See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226629236

Root tensile strength and root distribution of typical

Mediterranean plant species and their contribution to
soil shear strength. Plant Soil

ARTICLE in PLANT AND SOIL APRIL 2008

Impact Factor: 2.95 DOI: 10.1007/s11104-008-9553-0

CITATIONS READS

97 365

6 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Sarah De Baets J. Poesen

University of Exeter University of Leuven
33 PUBLICATIONS 936 CITATIONS 609 PUBLICATIONS 18,151 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bert Reubens Bart Muys

Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research University of Leuven
28 PUBLICATIONS 607 CITATIONS 351 PUBLICATIONS 7,227 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Sarah De Baets
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 14 December 2015
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
DOI 10.1007/s11104-008-9553-0
REGULAR ARTICLE
Root tensile strength and root distribution of typical
Mediterranean plant species and their contribution
to soil shear strength
S. De Baets & J. Poesen & B. Reubens & K. Wemans &
J. De Baerdemaeker & B. Muys
Received: 2 May 2007 / Accepted: 14 January 2008 / Published online: 21 February 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract In Mediterranean environments, gully ero-
sion is responsible for large soil losses. It has since
long been recognized that slopes under vegetation are
much more resistant to soil erosion processes com-
pared to bare soils and improve slope stability.
Planting or preserving vegetation in areas vulnerable
to erosion is therefore considered to be a very
effective soil erosion control measure. Re-vegetation
strategies for erosion control rely in most cases on the
effects of the above-ground biomass in reducing water
erosion rates, whereas the role of the below-ground
biomass is often neglected or underestimated. While
the above-ground biomass can temporally disappear
in semi-arid environments, roots may still be present
Responsible Editor: Peter J. Gregory
S. De Baets : J. Poesen (*) : K. Wemans
Physical and Regional Geography Research Group,
K.U. Leuven,
Celestijnenlaan 200E,
3001 Leuven, Belgium
e-mail: jean.poesen@geo.kuleuven.be
B. Reubens : B. Muys
Division Forest, Nature and Landscape, K.U. Leuven,
Celestijnenlaan 200E,
3001 Leuven, Belgium
J. De Baerdemaeker
Division of Mechatronics, Biostatistics and Sensors,
K.U. Leuven,
Kasteelpark Arenberg 30,
3001 Leuven, Belgium
underground and play an important role in protecting
the topsoil from being eroded. In order to evaluate the
potential of plant species growing in Mediterranean
environments to prevent shallow mass movements on
gully or terrace walls, the root reinforcement effect of
25 typical Mediterranean matorral species (i.e. shrubs,
grasses herbs, small trees) was assessed, using
the simple perpendicular model of Wu et al. (Can
Geotech J 16:1933, 1979). As little information is
available on Mediterranean plant root characteristics,
root distribution data were collected in SE-Spain and
root tensile strength tests were conducted in the
laboratory. The power root tensile strengthroot
diameter relationships depend on plant species. The
results show that the shrubs Salsola genistoides Juss.
Ex Poir. and Atriplex halimus L. have the strongest
roots, followed by the grass Brachypodium retusum
(Pers.) Beauv. The shrubs Nerium oleander L. and the
grass Avenula bromoides (Gouan) H. Scholz have the
weakest roots in tension. Root area ratio for the 0
0.1 m topsoil ranges from 0.08% for the grass
Piptatherum miliaceum (L.) Coss to 0.8% for the tree
Tamarix canariensis Willd. The rush Juncus acutus L.
provides the maximum soil reinforcement to the
topsoil by its roots (i.e. 304 kPa). Grasses also
increase soil shear strength significantly (up to
244 kPa in the 00.1 m topsoil for Brachypodium
retusum (Pers.) Beauv.). The shrubs Retama sphaer-
ocarpa (L.) Boiss. and Anthyllis cytisoides L. are
increasing soil shear strength to a large extent as well
(up to 134 and 160 kPa respectively in the 00.10 m
208
topsoil). Whereas grasses and the rush Juncus acutus
L. increase soil shear strength in the topsoil (0
0.10 m) to a large extent, the shrubs Anthyllis
cytisoides (L.), Retama sphaerocarpa (L.) Boiss.,
Salsola genistoides Juss. Ex Poir. and Atriplex
halimus L. strongly reinforce the soil to a greater
depth (00.5 m). As other studies reported that Wus
model overestimates root cohesion values, reported
root cohesion values in this study are maximum
values. Nevertheless, the calculated cohesion values
are used to rank species according to their potential to
reinforce the soil.
Keywords Restoration ecology . Root area ratio .
Root cohesion . Slope stability . Stream bank erosion
Introduction
Soil erosion is a serious problem in Mediterranean
environments, where dry bare soils are very vulner-
able to erosion during intensive rainstorms. This
results in large on-site soil losses and off-site
consequences such as sediment deposition in river
channels or reservoirs and flooding (Poesen and
Hooke 1997).
Past experience shows that slopes under vegetation
are more resistant against mass movements and water
erosion (Gray and Sotir 1996). However, vegetation
cover can be very limited in semi-arid environments
and is often damaged by surface fire, overgrazing,
drought or flooding (Aerts et al. 2006). Even
following vegetation removal, an increase in water
erosion phenomena or shallow mass movements
usually appears after a lag period attributed to the
time required for roots of the removed vegetation to
decay (Morgan 2005; Sidle et al. 2006). The effects of
roots in protecting the soil from being eroded can
therefore not be neglected.
Roots affect properties of the soil, such as
infiltration rate, aggregate stability, moisture content,
shear strength and organic matter content, all of which
control soil erosion rates to various degrees (Gyssels
et al. 2005).
The potential of typical Mediterranean plant roots
to increase the resistance of topsoils to concentrated
flow erosion is recently unravelled and discussed in
De Baets et al. (2007). The role of roots in improving
slope stability has long been recognized (e.g. Gray
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
and Leiser 1982; Gray and Sotir 1996). Nevertheless,
the mechanical characteristics of Mediterranean plant
root systems are not much studied yet. Vegetation can
influence the above-mentioned processes in various
ways. In this study the mechanical soil reinforcement
effect of roots, preventing shallow mass movements,
will be investigated, as this is important for stabilizing
gully or terrace walls. If these walls are not stabilized,
then gullies or terraces act as sediment sources and
increase the sediment connectivity in the landscape
(Poesen et al. 2003). Plant roots can increase soil
shear strength both directly by mechanical reinforcing
and indirectly through water removal by transpiration.
Simon et al. (2006) indicate that the hydrological
effects of roots on streambank stability are smaller in
magnitude than the mechanical effects.
One of the important mechanical characteristics of
roots is that they are strong in tension. Soils, on the
other hand, are strong in compression and weak in
tension. A combined effect of soil and roots results in
a reinforced soil. When shearing the soil, roots
mobilize their tensile strength whereby shear stresses
that develop in the soil matrix are transferred to the
root fibers via interface friction along the root length
(Gray and Barker 2004) or via the tensile resistance of
the roots (Ennos 1990).
The magnitude of root reinforcement depends on
morphological characteristics of the root system (e.g.
root distribution with depth, root distribution over
different root diameter classes), root tensile strengths,
root tensile modulus values, root tortuosity, the
interface friction between roots and the soil and the
orientation of roots to the principal direction of strain
(Greenway 1987). Abernethy and Rutherford (2001)
state that the interspecies differences in tensile
strength are less significant to bank stability than the
interspecies differences in root distribution. From
previous research it is also known that the finer the
roots, the higher their tensile strength (e.g. Operstein
and Frydman 2000; Gray and Barker 2004). It can
therefore be hypothesized that a large number of
small roots will contribute more to soil reinforcement
as compared to a small number of thick roots.
During the past two decades, several investigations
have been conducted to improve our understanding of
root reinforcement of soils. Ways to assess the
increase in soil shear strength are conducting in situ
shear tests on root-reinforced soils, laboratory testing
of root-soil composites and modelling the root-soil
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
interactions. Wu et al. (1979) developed a simple
perpendicular root model, which has been applied in
many studies to estimate the increase in soil shear
strength through roots. This model uses root tensile
strength and root distribution to estimate the increase
in soil shear strength. Nowadays, more sophisticated
models based on deformational characteristics of the
