Plant and Soil 131: 59-66, 1991.

1991 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. PLSO 8546

Penetrometer resistance, root penetration resistance and root elongation

rate in two sandy loam soils

A.G. BENGOUGH 1 and C.E. MULLINS

Plant and Soil Science Department, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB9 2 UE, UK. IPresent address:
Soil-Plant Dynamics Group, Cellular and Environmental Physiology Department, Scottish Crop
Research Institute, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK

Received 2 January 1990. Revised August 1990

Key words: maize, mechanical stress, penetrometer, root growth, sandy loam

Abstract

Root penetration resistance and elongation of maize seedling roots were measured directly in
undisturbed cores of two sandy loam soils. Root elongation rate was negatively correlated with root
penetration resistance, and was reduced to about 50 to 60% of that of unimpeded controls by a
resistance of between 0.26 and 0.47 MPa. Resistance to a 30 semiangle, 1 mm diameter penetrometer
was between about 4.5 and 7.5 times greater than the measured root penetration resistance. However,
resistance to a 5 semiangle, 1 mm diameter probe was approximately the same as the resistnace to root
penetration after subtracting the frictional component of resistance. The diameter of roots grown in the
undisturbed cores was greater than that of roots grown in loose soil, probably as a direct result of the
larger mechanical impedance in the cores.

Introduction We have found only two studies in which both

Experiments on the effect of mechanical impe-
dance on rate of root growth have generally
fallen into one of two categories. Firstly, those
which use an empirical measure of soil strength
such as penetrometer resistance (e.g. Taylor and
Ratliff, 1969) and those which attempt to apply a
'known' resistance to root growth by growing
plant roots in a pressurised artificial medium,
such as ballotini (Abdalla et al., 1969; Gill and
Miller, 1956; Goss, 1977). However, both ex-
perimental approaches are subject to consider-
able uncertainty. Penetrometer resistance is a
factor of between 2 and 8 times greater than the
root penetration resistance (Whiteley et al.,
1981) and in externally pressurised media, root
penetration resistance does not have an easily
predictable relation to the externally applied
pressure (Bengough and Mullins, 1990a; Rich-
ards and Greacen, 1986).
the root penetration resistance and the root elon-
gation rate were measured directly in the same
soil (Eavis, 1967; Stolzy and Barley, 1968). Stol-
zy and Barley (1968) used a proving ring to
measure the force exerted by two individual pea
radicles growing into remoulded cores of sandy
loam soil. The roots grew at 0.44 mm h -1 in soil
with root penetration resistance of 0.46 MPa as
compared with 1 mm h -1 in loose soil crumbs.
Eavis (1967) used a dead-load technique in
which a weight was attached to a pea seedling
such that if the root exerted more force on the
soil than the attached weight, the weight was
lifted due to the growth of the root. By using a
series of increasing weights the approximate
force exerted by the root was determined. Final
root length and root force was measured for a
range of soil bulk densities and matric potentials.
The relation obtained (leaving out points where
aeration was limiting) is shown in Figure 1.
60 Bengough and Mullins
1.0
oO%
0.8 0
E
0 0
0.6
0
o %
0.4
s
I.IJ
0.2
0.0 i i t i
0.0 0.1 0.2
Root resistance (MPa)
Fig. I. Axial root force/root cross sectional area versus
elongation rate of pea seedling roots in remoulded cores of
