(mm)

790.0

210.0

847.0

669.0

390.0

387.0

18.0

15.5

19.2

14.5

10.4

10.0

735.0

480.0

570.0

193.8

197.4

225.0

15.9

13.5

14.2

12.7

13.6

14.5

630.0

610.0

480.0

640.0

830.0

634.0

16.2

17.1

12.5

14.6

17.9

17.0

20.5

28.7

20.0

21.5

5.5

8.5

4.0

6.5

3.9

4.5

2.0

2.2

68.8

28.3

42.5

34.0

35.4

32.6

7.2

6.0

7.0

6.5

6.8

6.5

180.0

125.0

95.0

140.0

184.9

246.0

15.5

11.5

10.0

12.5

10.6

16.9

837.0

285.0

450.0

405.0

225.0

276.0

18.6

14.5

18.2

17.5

10.5

13.0

300.0

225.0

270.0

855.0

195.0

210.0

12.3

11.5

16.2

18.0

11.0

11.2

741.0

561.0

525.0

570.0

540.0

195.0

19.5

19.0

15.5

17.5

17.3

12.0

780.0

645.0

501.0

570.0

585.0

246.0

18.5

18.0

11.5

16.5

15.0

10.5

43.0

47.5

92.5

49.3

32.5

22.5

6.2

8.0

12.4

4.5

7.3

7.0

35.0

18.4

15.0

18.0

17.0

10.0

13.5

9.0

6.0

6.5

5.0

4.2

Tables 4 and 5 show the linear, quadratic and cubic regression models obtained
for various plant species using the data presented in table 3. The coefficients of
determination and p-values for the various models are also presented. The r2 - values
are positively correlated with Fmax for all models. However, the linear model had the
highest coefficient of determination and lowest p-values (P<0.05) which implies that
the model results are significant at 95% confidence level for all plant species studied.
Therefore, the linear regression model can be applied in the determination of
maximum uprooting force using stem basal diameter.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

132

editor@iaeme.com

Relating uprooting Resistance to Stem Basal Diameters of Plants for Erosion Mitigation

Table 4 Regression and statistical parameter for various plant species

Specie

Linear

Quadratic

Saccharum
Officinarum

Cubic

r2 =0.90

r2 =0.65

r2 =0.69

P=0.003197

P=0.02776

P=0.022921

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.98

r2 =0.93

P=0.000001495

P=0.000191

P=0.01731

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.98

r2 =0.99

P=0.00000037

P=0.0001451

P=0.000001495

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.91

P=00000037

P=0.00003358

P=0.002740

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.99

P=0.00000037

P=0.00002992

P=0.0000369

r2 =0.98

r2 =0.89

r2 =0.83

P=0.0001451

P=0.003812

P=0.00833

Mangifera indica

+50.2

Anacardium
Occidentale

+69.8

Azadirachta indica

+60.9

Milicia Excelsa

Paspalum
Notatum

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

133

editor@iaeme.com

Nwoke, H.U., Dike, B.U., Nwite, S.A., Nwakwasi, N.L.

Table 5 Regression and statistical parameter for additional plant species

Specie

Linear

Oxytenanthera
abyssinica

Quadratic

Cubic

+
r2 =0.99

r2 =0.88

r2 =0.713

P=0.000000375

P=0.00474

P=0.0202

r =0.99

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.65

P=0.00000037

P=0.0000718

P=0.02814

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.88

r2 =0.92

P=0.00000037

P=0.00004605

P=0.001211

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.94

P=00000336

P=0.00001337

P=0.00115

r2 =0.99

r2 =0.98

r2 =0.99

P=0.00000596

P=0.0001312

P=0.00006203

r2 =0.98

r2 =0.72

r2 =0.25

P=0.0002249

P=0.020016

P=0.0828

Citrus Sinensis
+156
2

Vernonia
Amygdalina

+43.2

Cynodon Dactylon

+5.1

Penniston Purpureum

Chrysopogon
Zizanioides

4. CONCLUSION
It has been the practice in most erosion devastated areas for people to use plants for
mitigation and control of the erosion. However, the strength of such plants in resisting
uprooting by erosion has been given little or no consideration. This study therefore
focused on establishing the relationship between the uprooting forces and the basal
diameters of plants used in erosion control. Twelve plant species were studied. This
involved measuring the uprooting forces and the basal diameters of the plants. Six

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

134

editor@iaeme.com

Relating uprooting Resistance to Stem Basal Diameters of Plants for Erosion Mitigation

independent tests were carried out on each of the twelve species selected. Regression
analysis was employed to establish the relationship between maximum uprooting
forces and stem basal diameters. It was observed from the result that though some
quadratic and cubic models related the variables well, the linear models gave the best
relationships in all cases. These results will help in informed choice of plants for
erosion and flood control.

REFERENCES
[1]

Ennos, A.R (1993), The Scaling of Root Anchorage, J. TheorBiol 161: 61-75.

[2]

Finney, K. (1993), Landscape Architect, 11 th Annual California salmonid

Restoration Federation Conference in Eureka.

[3]

Fitter, A.H. (1985), Functional Significance of Root Morphology and Root

System Architecture Ecological Interactions in soil. Blackwell Scientific,
Oxford, UK, pp 87-106

[4]

Gray, D.H. and Sotir, R.B. (1996),Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope
Stabilization, John Wiley and sons, New York.

[5]

Mickovski, S.B., Bengough, A.G., Bransby, M.F., Davies, M.C. and Haallett,
P.D. (2007), Material Stiffness, Branching Pattern and Soil Matrix Potential
affect Pullout Resistance European Journal of Soil Science 58: 1471-1481.

[6]

Mickovski, S.B. and Ennos, A.R. (2002), A Morphological and Mechanical

study of the Root Systems of Suppressed Crownscots Pine Pinussylvestris, Tree
(Berl) 16: 274-280.

[7]

Nicoll, B.C. and Ray, D. (1996), Adaptive Growth of Tree Root Systems in
Response to Wind Action and Site Conditions, Tree physiol 16: 891-898.

[8]

Scippa, G.S., Di Michele, M., Di Lorio, A. (2006), The Response of

Spartiumjunceum Roots to Slope: Anchorage and Gene Factors, Ann Bot (Lond)
97: 857-866.

[9]

Stokes, A., Ball, J. and Fitter, A.H. (1996), An Experimental Investigation of the
Resistance of Model Root Systems to Uprooting, Ann Bot (Lond) 78: 415-421.

[10]

Stokes, A., Nicoll, B., Coutts, M.P. and Fitter, A.H. (1997), Responses of
Young Sitka Spruce Clones to Mechanical Perturbation and Nutrition: Effects on
Biomass Allocation, Root Development and Resistance to Bending, Can J.
Res27: 1049-1057.

[11]

Nwoke H.U, Dike B.U, Okoro B.C and Nwite S.A., Uprooting Resistance
Andmorphological Traits of Plants Used In Erosion Mitigation, International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(3), 2016, pp. 104110.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

135

editor@iaeme.com