root reinforced soils have been developed (Gray and
Barker 2004; e.g. Dupuy et al. 2005). SLIP4EX
(Greenwood 2005) is a straightforward computer
program that is able to combine mechanical and
hydrological effects of vegetation on slope stability.
Pollen and Simon (2005) recently developed a
dynamic fiber bundle model accounting for the
progressive manner of root breaking.
For long, information on Mediterranean plant root
characteristics and their use for soil erosion control
was very limited. Recently, few studies have been
conducted, investigating the influence of Mediterranean
plant roots on soil strength. Operstein and Frydman
(2000) conducted root tension tests, in situ pullout tests
and direct shear tests on four Mediterranean plant
species (i.e. Medicago sativa, Rosmarinus officinalis,
Pistacia lentiscus and Cistus sp.). Mattia et al. (2005)
investigated the biotechnical characteristics of three
Mediterranean plant species (i.e. Atriplex halimus,
Lygeum spartum and Pistacia lentiscus). However,
the number of Mediterranean species studied remains
very restricted.
This study aims at quantifying the soil reinforce-
ment due to plant roots for 25 typical Mediterranean
plant species, using the simple perpendicular model of
Wu et al. (1979) in order to rank species according to
their suitability for slope stabilization. Therefore, root
tensile strength and root distribution data were
collected for 25 typical Mediterranean plant species
in order to improve our knowledge on root properties
that are important when evaluating the use of plant
species for controlling shallow mass movements on
gully or terrace walls.
Materials and methods
Study area
Root sampling of 25 typical Mediterranean plant
species took place in the Crcavo catchment (134-1 these habitats representative (occurrence >10%)
27 E, 38093814 N), located about 40 km grasses, rushes (monocotyledons), shrubs, herbs, or
209
northwest of the city of Murcia in Southeast Spain,
near the town of Cieza. The climate is semi-arid, with
a high inter-annual variability of rainfall. Mean annual
rainfall is about 279 mm and potential evaporation
reaches 848 mm (Castillo et al. 2007). Mean annual
air temperature for the study area equals 17C (FAO
2005). The geology of the area consists of Jurassic
limestone and dolomite mountains with calcareous
piedmonts, basin deposits of Cretaceous and Miocene
marls, and Keuper gypsum deposits. Most soils in the
area are thin (Leptosols), weakly developed (Regosols)
and mainly characterised by their parent material
(Calcisols and Gypsisols). The current land use is
dominated by cereals, grapes, olives, almond groves,
abandoned fields, reforested land and semi-natural land
(Lesschen et al. 2007).
Selection of plant species and assessment of root
distribution information
Roots of 25 typical Mediterranean matorral species
were sampled in the Crcavo catchment for conduct-
ing tensile strength tests in the laboratory. In a
previous study (De Baets et al. 2007) root distribution
was recorded for this set of plant species by
excavating three to five individuals per plant species.
First a list of common plant species present in the
Crcavo basin has been made. To assess the abun-
dance of these species 45 transects of 25 m long were
randomly selected in the basin. The abundance of a
given species was then defined as the number of
sampling transects along which the species occurs
relative to the total number of sampling transects. To
be considered as a main species an occurrence >10%
had to be achieved. Species to be considered for use
in erosion control measures were selected from three
habitats where gully erosion is most likely to occur.
Most of the areas vulnerable to gully erosion are
located around channel heads or along channel walls,
i.e. where steep slope gradients exist (Lesschen et al.
2007). The exact location of potential gullies is
determined by the local topography. Within the
Crcavo catchment three hotspots were selected
where gully erosion features are very prominent, i.e.
(1) existing channels and ephemeral gullies, (2)
abandoned croplands (Lesschen et al. 2007) and (3)
steep badland slopes under semi-natural vegetation. In
210
small trees (dicots) were selected (e.g. in Fig. 1). No
large trees were selected for potential use in restoration
works, as the weight of large trees might surcharge the
slope, increasing normal and downhill force compo-
nents (Gray and Sotir 1996). After excavation of the
species, the roots were placed in their original position
and cut into 0.10 m depth classes. For each individual
plant, the roots corresponding to each depth class were
then spread on a sheet and digital photographs were
made to assess root length density and root diameter
distribution of the root systems. The information on
root distribution was presented in De Baets et al.
(2007).
Root tensile strength
As highlighted before, root tensile strength testing is a
crucial step to evaluate root reinforcement. For each
selected plant species about 50 undamaged roots with
a constant diameter, D < 8 mm (as this is the
maximum root diameter that could be tested in the
laboratory), and a minimum root length of 0.10 m
were selected. To collect the roots, a few individual,
medium-size plants, growing in the same microenvi-
ronment (same habitat, similar landscape position),
were dug out using the dry excavation method (Bhm
1979). After excavation, the roots were stored in a
plastic bag to preserve their moisture content. The
tested roots most probably had different root moisture
contents. A few days later, after the field work period,
the roots were put in an alcohol solution (15% ethanol)
at a temperature of 4C to conserve them for several
months (Bhm 1979). This was found to be the best
way for conservation of root tensile strength (Bischetti
et al. 2003). Bischetti et al. (2003) showed that there is
a good correspondence between root tensile strength
obtained from fresh samples and root samples stored in
alcohol solution for several months.
Root tensile strength (Tr, MPa) tests were con-
ducted in the laboratory for Mechatronics, Biostatis-
tics and Sensors (K.U. Leuven, Belgium) with a
universal tensile and compression test machine (UTS
Testsysteme GmBh., Ulm, Germany, Fig. 2a). Such
device combines three functions: i.e. traction force
generation, measuring load and displacement and data
acquisition. Clamping is the most critical issue when
measuring root strength. Roots having diameters
>8 mm could not be tested due to clamping problems.
In our tests, the roots were clamped using screw
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
Fig. 1 Examples of species growing in ephemeral river b
channels: a Juncus acutus (having a typical fibrous root
system), b Atriplex halimus, c Tamarix canariensis (having a
typical tap root system), on abandoned fields: d Brachypodium
retusum, e Thymus zygis, f Rosmarinus officinales and on steep
degraded slopes: g Stipa tenacissima, h Anthyllis cytisoides, i
Salsola genistoides. Photos taken by Sarah De Baets, Crvavo
catchment, Murcia, SE Spain
clamps (Fig. 2a). The most often reported and
experienced problem with clamping is that the grips
damage the root structure, inducing rupture of roots at
the position of clamping. Tests where the roots broke
near or at the position of clamping are to be
considered invalid. In order to improve the adhesion
between the roots and the clamps without damaging
the root structure, rubber strips and fine sand paper
were attached to the screws. In addition, to prevent
slipping, extra screws (similar to screws clamping
bicycle brakes) (Fig. 2b) were attached at the roots
ends, keeping the roots in place between the big
screws. This way, roots having diameters <8 mm
could be tested and the succeeding percentage of the
tests was above 50% for almost all tested plant
species. Each root sample was then blocked over its
entire width by the screw clamps of the testing
machine. Each tested sample was at least 0.10 m in
length and the length between the clamps was set at
0.10 0.03 m before stretching. Turning on the
engine, the sample was then subjected to a movement
of the tangent screw at a constant test speed of
10 mm/min. The resolution of the sensor (Wagezelle
load cell, type U1, HBM, Volketswil, Germany) was
0.01 N. A maximum force of 200 N could be exerted.
The following formula was then used to calculate Tr
(Bischetti et al. 2003).
Fmax
Tr
D2  1
p 4
where Fmax is the maximum force (N) needed to
break the root and D is mean root diameter (mm) near
the point of rupture before stretching. Before testing,
root diameter was measured at three points, i.e. near
the upper clamp, halfway the root clamps and near the
bottom clamp, using a digital calliper.
Root area ratio calculations
Root area ratio (RAR) or root biomass concentration
as a function of soil depth are required in order to
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226 211
212 Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
Fig. 2 a UTS apparatus
used to conduct root tensile
strength measurements, b
schematic representation of
the clamps used to attach
the roots and additional
screws attached to the root
ends to prevent them from
slipping out of the screw
clamps