sandy loam soil (calculated from Eavis, 1967).
The results reported by Eavis are of sufficient
importance to merit an independent study using
an improved technique for measuring root force
on a different species. The first aim of this paper
is, therefore, to quantify the effect of mechanical
impedance on maize root elongation rate in un-
disturbed soil cores by measuring root penetra-
tion resistance directly and recording the average
elongation rate of these roots.
Root penetration resistance and penetrometer
resistance are defined as the force exerted by the
root or probe divided by its cross sectional area
(Bengough and Mullins, 1990b). Greacen et al.
(1968) suggested that both roots and 'sharp'
penetrometers (i.e. penetrometers with a small
cone angle) deform the soil cylindrically, which
requires less pressure than the spherical de-
formation caused by 'blunt' penetrometers. They
also suggested that roots experience virtually no
frictional resistance, in contrast to penetrometers
which often have a high component of frictional
resistance. Greacen and Oh (1972) used the
resistance to a 5 semi-angle probe minus the
frictional resistance as an estimate of the root
penetration resistance, while Voorhees et al.
(1975) found better correlations between root
elongation rate and penetrometer resistance (to
a 5 semi-angle probe) after the frictional compo-
nent of resistance was subtracted off. Our second
aim was, therefore, to test the hypothesis that
the soil resistance to root penetration is the same
as that experienced by a sharp penetrometer,
once the component of frictional resistance on
the penetrometer has been subtracted off.
Materials and methods
0
Preparation of soil cores
Undisturbed soil cores were collected from two
fields (Big Ground and Plum Orchard) at the
i !
Institute of Horticultural Research, Welles-
0.3 0.4 bourne.
Two shallow pits several metres apart were dug
at each site to provide replicate samples, and soil
cores (56 mm diameter x 40 mm) were extracted
from 0.12 to 0.20 m depth. The cores were sea-
led at field moisture content and stored at 10C
until required for use. Details of the physical and
chemical properties of the soils are given in
Young (1987), and some of the soil properties
are summarised in Table 1.
The soil cores were saturated overnight with
distilled water (containing 'Phorate' systemic in-
secticide to kill small numbers of springtail in-
sects which had been observed on the cores) and
then equilibrated at - 1 0 kPa matric potential on
a tension table for 5 to 7 days. After equilibra-
tion, cores were wrapped in a layer of plastic film
containing a small (10 mm diameter) hole for the
root. The rate of water loss from the polythene
covered core was less than about 0.3 g day -1. To
test whether the insecticide affected maize root
elongation rates, root elongation rates were mea-
sured for 56 seedlings grown in moist horticultur-
al vermiculite which was watered with either
distilled water or with insecticide solution. The
average root elongation rate of the insecticide
treated seedlings (averaged over 3 days) was
within 3% of that of the controls, and this differ-
ence was not statistically significant.
Seed germination and pre-selection
To reduce variability between replicate seed-
lings, maize seeds (cv. Artus) were graded by
weight, and only seeds with masses within one
standard deviation of the mean were used. Seven
seeds per core were sown on moist vermiculite,
and left in the dark to germinate (at about 20C).
 Root resistance and elongation rate 61

Table 1. Details of soils used

Soil property Soil
Big Ground Plum Orchard
% mineral matter a
by mass of
2-0.2 mm 46 49
200-60 ttm 22 20
60-20 p.m 7 6
20-2 # m 10 9
<2/xm 15 16
% by mass organic matter ~ 1.67 2.29
% air filled porosity 10 10
(at - 10 kPa matric potential)
Dry bulk density (Mg m -3) 1.77 1.67
% moisture content 13.3 16.3
(at - 10 kPa matric potential)
a From Young (1987).

4ram
Root lengths were measured 2.0 and 2.5 days (")
after planting, and root growth rates during this I

interval calculated. One seedling with a straight

lm4< " -_-
I I ~, p
main root and having an elongation rate near the T
mean for the seven was selected for each experi-
ment. Root diameter was measured 2, 3, and
4 mm behind the tip, using a Vernier microscope.
The average of these three readings was taken as
the initial root diameter.
(b)

V- s 1
P i

Technique for measuring root resistance i I

The method for measuring root force was similar
to that of Whiteley et al. (1981) in which roots
were grown into a soil core placed on a top pan
balance (Fig. 2). The experiment was designed
such that each root was held vertically and an-
chored rigidly behind the zone of elongation.
The air gap between the root holder and the soil
core surface was made as small as possible to
reduce the likelihood of the root buckling.
The seedling root was slid gently through a
short length of plastic tubing into a narrowly
tapered performed hole (1.5 to 2 mm deep) in
the surface of a prepared soil core (Fig. 2). The
root was then fixed in position with a small
quantity of plaster of Paris, and the whole seed-
ling covered with moist horticultural vermiculite,
previously equilibrated at - 0 . 8 kPa matric
potential, using a Haines apparatus.
The soil core itself was on the balance pan of a
tared electronic balance (accurate to within
I '1
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of apparatus used to measure root
force. A maize seedling (S) root was inserted through a short
plastic tube (T) so that the root tip pushed down into a small
hole in the soil core (SC), registering a reading on the
electronic balance (E). The root was anchored in position
with plaster of Paris (P) and the seedling covered with moist
expanded vermiculite (V). (a) Root in tube. (b) Final ar-
rangement.
0.01 g). The whole apparatus was then covered
with a double thickness of black polythene to
exclude light.
Seedlings were only briefly exposed to ordi-
nary levels of room lighting during the anchoring
of the roots with plaster of Paris.
Balance readings were taken automatically
every 5.3 minutes during the first 12 hours by a
62 Bengough and Mullins
microcomputer interfaced to the balance output
and stored on cassette tape. There was negligible
drift in the balance readings during each ex-
perimental run. The root was allowed to elon-
gate for a further 8 hours and then was exca-
vated out of the soil core. Final root diameter
was measured 2 to 5 mm behind the apex by
hand sectioning the root using pith and a fine
razor blade. Because the root circumference was
often quite distorted and irregular, several sec-
tions were cut and two perpendicular diameters
were measured for each section using a mi-
croscope with graticule scale. The average of
these readings was taken as the final root diam-
eter, and root length was also recorded.
Because it was not possible to maintain accur-
ate temperature control, temperature was con-
tinuously monitored using a thermograph. After
completing each experiment, part of the soil was
passed through a 2-mm sieve and repacked ve T
loosely to a bulk density of about 0.7g c m - .
Maize root elongation rates were measured for
eight seedlings in sieved Big G r o u n d soil and
seven seedlings in the sieved Plum Orchard soil
to obtain a reference rate of elongation in soil
with negligible root penetration resistance.
Penetrometer resistance
Penetration resistance to 0.5 and 1 mm diameter
30 semi-angle penetrometer probes was meas-
ured in each intact soil core, both before and
after each root resistance experiment. All pene-
Table 2. Mean maize root penetration resistances, elongation rates and diameters in undisturbed soil cores (standard errors of the
mean are shown in brackets)
Root penetration resistance
Force/initial area (MPa)
Force/final area (MPa)
Root diameter: Initial (mm)
Final (mm)
Root elongation rates
In undisturbed cores a (mm/hour)
sieved soilsb (mm/hour)
a Temperature = 22-24.5C.
b Temperature = 20-21C.
trations were performed at a penetration rate of
4 m m min -1. In a separate experiment, soil re-
sistance to a 5 1 mm diameter penetrometer was
measured on a replicate set of equilibrated cores,
and the angle of soil-metal friction estimated
using an inclined plane (Bengough, 1988).
Results
Root force, diameter and elongation rate
Seven out of eight maize roots penetrated cores
of both soils. Average root force was calculated
over the growth period when the root was be-
tween 2 and 5 mm long (assuming a constant rate
of elongation). The mean root penetration resist-
ance was calculated by dividing the root force by
either the initial or the final root cross sectional
area averaged between 2 and 5 mm behind the
tip. Average values of root resistance, diameter
and elongation rate for both soils are given in
Table 2.
Root elongation rates and diameters did not
differ significantly between the two soils, and
neither did the root resistances based on the
initial root cross sectional area. The root resist-
ance based on the final root cross sectional area
was significantly greater for Plum Orchard than
for Big G r o u n d soil. Final root diameter was
significantly greater than the initial diameter in
each soil.
Soil
Big Ground Plum Orchard
0.38 (0.08) 0.47 (0.06)
0.26 (0.03) 0.38 (0.04)
1.14 (0.02) 1.12 (0.02)
1.35 (0.07) 1.36 (0.08)
1.06 (0.09) 0.88 (0.11)
1.32 (0.07) 1.32 (0.07)