estimate root contribution to soil strength. RAR is
defined as the fraction of the soil cross-sectional area
occupied by roots per unit area (Gray and Leiser 1982).
In this study, RAR information was not obtained
from field measurements, but calculated using root
length density (RLD) and root diameter (D) informa-
tion as these root variables were measured in a
previous study for the same set of plant species (De
Baets et al. 2007). RLD and D distribution with depth
was recorded under the crown of the above-ground
biomass for each species as a reference area. Root
length per unit volume was converted into an
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
equivalent RAR using mean root diameter values. To
convert RLD into RAR for grasses, one mean root
diameter was used per grass species. It was assumed
that for grasses root diameter is more or less constant,
that grass roots are oriented vertically and that
branching occurs parallel to the main root axis. In
reality, this is not the always case, as roots and root
branches have a different orientation. Using Eq. 2,
total number of roots will be overestimated, but their
mean cross-sectional area at a certain depth will be
underestimated, because when roots cross a cross-
section under a certain angle their cross-sectional area
will be larger. Therefore, assuming roots growing
vertically aims at calculating a mean situation, where
overestimation of the number of roots is compensated
by the underestimation of root cross-sectional areas.
Total root length (m) in the volume determined by
the vertical orthogonal projection of the above-ground
biomass and 0.10 m soil depth classes was converted
into the number of 0.10 m long vertically growing
roots crossing a horizontal cross-section in this soil
volume. The number of roots is then multiplied with
the mean cross section area (m2) of a root of a certain
grass species, assuming that all roots have a circular
cross section. In this way, a mean cross-sectional area
occupied by grass roots is obtained. This value is then
divided by the horizontal cross-sectional area deter-
mined by the vertical orthogonal projection of the
above-ground biomass. For grasses, RAR at different
soil depth classes (every 0.10 m), was calculated using
the following equation:
RL
ai
RARgrass 0:1
2 and anchorage length to lock the fiber in place and to
A prevent slippage or pullout. The fiber elongation
where RL is total root length per soil depth class (m), ai
is mean root cross-sectional area of a representative
root of the studied grass species (m2) and A is the
reference area (m2, determined by the vertical projection
of the above-ground biomass of the plant).
For shrubs RAR was calculated at different soil
depths by digitizing the total length of roots having a
similar diameter from digital photographs, then dividing
total lengths per diameter by 0.10 m to obtain the
number of 10 cm long roots for all roots having a similar
diameter and measuring their mean cross-sectional area:
P
n
ni
ai
i zone, is the soil friction angle () and tR is the total
RAR 3
A mobilized tensile stress of root fibers per unit area of
213
where ni is the number of 10 cm long roots in each root
diameter class and ai is mean root cross-sectional area
of a root diameter class (m2).
Soil shear strength
The model of Wu et al. (1979) was used to estimate
the increase in soil shear strength due to the presence
of roots, because this model allows for simple and
quick calculation of soil reinforcement by roots using
tensile strength and root distribution information.
Their model assumes that all roots grow vertically
and act as loaded piles, so tension is transferred to
them as the soil is sheared. The assumption that fibers
are oriented perpendicular to the shear plane is a
useful simulation because it yields an average
estimate of all possible orientations (Gray and Sotir
1996). Plant roots tend to bind the soil together in a
monolithic mass and contribute to the strength by
providing an apparent additional cohesion (Abernethy
and Rutherford 2001). If the soil is rooted, the
increased soil shear strength can be expressed as an
additional cohesion:
sr s Cr 4
where s is soil shear strength (kPa), sr (kPa) is the
shear strength of the soil reinforced by roots and Cr
(kPa) is the increase in shear strength due to the
presence of roots.
When shear forces occur, the root fiber deforms.
This deformation causes the fiber to stretch, provided
there is sufficient interface friction, confining stress
mobilizes the tensile resistance in the fiber (Gray
and Sotir 1996). The tension developed in the roots is
resolved with a tangential component resisting shear
and a normal component increasing the confining
pressure on the shear plane. The most critical
assumption of this model implies that all roots attain
ultimate tensile strength simultaneously during soil
shearing (Simon et al. 2006). The predicted shear
strength increase from a full mobilization of root
tensile strength is given by:
Cr tR sin cos tan 5
where is the angle of shear distortion in the shear
214
soil. This requires the calculation of tensile strength of
the roots and the fraction of soil cross-section
occupied by the roots (i.e. RAR) (Gray and Barker
2004). Wu et al. (1979) found that the value of the
bracket term is relatively insensitive to normal
variation in and (4090 and 2540 respectively)
with values ranging from 1.0 to 1.3. In most studies
this term is set to an average value of 1.2.
This study aims at quantifying the additional
cohesion provided by Mediterranean plant roots for
very erodible loamy soils. The friction angle of silt
equals 25 (Pollen and Simon 2005). For our loamy
soils the same friction angle of 25 was selected.
From the results of various shear tests conducted by
Waldron (1977) on various root-permeated soils, the
angles of shear distortion varied between 40 and 50.
The angle of shear distortion is therefore assumed to
equal 45. Then, the bracket term of Eq. 5 equals 1.04
and the equation used in this study to calculate
additional cohesion of root systems growing in silt
loam soils becomes:
P strength or root cohesion vary according to root
Ti ni ai
Cr 1:04 6 architecture (fibrous root systems vs. tap root systems)
A a KruskalWallis test was performed, as the dependent
where Ti is root tensile strength (MPa), ni is the
number of roots in a diameter class, i is root diameter
class, ai is the root cross-sectional area (m2) and A is
the reference area of soil occupied by roots (m2).
Recent studies (Operstein and Frydman 2000;
Pollen and Simon 2005) indicate that estimating the
additional root cohesion with the simple perpendicu-
lar model of Wu et al. (1979) overestimates the true
cohesion added to the soil, because Wus model
assumes that all roots break simultaneously, whereas
in reality and in most cases (1) roots can either be
stretched, pulled out or break and (2) rupture will
occur progressively. In some cases, for quick shear
forces, rupture can also occur almost simultaneously
(Mickovski et al. 2007). Therefore, the calculated root
cohesion values in this study are maximum values.
Nevertheless, these maximum values are still useful to
rank species according to their soil reinforcing
potential.
Statistical analysis
Power law equations were fitted through the root
tensile strength diameter relationships using SAS
Enterprise Guide 4.1. Adjusted R2 values (Eq. 7)
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
were calculated to indicate the goodness of fit of these
relationships (Buijs 2000).
P 2
e = n  m  1
Adjusted R2 1  P
i 2 7
Yi  Y = n  1
P 2 P
2
where ei is error sum of squares and Yi  Y
is total sum of squares, n is the number of
observations and m is the number of variables in the
model.
To test the interspecies differences in root tensile
strength or root cohesion, cluster analysis was
performed in the statistical program SAS Enterprise
Guide 4.1 using the average linkage method. Cluster
analysis groups population elements (e.g. plant
species) based on their values for certain variables
(e.g. parameters of the power law equation) into
groups whereby the similarity in one group is as good
as possible and whereby the differences between
groups are as large as possible (Buijs 2000).
To test if root distribution, mean root tensile
variables are not normally distributed.
Spearman correlation coefficients were established
to assess correlation between root cohesion values
and root variables (i.e. Tr and RAR).
Results
Root tensile strength
As reported in several studies (e.g. Operstein and
Frydman 2000; Tosi 2007; Norris 2005; Mattia et al.
2005; Bischetti et al. 2005) root tensile strength (Tr)
decreases with increasing root diameter (D), following
a power law equation of the form:
Tr aDb 8
The TrD relationships for the species tested in this
study are shown in Fig. 3. Table 1 presents the
parameters and the adjusted-R2 values for the estab-
Fig. 3 Root tensile strength (Tr, MPa) plotted against root b
diameter (D, mm) for roots of 25 typical Mediterranean plants
according to vegetation type: a shrubs, b herbs, reed, rush and
trees, c grasses. Pred Tr represents the predicted tensile strength
values according to the relationships listed in Table 1
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226 215

Shrubs Shrubs
a
Fumana
300 Fumana 300
Teucrium
Teucrium Artemisia
Artemisia
250 Atriplex
250 Atriplex
Nerium
Nerium
Rosmarinus
Rosmarinus

Pred Tr (MPa)
200 200 Salsola
Salsola
Tr (MPa)

Thymus
Thymus
Dorycnium
150 Dorycnium 150
Thymelaea
Thymelaea
Dittrichia
Dittrichia
100 Retama
100 Retama
Ononis
Ononis
Anthyllis
Anthyllis
50 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
D (mm) D (mm)

b Herbs, reeds and trees Herbs, reeds and trees

300 300

250 250
Phragmites Phragmites
Juncus
Juncus
200 200
Pred T r (MPa)

Tamarix
Tamarix
Limonium
Tr (MPa)

Limonium 150
150 Plantago
Plantago

100 100

50 50

0
0
0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8
D (mm)
D (mm)
c Grasses
Grasses

300
300

250 250
Lygeum
Lygeum
Lygeum
Helictotrichon
Helictotrichon
200 Helictotrichon 200
Pred Tr (MPa)

Avenula
Avenula
Avenula
Tr (MPa)

150 Brachypodium
Brachypodium
150 Brachypodium
Stipa
Stipa
Stipa
100 100 Piptatherum
Piptatherum
Piptatherum

50 50

0
0
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
D (mm) D (mm)
216 Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226

Table 1 Parameters (a and b values) and adjusted R2 values for the power relationships (Eq. 8), expressing the decrease in root tensile
strength with increasing root diameter for 25 typical Mediterranean plant species

Plant species name Vegetation type D range (mm) a b n Adjusted-R2 Grouping

Atriplex halimus Shrub 0.234.68 45.59 0.56 38 0.52 a

Salsola genistoides Shrub 0.303.84 44.23 0.51 26 0.58 a
Brachypodium retusum Grass 0.101.45 45.05 0.61 33 0.71 a
Thymelaea hirsuta Shrub 0.182.70 33.31 0.64 52 0.55 b
Phragmites australis Reed 0.107.91 34.29 0.78 20 0.92 b
Limonium supinum Herb 0.343.90 33.82 0.85 30 0.55 b
Tamarix canariensis Tree 0.104.80 31.74 0.89 55 0.42 b
Artemisia barrelieri Shrub 0.162.15 30.12 0.61 32 0.37 b
Stipa tenacissima Grass 0.431.34 24.34 0.61 57 0.22 c
Juncus acutus Rush 0.181.10 23.23 0.89 45 0.66 c
Fumana thymifolia Shrub 0.192.43 15.71 0.66 52 0.53 d
Dorycnium pentaphyllum Shrub 0.274.35 16.32 0.62 48 0.31 d
Teucrium capitatum Shrub 0.222.60 18.72 0.45 51 0.40 d
Dittrichia viscosa Shrub 0.305.50 18.94 0.45 54 0.30 d
Thymus zygis Shrub 0.122.88 19.31 0.73 34 0.63 d
Lygeum spartum Grass 0.262.72 19.28 0.68 50 0.44 d
Plantago albicans Herb 0.212.55 16.75 0.52 50 0.47 d
Rosmarinus officinalis Shrub 0.163.60 12.89 0.77 54 0.63 e
Helictotrichon filifolium Grass 0.341.22 14.51 1.08 53 0.42 e
Piptatherum miliaceum Grass 0.100.64 11.49 1.77 48 0.63 e
Avenula bromoides Grass 0.150.32 4.77 1.52 52 0.60 f
Nerium oleander Shrub 0.094.11 4.41 1.75 30 0.91 f
Ononis tridentata Shrub 0.885.53 9.59 n.s. 46 n.a. n.a.
Anthyllis cytisoides Shrub 0.517.03 8.43 n.s. 54 n.a. n.a.
Retama sphaerocarpa Shrub 0.413.77 16.36 n.s. 28 n.a. n.a.

The species are grouped from having strong to having weak roots in tension. n indicates the number of roots tested per species. n.s.
means not significant and n.a. means not available

lished power law relationships. The diameter range
wherefore the tensile tests were performed is also
indicated in Table 1 for each plant species. Generally,
tensile strength can be well predicted by root
diameter, except for Ononis tridentata, Anthyllis
cytisoides and Retama sphaerocarpa. For these
species, no significant relationship between tensile
strength and root diameter could be observed and
hence mean tensile strength values will be used to
predict root reinforcement. The maximum root tensile
strength values recorded during testing amount to
303 MPa for Nerium oleander (D=0.09 mm) and
267.5 MPa for Tamarix canariensis (D=0.1 mm).
Root tensile strength values (Fig. 3) are in the same
range of root tensile strength values reported by
Bischetti et al. (2005) for forest species in Northern
Italy (e.g. Salix caprea, Salix purpurea). Gray and
Barker (2004) report that shrubs have tensile strengths
comparable to trees.
Mean root tensile strength does not differ signifi-
cantly (p=0.12) according to vegetation type (mono-
cotyledons vs. dicots). However, from the graphs in
Fig. 3, interspecies differences in the TrD relation-
ships can be observed. Plant species with high tensile
strength values for small roots and with a low decay
coefficient (b-value) for the decreasing relationship
between Tr and D are preferred. A cluster analysis
was performed to group species according to their a
and b values from the power relationship predicting Tr
with D. Six clusters could be distinguished. For three
species, i.e. Ononis tridentata, Anthyllis cytisoides
and Retama sphaerocarpa, no significant b-parameters
could be established and hence these species were
excluded from the cluster analysis. In Table 1, the
species are grouped from having strong roots (i.e. high
a values and low b values) to having weak roots (i.e.
low a values and high b values). The results show that
the shrubs Salsola genistoides and Atriplex halimus
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226 217

have the strongest roots. Also shrubs such as Artemisia Shrubs

RAR
barrelieri and Thymelaea hirsuta have strong roots.
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Among grasses, Brachypodium retusum has the stron-
0
gest roots, followed by Stipa tenacissima. Phragmites
australis roots are stronger when compared to Juncus 0.1 Dittrichia
acutus roots. Also the tree Tamarix canariensis and the 0.2
Retama
Thymelaea
herb Limonium supinum have strong roots. The shrub
0.3 Fumana
Nerium oleander and the grass Avenula bromoides Teucrium

Depth (m)
have the weakest roots in tension. Although having 0.4 Dorycnium
very strong small diameter roots, Tr decreases very Ononis
0.5 Anthyllis
rapidly to low Tr values with increasing D for these
Atriplex
plant species. 0.6
Thymus
Rosmarinus
0.7
Root distribution Artemisia

0.8 Salsola
Nerium
A large variability in reference area (A), determined 0.9 Herbs, reed, rush and trees
by the diameter of the vertical projection of the RAR
above-ground biomass (DSV), exists as both small and 0.0000 0.0025 0.0050 0.0075 0.0100
0
large species are considered. For more detailed
information about the size characteristics of the 0.1

studied species reference is made to De Baets et al. 0.2

(2007). The distribution of roots over the different
root diameter classes is also highly variable for the 0.3
Tamarix
Depth (m)

species, but some general trends can be observed for 0.4 Juncus
the different vegetation types; whereas for grasses and Phragmites
0.5 Limonium
herbs the largest proportion of their root biomass
Plantago
consists of roots smaller than 5 mm in diameter, for 0.6

shrubs and trees root distribution over the different 0.7

root diameter classes is highly variable (De Baets
0.8
et al. 2007).
Grasses
The grasses and the rush Juncus acutus have a 0.9
typically dense and fibrous root system (Fig. 1a,d RAR
and g), whereas many shrub species (e.g. Atriplex 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
0
halimus, Salsola genistoides) have a typical tap root
system with branching (Fig. 1b,i). RAR distribution 0.1 Dittrichia
with depth for the 25 typical Mediterranean plant Retama
0.2
species is shown in Fig. 4. The RAR values per soil Thymelaea
Fumana
depth class (0.1 m deep) are represented for the 0.3
Teucrium
Depth (m)

middle of the class and are average values over five 0.4 Dorycnium
medium size plants. Overall, Mediterranean plant Ononis
0.5 Anthyllis
roots occupy less than 1% of the area under the
Atriplex
crown of the plants. RAR for the 00.1 m topsoil 0.6
Thymus
ranges over one order of magnitude, from 0.08% for Rosmarinus
0.7
the grass Piptatherum miliaceum to 0.8% for the tree Artemisia
Salsola
Tamarix canariensis. Greenway (1987) report RAR 0.8
Nerium
values for the topsoil up to 0.5%. Standard errors on 0.9
RAR for different soil depths are presented in Table 2
for a selection of plant species. Generally, standard Fig. 4 Root area ratio (RAR) distribution with depth for 25
errors are small (Table 2). Mean topsoil RAR values typical Mediterranean plant species
218 Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226