Table 3. Penetrometer resistance in Big Ground and Plum Orchard soils, for different probes before and after the root resistance
experiment (standard errors of the mean are shown in brackets)
Penetrometer probe
Diameter (ram) Semiangle ()
1 30
1 30
0.5 30
0.5 30
l 5
n.a. = not applicable: root resistance not measured in these soil cores.
Penetrometer resistance
Mean values of penetrometer resistance are
shown in Table 3. Penetrometer resistance was
significantly greater ( P < 0 . 0 1 ) after (than be-
fore) the root growth experiment, and the
0.5 mm diameter probe encountered significantly
greater resistance (although less total force) than
the 1 mm diameter probe. Resistance to the 5
probe was slightly (but not significantly) greater
than to the 30 probe of the same diameter. The
angle of soil-metal friction was measured to be
31 for remoulded cores of Big G r o u n d soil and
35 for remoulded cores of Plum Orchard soil.
Discussion
Root elongation rate and soil resistance
Maize root growth rates in the undisturbed soil
cores were considerably lower than in the sieved
soils, because of higher mechanical resistance to
root elongation a n d / o r poorer aeration in the
undisturbed cores. The cores equilibrated at
- 1 0 kPa had air-filled porosites of 10% for both
soils (Table 1). Although we cannot be certain,
these values suggest that it is unlikely that re-
stricted aeration was a major limitation to root
growth.
The significant increase in root tip diameter
during growth into the undisturbed cores of both
soils (Table 1) is an effect that has been ob-
served in response both to mechanical impe-
dance and to restricted oxygen supply to the
roots (Eavis and Payne, 1969).
Maize roots grew in undisturbed cores at
about 65 to 80% of their rate in the sieved soil
Root resistance and elongation rate 63
Penetration Penetrometer resistance (MPa)
performed Big Ground Plum Orchard
before 1.72 (0.24) 2.53 (0.34)
after 2.43 (0.22) 3.23 (0.28)
before 2.61 (0.43) 4.09 (0.64)
after 3.11 (0.37) 4.73 (0.99)
n.a. 2.60 (0.44) 2.88 (0.33)
(although the sieved soil temperature was about
3C lower than that of the undisturbed cores).
Assuming that the relative rate of increase in
root elongation rate with temperature in the
sieved soils is the same as that measured in
vermiculite between 21 and 24C (Bengough,
1988), the maize roots would grow at about
1.77 mm h -1 in the sieved soil at 23C. Thus, the
maize roots grew through the undisturbed soil
cores at about 50 to 60% of their estimated
growth rate through the sieved soil.
The reduction in root elongation rate caused
by the soil resistance measured in these experi-
ments differs considerably from the results of
experiments performed in pressurised cells of
ballotini (Abdalla et al., 1969; Goss, 1977). Goss
(1977) found that an external confining pressure
of only 0.025 MPa was sufficient to reduce maize
root elongation rates to about 70% of controls.
This contrasts with the maize root resistances
measured in these experiments of about 0.26 to
0.47 MPa. Thus, there is an order of magnitude
difference in the pressure required to cause a 50
to 70% reduction in root growth rate between
these results and those of Goss (1977). If aera-
tion was also limiting root growth in these ex-
periments, then the discrepancy would be even
greater. The explanation for this discrepancy is
that, in experiments carried out in pressurised
cells of ballotini, the resistance to root growth
within the cells considerably exceeded the exter-
nally applied pressure (Bengough and Mullins,
1990a; Richards and Greacen, 1986).
The resistance to root growth varied spatially
throughout the undisturbed field cores used for
these experiments. This variability is illustrated
by the plot of penetrometer resistance versus
depth shown in Fig. 3, and is probably due to the
64 Bengough and Mullins

,,o
1

5 10 15 20
Depth (mm)
Fig. 3. Typical plot of depth versus penetration force for a 1 mm probe in undisturbed Plum Orchard soil.

soil being heterogenous on the size scale of the There was a significant linear correlation be-
fluctuations. The resistance to root growth may tween the elongation rate and the resistance
also increase during the experiment due to the experienced by individual roots ( r = - 0 . 7 7 6 ;
soil around the root drying out. This drying area P < 0.01, Fig. 4), when root resistance was based
gave rise to significantly higher penetrometer on the initial cross-sectional area of the root.
resistances (P < 0.01) at the end of the experi- The relation (not shown) between maize root
ment (Table 3). Thus, the resistance to root elongation rate and root resistance based on the
growth measured during the initial penetration final cross-sectional area was much more scat-
was not necessarily the same as the resistance tered (r = -0.343) showing no significant corre-
deeper in the core, although the initial root lation (P>0.05). It is not clear which of the
penetration resistance should provide some indi- initial or the final root cross sectional area mea-
cation of the root penetration resistance deeper surements is the more appropriate from which to
in the core. calculate the root penetration resistance. To re-
solve this question simultaneous measurements
of root force and diameter must be made, so that
1.8 I the root penetration resistance can be continu-
"%% ously monitored.
1.4 %
E
%%0 Penetrometer resistance and root penetration
resistance
1.1
%
%%
%,A Root and probe penetration resistances varied
C %
_0 considerably between different cores, and differ-
._, 0.7 A~%%
O~
c
ent regions within each core, but there was a
O %%
LU general trend for cores with higher penetrometer
0.4
,.,% resistances to offer higher resistance to root
%%
%
penetration so that the two were significantly
0.0 i i ! i %1 correlated (r=0.741, P < 0 . 0 1 ; Fig. 5). Soil re-
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S 1.0 sistance to the 1 mm diameter probe was be-
Root resistance (MPa)
tween about 4.5 and 7.5 times greater than the
measured penetration resistance to maize roots.
Fig. 4. Root force/initial cross-sectional area versus elonga-
tion rate of maize seedling roots, in Big Ground (O) and These ratios are similar to those found by direct
Plum Orchard (&) soil cores. (l'q) represents the estimated comparisons in other studies (Whiteley et al.,
value for the unimpeded root growth rate in loose soil. 1981).
 Root resistance and elongation rate 65

1.0
,/
/ little frictional resistance and deform the soil
,s
/i cylindrically. A further implication is that a reli-
0.8
/ able quantitative indication of the penetration
J
resistance experienced by roots in structureless
/
/ soils may be obtained from the resistance ex-
(J
c
0.6
A / perienced by penetrometers with a small cone
J
angle and of diameter comparable to the roots
0.4 O1~/
once a correction has been made for the soil-
metal friction on the penetrometer. More work
Z
0
cf J is needed to test this suggestion in a wider range
0.2 / J of soil types and soil conditions. Such work must
/
/
/ also take into account the effects of penetration
/
0.0 ~ ~ ~ '
i i i i i rate which are probably most important in im-
O0 05 1.0 15 2.0 2.5 3.0 35 40 45 permeable soils at high moisture content.
Penetrometer resistance (MPa)