Table 2 Mean Root area ratio (RAR, ) values and standard errors (SE) at different soil depths for typical Mediterranean plant species

Name of the species Vegetation type N Soil depth (m) Mean RAR SE

Avenula bromoides Grass 5 0.05 0.0033 0.0020

Lygeum spartum Grass 5 0.15 0.0010 0.0006
0.05 0.0066 0.0017
0.15 0.0025 0.0008
0.25 0.0002 0.0004
Helictotrichon filifolium Grass 5 0.05 0.0066 0.0013
0.15 0.0026 0.0015
Retama sphaerocarpa Shrub 4 0.05 0.0081 0.0012
0.15 0.0062 0.0021
0.25 0.0055 0.0006
0.35 0.0027 0.0002
Salsola genistoides Shrub 5 0.05 0.0031 0.0004
0.15 0.0033 0.0014
0.25 0.0010 0.0005
0.35 0.0005 0.0002
Atriplex halimus Shrub 5 0.05 0.0047 0.0009
0.15 0.0048 0.0015
0.25 0.0018 0.0005
0.35 0.0007 0.0002
0.45 0.0005 0.0002
Dittrichia viscosa Shrub 6 0.05 0.0044 0.0006
0.15 0.0018 0.0005
0.25 0.0012 0.0001
Thymus zygis Shrub 5 0.05 0.0024 0.0002
0.15 0.0004 0.0001
Limonium supinum Herb 5 0.05 0.0023 0.0007
0.15 0.0002 0.0001

N indicates the number of tested individuals per plant species

(00.3 m) for the studied fibrous root systems (all
grasses and the rush Juncus acutus) are not significantly
different from mean topsoil RAR for the studied tap
root systems (all shrubs, herbs, the reed Phragmites
australis and the tree Tamarix canariensis). P-values
for these non-parametric tests are shown in Table 3.
Mean RAR values for the deeper soil layers (e.g. 0.3
0.4 m) are significantly (p=0.02) higher for tap root
systems as compared to fibrous root systems, as almost
no grass roots were present at this depth.
cohesion (Cr) provided by the root systems of
different Mediterranean plant species, calculated with
Wus model, is shown in Fig. 5. It must be stressed
that these calculated Cr values must be seen as
Table 3 P-values from the KruskalWallis test, indicating the
significance (at the 0.05 level) of the difference between mean
root cohesion (Cr) and mean RAR values for fibrous root
systems and tap root systems
p-values

Root cohesion Cr (00.1 m) 0.0025*

Cr (0.10.2 m) 0.0458*
By combining root strengthdiameter relationships or Cr (0.20.3 m) 0.0849
mean root tensile strength (for Ononis tridentata, RAR (00.1 m) 0.8321
RAR (0.10.2 m) 0.3797
Anthyllis cytisoides and Retama sphaerocarpa) with
RAR (0.20.3 m) 0.1176
RAR distributions the potential soil reinforcement by
roots was estimated using Eq. 6. Additional root Asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226 219

Fig. 5 Additional cohesion (Cr) distribution transmitted by the b Shrubs Cr (kPa)

root system to the soil for 25 typical Mediterranean plant 0 40 80 120 160
species 0

0.1
relative values, as recent studies report an overesti- Dittrichia
0.2
mation of root cohesions calculated with Wus model Retama
(Operstein and Frydman 2000; Pollen and Simon 0.3 Thymelaea
2005). Reinforcement generally decreases with in- Fumana

Depth (m)
0.4 Teucrium
creasing soil depth, although root cohesion may
Dorycnium
locally increase with increasing soil depth where root 0.5
Ononis
area ratio increases. The occurrence of high RAR or Anthyllis
0.6
root density values at greater depths probably origi- Atriplex
nates from a nutrient rich layer (Weaver and Clements 0.7 Thymus
Rosmarinus
1938) or more moist soil conditions (Manschadi et al.
0.8 Artemisia
1998) at certain depths. The results (Fig. 5) show that Salsola
grass roots of Helictotrichon filifolium, Avenula 0.9 Nerium
bromoides, Lygeum spartum and Brachypodium retu- Herbs, reed, rush and trees
Cr (kPa)
sum highly increase the soil cohesion in the 00.1 m 0 100 200 300 400
topsoil (i.e. from 100 up to 244 kPa). Juncus acutus 0
provides the maximum root reinforcement (304 kPa).
0.1
Shrubs such as Anthyllis cytisoides or Retama
sphaerocarpa can also increase soil shear strength in 0.2
the topsoil to a large extent (up to 160 kPa). The
0.3 Tamarix
KruskalWallis test reveals that mean root cohesion in
Depth (m)

Juncus
the topsoil (00.2 m) is significantly higher for 0.4
Phragmites
topsoils reinforced with fibrous roots (the studied Limonium
0.5
grasses and Juncus) as compared to topsoils rein- Plantago
forced with tap roots (all tested shrubs, herbs and 0.6

trees) (Table 3). In deeper soil layers (0.20.3 m) root

0.7
cohesion provided by the studied fibrous root systems
is not significantly different anymore (p=0.08) from 0.8

the studied tap root systems. 0.9

Grasses
Cr (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400
Discussion 0

0.1
Root tensile strengthdiameter relationships
0.2
The decrease in root tensile strength with increasing
0.3 Lygeum
root diameter was explained by Genet et al. (2005) by Helictotrichon
differences in root structure. These authors attribute
Depth (m)

0.4 Avenula
this adverse relationship to the higher cellulose Stipa
content in fine roots. They observed that tensile 0.5 Piptatherum
strength increased with decreasing root diameter and Brachypodium
0.6
increasing cellulose content for Pinus pinaster and
Castanea sativa. 0.7

The absence of a relationship between root tensile

0.8
strength and root diameter for Ononis tridentata,
Anthyllis cytisoides and Retama sphaerocarpa is not 0.9
220 Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226

surprising, given the number of factors other than root

diameter controlling Tr. Variations in root age (Genet
et al. 2005), growth rate, directed by variations in soil
moisture content, soil texture and nutrient status, can
be held responsible for the variability in root tensile
strength (Pollen and Simon 2005). The inclusion of
root bark can also explain the poor correlation
between tensile strength and root diameter for
the species mentioned. Ononis tridentata, Anthyllis
cytisoides and Retama sphaerocarpa had rather thick
root barks. Karrenberg et al. (2003) claim that total
root diameter is not a reliable indicator for species
having root barks with a considerable thickness. The
cortex of a root tissue will contribute to the uprooting
resistance by increasing the rootsoil friction through
bark roughness, but is of minor importance when the
mechanical properties of the inside root material are
much better than those of the bark (Karrenberg et al. 250
Lygeum this study
2003).
Operstein and Frydman (2000) and Mattia et al. Lygeum Pred this study
200
(2005) also measured root tensile strength for three
Lygeum Pred M attia
plant species that have been investigated in this study
as well. In Fig. 6 the results of this study were 150
T r (M P a )

compared with the predicted root tensile strength

values based on the relationships found in other
100
studies. It can be observed that the parameters from
the equations have lower values and hence the roots
are weaker in tension in this study as compared with 50
other studies (Table 4). The stronger predicted roots
tensile strength values for Rosmarinus officinalis
0
reported in the study of Operstein and Frydman
0 1 2 3 4 5
(2000) are probably not related to differences in the
D (mm)
method of storage, but can be related to the time
between collecting and storing the roots. Whereas in 250 Rosm arinus this study
the study of Operstein and Frydman (2000) only fresh
roots were tested, in this study roots were stored in an Rosmarinus Pred this study
alcohol solution for several weeks. But Bischetti et al. 200
(2003) showed that storing the roots in alcohol for Rosm arinus P red O perstein &
several months did not much affect tensile strength. Frydman (2000)
150
T r (M P a )