Fig. 5. Initial soil resistance to a 1 mm diameter 30 probe

versus root force/initial cross sectional area in Big Ground Acknowledgements
( 0 ) and Plum Orchard soils (A). (A) represents a root which
was observed growing in a crack in the soil core. We are grateful to staff at the Institute of Hor-
ticultural Research, Wellesbourne (particularly
Dr P Costigan), for the use of their field site, and
Because soil resistance to a blunt (e.g. 30
we thank Mr George Wilson and Mr Jim Wallace
semi-angle) penetrometer is related to spherical
for their excellent technical help in constructing
and not to cylindrical cavity expansion and may
the penetrometer. Glyn Bengough thanks the
also involve the formation of soil bodies, a calcu-
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for
lation of soil resistance to roots was based on the
Scotland, for funding his studentship, and we are
sharp (5 semi-angle) penetrometer results ob-
grateful to J D Campbell and Sons Ltd for
tained on the replicate set of cores. By compar-
supplying a free sample of insecticide.
ing the normal stress on a 5 probe with root
penetration resistance, it is implicitly assumed
that a uniform normal stress is exerted over the
surface of the root tip. Although such an as- References
sumption has been used elsewhere (Misra et al.,
1986) it has not yet been properly tested. The AbdaUa A M, Hettiaratchi D R P and Reece A R 1969 The
normal stress (N) acting on the surface of the 5 mechanics of root growth in granular media. J. Agric. Eng.
probe was calculated using the equation (from Res. 14, 263-248.
Greacen et al., 1968), Bengough A G 1988 The Use of Penetrometers for Estimat-
ing Mechanical Impedance to Root Growth. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.
N = Q / ( l + c o t a tan&) Bengough A G and Mullins C E 1990a The resistance
experienced by roots growing in a pressurised cell. A
where a is the probe semiangle, Q is the point reappraisal. Plant and Soil 123, 73-82.
resistance and 4) is the angle of soil-metal fric- Bengough A G and Mullins C E 1990b Mechanical impe-
dance to root growth: A review of experimental techniques
tion. The calculated average values of normal and root growth responses. J. Soil Sci. 41,341-358.
stress are 0.29 and 0.36 MPa for Big Ground and Eavis B W 1967 Mechanical impedance to root growth.
Plum Orchard soils respectively, and are there- Agricultural Engineering Symposium, Silsoe, Paper 4/F/
fore very similar to the measured values of root 39, 1-11.
resistance (Table 2). These results imply that Eavis B W and Payne D 1969 Soil physical conditions and
root growth. In Root Growth. Ed. W J Whittington. pp
much, or even all, of the observed difference in 315-336. Butterworths, London.
resistance between roots and penetrometers may Gill W R and Miller R D 1956 A method for study of the
be accounted for if roots experience relatively influence of mechanical impedance and aeration on the
66 Root resistance and elongation rate
growth of seedling roots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 20,
154-157.
Goss M J 1977 Effects of mechanical impedance on root
growth in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). I. Effects on
elongation and branching of seminal roots. J. Exp. Bot. 28,
96-111.
Greacen E L and Oh J S 1972 Physics of root growth. Nature
(New Biol.) 235, 24-25.
Greacen E L, Farrell D A and Cockroft B 1968 Soil resist-
ance to metal probes and plant roots. Trans. 9th Congr.
Int. Soil Sci. Soc. 1,769-779.
Misra R K, Dexter A R and Alston A M 1986 Penetration of
soil aggregates of finite size. II. Plant roots. Plant and Soil
94, 59-85.
Richards B G and Greacen E L 1986 Mechanical stresses on
an expanding cylindrical root analogue in granular media.
Aust. J. Soil Res. 24, 393-404.
Stolzy L H and Barley K P 1968 Mechanical resistance
encountered by roots entering compact soils. Soil Sci. 105,
297-301.
Taylor H M and Ratliff L F 1969 Root elongation rates of
cotton and peanuts as a function of soil strength and water
content. Soil Sci. 108, 113-119.
Voorhees W B, Farrell D A and Larson W E 1975 Soil
strength and aeration effects on root elongation. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 39, 948-953.
Whiteley G M, Utomo W H and Dexter A R 1981 A
comparison of penetrometer pressures and the pressures
exerted by roots. Plant and Soil 61, 351-364.
Young I M 1987 Soil Strength and Hard-Setting Behaviour of
Some Structurally Unstable British Soils. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.