The roots of Atriplex halimus and Lygeum spartum

tested both by Mattia et al. (2005) and in this study,
were stored the same way, but the time between 100
collecting the roots and putting them in an alcohol
solution might have differed. It might be that the 50

Fig. 6 Root tensile strength (Tr) root diameter (D) relation- b 0

ships for three Mediterranean plant species reported in different
studies. Pred indicates predicted values of root tensile strength 0 1 2 3 4 5
(Tr) D (mm)
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
Table 4 Established relationships between root tensile strength (Tr) and root diameter (D) for different plant species and different
studies
Plant species name Equation
Rosmarinus officinalis Tr =12.89D0.77
Rosmarinus officinalis Tr =34.66D0.78
Atriplex halimus Tr =45.59D0.56
Atriplex halimus Tr =72.97D0.60
Lygeum spartum Tr =19.28D0.68
Lygeum spartum Tr =60.73D1.30
R2 indicates the goodness of fit of the model. n.a. means not available
study area in which the species were collected had an
effect on the observed strengthdiameter relation-
ships. The time of harvest, in drought of in humid
periods, can also play a role. Whereas the species
tested by Mattia et al. (2005) were sampled in a
catchment in southern Italy with mean annual rainfall
of 640 mm on clay soils, the tested species for this
study were sampled in a much drier environment
(mean annual rainfall of 290 mm, FAO 2005) on
Quaternary loam deposits or marls. Although, Pollen
(2007) and Tosi (2007) found no significant differ-
ence in tensile breaking strength according to soil
moisture or root moisture content respectively, Gray
and Barker (2004) on the other hand claim that tensile
strengths vary significantly when tested in an air dry
or in a moist state. It is most probable that differences
in environmental growth conditions such as soil
texture, soil moisture or external stresses (e.g. grazing
and wind) explain the observed differences in root
strength. It must be highlighted that the adjusted R2
values for the relationships presented in Fig. 6 are
rather low and even lower for the results reported in
the study of Mattia et al. (2005) as compared to this
study.
According to Tosi (2007) differences between in
situ tensile forces required for breaking a root and
laboratory tensile strength values for root diameters
<5 mm, are negligible. In spite of this, test speed
might be important. In order to determine an
appropriate test speed, the process of interest should
be considered. The expansion or retreat of gully
systems by mass movements occurs by falls, slides or
slumps, at a speed that is much faster than soil creep
(i.e. > a few mm/year), but these velocities can be
extremely variable. Velocities ranging between 1
300 mm/min are recorded for rapid landslides
(Cruden and Varnes 1996). To simulate root lodging
221
R2 Reference
0.63 This study
n.a. Operstein and Frydman (2000)
0.52 This study
0.30 Mattia et al. (2005)
0.44 This study
0.38 Mattia et al. (2005)
by wind, lower test speeds were reported (i.e. 5 mm/min,
Ennos et al. 1993). In this study a test speed was
selected similar to the one reported in other studies
simulating the same process (e.g. Mattia et al. 2005,
Bischetti et al. 2003), i.e. 10 mm/min. However, when
a critical tensile strength has to be assessed for very
slow soil erosion processes, tensile strength tests should
be performed at a smaller test speed. Cofie and Koolen
(2001) show an increase in the stress-strain relation-
ships with increasing elongation rate. This indicates that
when roots are stretched at velocities lower than
10 mm/min, roots may support lower stresses than the
ones measured in this study.
Root area ratio calculation
The obtained RAR values should be treated with
caution, as the assumptions made for the calculations
are not validated with measurements. Nevertheless,
the obtained RAR values are in the same order of the
RAR values measured by Mattia et al. (2005).
Theoretical calculations on roots that were assumed
to grow under a given angle (30 or 45 from vertical)
for a similar root length justify the assumptions.
Similar RAR values were obtained for roots (1)
growing vertically, (2) under an angle of 30 and (3)
under an angle of 45 for the same total root length in
a given volume of soil (Table 5). In other words, the
overestimation of total number of roots crossing a
cross-sectional plane was compensated by the under-
estimation of root cross-sectional area for situation (1)
as compared to situations (2) or (3).
As it is difficult to put grass roots in their original
position after excavation, small errors might have
occurred while assigning roots to a certain depth
class. Topsoil RAR values for grasses might therefore
be underestimated, whereas root length, root number
222
Table 5 Theoretical calculations of root area ratio (RAR) for three different situations of root growth direction: (1) roots growing
vertically, (2) roots growing under an angle of 30 from vertical, (3) roots growing under an angle of 45 from vertical
(1)
Root angle () 0 30
Root length (m) 10
Number of roots 100
ar (m2) 0.25 10-6
RAR (-) 0.0250 10-4
ar is mean root cross-sectional area (m2 )
and RAR values for grasses at larger depth might be
overestimated. However, the maximum depth at
which roots were growing in the soil was recorded
and after excavation roots were laid out in such a way
that no roots exceeded this maximum depth. Hence,
these errors are assumed to be very small.
Root reinforcement
In this study root cohesion (Cr) was calculated using a
simple perpendicular model and ranges between
0.07 kPa for the shrub Nerium oleander and
304 kPa for the rush Juncus acutus. Greenway
(1987) reports root cohesion values up to 40 kPa for
trees. Perpendicular root models can be considered
static models. In fact, they estimate maximum root
reinforcement as they assume that all roots in a soil
matrix reach their maximum tensile strength when
breaking at a single instance in time. However, in
reality, as a soil block shears, the roots within this
block have different tensile strengths and thus break
progressively, with an associated redistribution of the
stress as each root breaks (Pollen and Simon 2005).
Moreover, during soil shearing, some roots break,
some are just stretched and some intact roots are
pulled out of the soil. Pollen (2007) reports that root
breaking is likely to be the dominant mode of root
failure in dry soils or those with high shear strengths,
whereas soils that are moist or have lower soil
strength will exhibit greater root pull-out than
breaking. Applying Wus model will thus always
account for the maximum possible increase in soil
shear strength by assuming that all roots break and
that they break simultaneously.
During recent years, a new model has been
developed to estimate additional root cohesion. This
so-called fiber bundle model assumes that the load
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
Situation
(2) (3)
45
10 10
90.9 71.4
0.28 10-6 0.35 10-6
0.0255 10-4 0.0252 10-4
from the broken fibers is distributed evenly between
the remaining intact fibers, according to their diam-
eters (Pollen and Simon 2005). Pollen and Simon
(2005) found that in cases where driving forces were
large enough to break all roots, the perpendicular
model overestimated root reinforcement by up to
100% as compared to the calculations they performed
with the fiber bundle model RipRoot. The overesti-
mation even increases an order of magnitude in model
runs where the driving forces did not exceed root
strength. From the results reported by Pollen and
Simon (2005), it seems that for grasses a reduction
factor of 0.48 needs to be adopted, whereas for trees
the reduction factor ranges between 0.6 and 0.82.
These reduction factors depend on plant species and
on the number of roots crossing the shear plane.
Operstein and Frydman (2000) reported an over-
estimation of root cohesion values by up to 400%
calculated according to Wus model. They observed
lower increase in soil shear strength measured during
in situ shear test as compared with the model
estimates provided by the equation of Wu. These
authors presented the following equation for the
increase in soil shear strength (Cr) due to the presence
of plant roots, using the total mobilized tensile
strength of root fibers per unit area of soil (tR)
based on direct shear tests and in situ root pull-out
measurements:
Cr 0:25 tR 9
On the basis of the simple theoretical model of Wu
et al. (1979) the increase in soil shear strength
amounts approximately to 1.2 tR. This means that a
reduction factor of 0.21 should be applied according
to Operstein and Frydman (2000). The root cohesion
values obtained in this study (Fig. 5) thus must not be
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
Cr (kPa)
0 25 50 75 100 125
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Depth (m)
0.4
0.5
Atriplex this study
0.6
0.7
Atriplex Mattia et al. (2005)
Lygeum this study
0.8
Lygeum Mattia et al. (2005)
0.9
Fig. 7 Root cohesion (Cr) distribution within the soil reported
in different studies for two Mediterranean plant species
regarded at as correct absolute values. In reality, based
on the data reported by Operstein and Frydman
(2000) and Pollen and Simon (2005), root cohesion
provided by the roots of these species, will be much
lower as presented in Fig. 5. So, for purposes where
correct absolute additional root cohesion values are
required, the values presented in this study are to be
reduced by factors probably ranging between 0.21 and
0.82, depending on soil properties, plant species and the
number of roots crossing a potential shear plane. It is
therefore recommended to perform in situ shear strength
measurements or to use more sophisticated models,
such as RipRoot, for more accurate calculations.
Nevertheless, the relative order of species, based on
the maximum values obtained with Wus model, allows
one to make a selection of the most suitable species for
application in erosion control measures.
Root cohesion values for Atriplex halimus and
Lygeum spartum obtained in this study were com-
pared with the results reported by Mattia et al. (2005).
The method used to calculate root cohesion was
similar in both studies. Figure 7 shows that root
cohesion values reported in this study are higher than
the ones reported by Mattia et al. (2005). Although
Mattia et al. (2005) report stronger tensile strength
diameter relationships for these species (Fig. 2), they
described root area ratios for the topsoil being one
order of magnitude smaller than the root area ratios
reported in this study. This explains the lower root
223
cohesion values found by Mattia et al. (2005).
Differences in RAR values probably result from
differences in plant size and environmental growth
conditions between both studies.
Relative contribution of root density and root tensile
strength to root reinforcement
Abernethy and Rutherford (2001) state that interspe-
cies differences in tensile strength are probably less
significant in increasing soil shear strength than are
interspecies differences in root distribution. Simon
and Collison (2002) also report that both for woody
species and for grasses, overall, root area ratio is more
important than root strength for increasing soil shear
strength. The model used to calculate additional
cohesion (Eq. 6) also indicates that for a given root
area, smaller root diameters will yield a larger root
cohesion values than larger diameter roots (Waldron
and Dakessian 1982) as smaller roots are stronger per
unit area. van Beek et al. (2005) also report that fine
root content is an important factor explaining root
reinforcement of the topsoil. The non-linear relation-
ship between root diameter and strength led several
authors to suggest that the optimum life-form for
shallow slope stabilization are grasses and shrubs,
which combine large numbers of small, strong roots
with little surcharge (Simon and Collison 2002).
Waldron and Dakessian (1982) found that some
grasses gave about a threefold increase in soil
shearing resistance as compared to rootless soils. Tree
roots produced shear resistance comparable to grass
roots only after a much longer period of growth
(Waldron and Dakessian 1982). In this study, mean
root cohesion in the topsoil (00.2 m) was signifi-
cantly higher for topsoils reinforced with fibrous roots
(grasses and the rush Juncus) as compared to topsoils
reinforced with tap root systems (shrubs, herbs, trees
and the reed Phragmites). This study supports the
findings of Davidson et al. (1991). In their study the
increase of soil reinforcement by roots was also
smaller for species with a tap root system than for
plants with a more diffuse pattern for a similar root
mass. In this study plants having a fibrous root system
did not have significantly higher root area ratios as
compared to plants having tap root systems, but for
soils permeated by plants having fibrous root systems
the large number of fine strong roots resulted in the
highest amount of soil reinforcement.
224
One may not forget that roots cannot increase
the soil shearing resistance unless many of them
grow into and through the potential shear surfaces
(Waldron and Dakessian 1982). Cammeraat et al.
(2005) claim that the root reinforcing effect of
Mediterranean vegetation is limited and only present
in the upper 0.4 m of topsoil. The results of this
study (Fig. 5) confirm this finding: only the top
0.5 m of gully walls, hillslopes or terraces can be
well stabilized by Mediterranean matorral species.
Many failures, however, occur at greater depths
(1.01.2 m), and anchorage by roots is often
absent there. So, anchoring the soil over a large
depth is important as well. The plants discussed in
this study can only reinforce the soil over a depth
of 0.5 m. Hence, walls of gullies higher than
0.5 m can generally not be stabilized by Mediter-
ranean shrubs. Root type and soil moisture
conditions are important as well. With a low tap
root density and very wet soil conditions, soil
might flow (i.e. liquefaction) around the tap roots
(Cammeraat et al. 2005). According to Reubens et
al. (2007) a woody species with a large, deep and
strong central part of the root system, having some
rigid vertical roots penetrating deeply into the soil
and anchoring into firm strata, as well as a large
number of finer roots numerously branching from
the main lateral roots would be most effective to
increase slope stability at shallow depth.
Implications for erosion protection strategies
Grasses, such as Lygeum spartum, Helictotrichon
filifolium or Brachypodium retusum, increasing soil
shear strength from 100 up to 244 kPa, can be planted
on terrace walls to stabilize the 00.20 m topsoil.
Helictotrichon filifolium and Brachypodium retusum
will grow well on north-facing slopes, whereas
Lygeum spartum is better resistant to drought. Lygeym
spartum can be planted as well in natural drainage
lines or on gully bottoms to prevent soil detachment
by water (De Baets et al. 2007). More deeply rooted
shrubs, such as Anthyllis cytisoides, Salsola genis-
toides, Atriplex halimus or Retama sphaerocarpa can
be used to stabilize gully walls as they provide an
extra cohesion up to 0.50 m soil depth. The tree
Tamarix canariensis can be planted for preventing
mass movements on riverbanks. The rush Juncus
acutus can be planted in moist environments, such as
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
ephemeral valley floors, to prevent channel deepening
(De Baets et al. 2007).
Conclusions
Generally, smaller diameter roots had higher tensile
strengths, but the decline in root tensile strength with
increasing root diameter varied for the 25 tested
Mediterranean plant species. Although having many
fine roots, not all grass species appeared to have
strong roots. Whereas the grasses Brachypodium
retusum and Lygeum spartum had strong roots,
Avenula bromoides had very weak roots. The shrubs
Salsola genistoides and Atriplex halimus had the
strongest roots, whereas the roots from Nerium
oleander were easily broken. Phragmites australis
roots were found to be stronger as compared with
Juncus acutus roots. The tree Tamarix canariensis
and the herb Limonium supinum also had strong roots.
The area occupied by roots, relative to the area
determined by the vertical projection of the above-
ground biomass, was highest for the tree Tamarix
canariensis (0.8%) and lowest for the grass Piptathe-
rum miliaceum (0.08%). The simple perpendicular
model of Wu was then used to calculate soil
reinforcement by action of roots. The rush Juncus
acutus provided the highest increase in soil shear
strength in the topsoil (i.e. 304 kPa), followed by
most grasses, providing an additional cohesion up to
244 kPa (Brachypodium retusum) and the shrubs
Retama sphaerocarpa and Anthyllis cytisoides, in-
creasing soil cohesion up to 134 and 160 kPa
respectively. The results show that whereas grasses
and the rush Juncus increase soil shear strength in the
topsoil (00.10 m) to a large extent, the shrubs
Anthyllis cytisoides, Retama sphaerocarpa, Salsola
genistoides and Atriplex halimus strongly reinforce
the soil to a greater depth (00.5 m).
Larger root cohesion values were obtained in this
study as compared with those reported in other
studies. This is not surprising, as environmental
factors affect root distribution. Moreover, previous
studies using other techniques or more sophisticated
models to calculate root cohesion, report an overes-
timation of the predicted root cohesion values using
Wus model. However, for the purpose of this study,
which aimed at evaluating plant species for preventing
shallow mass movements, the obtained root cohesion
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
values could be used to rank species according to their
potential for slope stabilization.
Acknowledgements This research is part of the RECONDES
(Conditions for Restoration and Mitigation of Desertified Areas
Using Vegetation) project funded by the European Commission,
Directorate-General of Research, Global Change and Desertifi-
cation Programme, Project No. GOCE-CT-2003505361.
References
Abernethy B, Rutherford ID (2001) The distribution and
strength of riparian tree roots in relation to riverbank
reinforcement. Hydrol Process 15:6379
Aerts R, Maes W, November E, Behailu M, Poesen J, Deckers J,
Hermy M, Muys B (2006) Surface runoff and seed trapping
efficiency of shrubs in a regenerating semiarid woodland in
northern Ethiopia. Catena 65:6170
Bischetti GB, Bonfanti F, Greppi M (2003) Misura della
resitenza alla trazione delle radice: apparato sperimentale
e metodologica danalisi. Quaderni di Idronomia Montana.
21:349360 (in Italian)
Bischetti GB, Chiaradia EA, Simonato T, Speziali B, Vitali B,
Vullo P, Zocco A (2005) Root strength and root area ratio
of forest species in Lombardy (Northern Italy). Plant Soil
278:1122
Bhm W (1979) Methods of studying root systems. Springer,
Heidelberg
Buijs A (2000) Statistiek om Mee Verder te Werken. Stenfert
Kroese, Groningen
Cammeraat E, van Beek R, Kooijman A (2005) Vegetation
succession and its consequences for slope stability in SE
Spain. Plant Soil 278:135147
Castillo VM, Mosch WM, Conesa Garcia C, Barbera GG,
Navarro Cano JA, Lopez-Bermudez F (2007) Effectiveness
and geomorphological impacts of check dams for soil
erosion control in a semiarid Mediterranean catchment: El
Crvavo (Murcia, Spain). Catena 70:416427
Cofie P, Koolen AJ (2001) Test speed and other factors
affecting the measurements of tree root properties used in
soil reinforcement models. Soil Tillage Res 63:5156
Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes.
In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Special report 247:
landslides, investigation and mitigation. Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp 3671
Davidson DW, Kapustka LA, Koch RG (1991) The role of
plant root distribution and strength in moderating erosion
of red clay in the Lake Superior watershed. Trans Wis
Acad Sci Arts Lett 77:5163
De Baets S, Poesen J, Knapen A, Barber GG, Navarro JA
(2007) Root characteristics of representative Mediterranean
plant species and their erosion-reducing potential during
concentrated runoff. Plant Soil 294:169183
Dupuy L, Fourcaud T, Stokes A (2005) A numerical investigation
into the influence of soil type and root architecture on tree
anchorage. Plant Soil 278:119134
Ennos AR (1990) The anchorage of leek seedlings the effect
of root length and soil strength. Ann Bot 65:409416
225
Ennos AR, Crook MJ, Grimshaw C (1993) A comparative
study of the anchorage systems of Himalyan Balsam
Impatiens glandulifera and Mature Sunflower Helicanthus
annuus. J Exp Bot 258:133146
FAO (2005) New_LocClim software local climate estimator.
Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper N
20. Environment and Natural Resources Service, FAO,
Rome, Italy (CD-ROM)
Genet M, Stokes A, Salin F, Mickovski SB, Fourcaud T,
Dumail J, van Beek R (2005) The influence of cellulose
content on tensile strength in tree roots. Plant Soil 278:19
Gray DH, Barker D (2004) Root-soil mechanics and interactions.
In: Bennett JJ, Simon A (eds) Riparian vegetation and
fluvial geomorphology. Water Science and Application 8.
American Geophyisical Union, New York, pp 113123
Gray DH, Leiser AT (1982) Biotechnical slope protection and
erosion control. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
York, p 271
Gray DH, Sotir RB (1996) Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering
Slope Stabilization: a practical guide for erosion control.
Wiley, Toronto, p 365
Greenway DR (1987) Vegetation and slope stability. In:
Anderson MG, Richards KS (eds) Slope stability: geo-
technical engineering and geomorphology. Wiley, Chichester,
pp 187230
Greenwood JR (2005) SLIP4EX A program for routine slope
stability analysis to include the effects of vegetation,
reinforcement and hydrological changes. Plant Soil
24:449465
Gyssels G, Poesen J, Bochet E, Li Y (2005) Impact of plant
roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water: a
review. Prog Phys Geog 29:189217
Karrenberg S, Blaser S, Kollmann J, Speck T, Edwards PJ
(2003) Root anchorage of saplings and cuttings of woody
pioneer species in a riparian environment. Funct Ecol
17:170177
Lesschen JP, Kok K, Verburg PH, Cammeraat LH (2007)
Identification of vulnerable areas for gully erosion under
different scenarios of land abandonment in Southeast
Spain. Catena 71:110121
Manschadi AM, Sauerborn J, Sttzel H, Gbel W, Saxena
MC (1998) Simulation of faba bean root system
development under Mediterranean conditions. Eur J
Agron 9:259272
Mattia C, Bischetti GB, Gentile F (2005) Biotechnical
characteristics of root systems of typical Mediterranean
species. Plant Soil 278:2332
Mickovski SB, Bengough AG, Bransby MF, Davies MCR,
Hallett PD, Sonneberg R (2007) The effect of willow roots
on the shear strength of soil. In: Dazzi C (ed) Changing
soils in a changing world: the soils of tomorrow. Book of
Abstracts of the 5th international congress of the European
Society for Soil Conservation (ESCC), Palermo University,
June 2530, 2007, p 117
Morgan RPC (2005) Soil erosion and conservation, 3rd edn.
Blackwell, Oxford (UK), p 299
Norris JE (2005) Root reinforcement by hawthorn and oak
roots on a highway cut-slope in Southern England. Plant
Soil 278:4353
Operstein V, Frydman S (2000) The influence of vegetation on
soil strength. Ground Improv 4:8189
226
Poesen JWA, Hooke JM (1997) Erosion, flooding and channel
management in Mediterranean environments of southern
Europe. Prog Phys Geogr 21:157199
Poesen J, Nachtergaele J, Verstraeten G, Valentin C (2003)
Gully erosion and environmental change: importance and
research needs. Catena 50:91133
Pollen N (2007) Temporal and spatial variability in root
reinforcement of streambanks: accounting for soil shear
strength and moisture. Catena 69:197205
Pollen N, Simon A (2005) Estimating the mechanical effects of
riparian vegetation on stream bank stability using a fiber
bundle model. Water Resour Res 41:111
Reubens B, Poesen J, Danjon F, Geudens G, Muys B (2007)
The role of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability
and soil erosion control with a focus on root system
architecture: a review. Trees 21:385402
SAS Entreprise Guide 4.1 (2006) SAS enterprise guide 4.1
(4.1.0.471) for Windows. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC,
USA
Sidle RC, Ziegler AD, Negishi JN, Nik AR, Siew R,
Turkelboom F (2006) Erosion processes in steep terrain
truths, myths, and uncertainties related to forest man-
agement in Southeast Asia. For Ecol Manag 224:
199225
Plant Soil (2008) 305:207226
Simon A, Collison A (2002) Quantifying the mechanical and
hydrological effects of riparian vegetation on streambank
stability. Earth Surf Process Landf 27:527546
Simon A, Pollen N, Langendoen E (2006) Influence of two
woody riparian species on critical conditions for stream-
bank stability: upper Truckee river, California. J Am Water
Resour Assoc 42:99113
Tosi M (2007) Root tensile strength relationships and their
slope stability implications of three shrub species in
Northern Apennines (Italy). Geomorphology 87:268283
van Beek LPH, Wint J, Cammeraat LH, Edwards JP (2005)
Observation and simulation of root reinforcement on
abandoned Mediterranean slopes. Plant Soil 278:5574
Waldron LJ (1977) The shear resistance or root-permeated
homogeneous and stratified soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J
41:843849
Waldron LJ, Dakessian S (1982) Effect of grass, legume and
tree roots on soil shearing resistance. Soil Sci Soc Am J
46:894899
Weaver JE, Clements FE (1938) Plant ecology. McGraw-Hill,
New York
Wu TH, McKinnell WP III, Swanston DN (1979) Strength of
tree roots and landslides on Prince of Wales Island,
Alaska. Can Geotech J 16:1933