Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2023, Vol. 15 Issue (9): 1129-1142    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-023-0026-3     CSTR: 32276.14.s40333-023-0026-3
Research article     
Effects of loading rate on root pullout performance of two plants in the eastern Loess Plateau, China
ZHANG Chaobo1,*(), LI Rong1, JIANG Jing1, YANG Qihong2
1College of Water Resources Science and Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan 030024, China
2Key Laboratory of the Regulation and Flood Control of Middle and Lower Reaches of the Changjiang River under Ministry of Water Resources, Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, Wuhan 430010, China
Download: HTML     PDF(1363KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Root pullout performance of plants is an important mechanical basis for soil reinforcement by plant roots in the semi-arid areas. Studies have shown that it is affected by plant factors (species, ages, root geometry, etc.) and soil factors (soil types, soil moisture, soil bulk densities, etc.). However, the effects of loading rates on root pullout performance are not well studied. To explore the mechanical interactions under different loading rates, we conducted pullout tests on Medicago sativa L. and Hippophae rhamnoides L. roots under five loading rates, i.e., 5, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mm/min. In addition, tensile tests were conducted on the roots in diameters of 0.5-2.0 mm to compare the relationship between root tensile properties and root pullout properties. Results showed that two root failure modes, slippage and breakage, were observed during root pullout tests. All M. sativa roots were pulled out, while 72.2% of H. rhamnoides roots were broken. The maximum fracture diameter and fracture root length of H. rhamnoides were 1.22 mm and 7.44 cm under 100 mm/min loading rate, respectively. Root displacement values were 4.63% (±0.43%) and 8.91% (±0.52%) of the total root length for M. sativa and H. rhamnoides, respectively. The values of maximum pullout force were 14.6 (±0.7) and 17.7 (±1.8) N under 100 mm/min for M. sativa and H. rhamnoides, respectively. Values of the maximum pullout strength for M. sativa and H. rhamnoides were 38.38 (±5.48) MPa under 150 mm/min and 12.47 (±1.43) MPa under 100 mm/min, respectively. Root-soil friction coefficient under 100 mm/min was significantly larger than those under other loading rates for both the two species. Values of the maximum root pullout energy for M. sativa and H. rhamnoides were 87.83 (±21.55) mm·N under 100 mm/min and 173.53 (±38.53) mm·N under 200 mm/min, respectively. Root pullout force was significantly related to root diameter (P<0.01). Peak root pullout force was significantly affected by loading rates when the effect of root diameter was included (P<0.01), and vice versa. Except for the failure mode and peak pullout force, other pullout parameters, including root pullout strength, root displacement, root-soil friction coefficient, and root pullout energy were not significantly affected by loading rates (P>0.05). Root pullout strength was greater than root tensile strength for the two species. The results suggested that there was no need to deliberately control loading rate in root pullout tests in the semi-arid soil, and root pullout force and pullout strength could be better parameters for root reinforcement model compared with root tensile strength as root pullout force and pullout strength could more realistically reflect the working state of roots in the semi-arid soil.

Key words： plant roots      soil reinforcement      loading rate      root pullout properties      root-soil interaction      loess area     
Received: 19 April 2023      Published: 30 September 2023
Corresponding Authors: * ZHANG Chaobo (E-mail: zhangchaobo@tyut.edu.cn)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
ZHANG Chaobo
LI Rong
JIANG Jing
YANG Qihong
Cite this article:

ZHANG Chaobo, LI Rong, JIANG Jing, YANG Qihong. Effects of loading rate on root pullout performance of two plants in the eastern Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(9): 1129-1142.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-023-0026-3     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2023/V15/I9/1129

Fig. 1 Pullout tests were conducted on roots embedded in remolded samples. (a), remolded samples; (b), root pullout test.
Species Loading rate (mm/min) Number of roots successfully tested Average root diameter (mm)
Medicago sativa L. 5 8 0.72±0.06a
50 7 0.74±0.04a
100 9 0.72±0.05a
150 8 0.71±0.06a
200 7 0.72±0.02a
Hippophae
rhamnoides L.		 5 6 1.35±0.13a
50 6 1.37±0.13a
100 12 1.37±0.09a
150 6 1.41±0.15a
200 6 1.40±0.16a
Table 1 Root diameters of different species used in the pullout tests
Fig. 2 Fracture diameter (a) and fracture length (b) of Hippophae rhamnoides roots under different loading rates. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different loading rates at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors.
Fig. 3 Root displacement of Medicago sativa and Hippophae rhamnoides under different loading rates. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different loading rates at P<0.05 level. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences between two species at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors.
Fig. 4 Root peak pullout forces (a) and strengths (b) of Medicago sativa and Hippophae rhamnoides under different loading rates. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences between two species at P<0.05 level; Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between loading rates at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors.
Fig. 5 Correlation of root pullout force (a) and root pullout strength (b) of Hippophae rhamnoides roots in breakage and slippage failure with root diameter
Fig. 6 Root-soil friction coefficients (a) and root pullout energy (b) of Medicago sativa and Hippophae rhamnoides under different loading rates. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between loading rates at P<0.05 level. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences between species at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors. Boxes in figure 6b indicate the IQR (interquartile range, 75th to 25th of the data). The median value is shown as a line within the box. Black square is shown as mean. Whiskers extend to the most extreme value within 1.5×IQR.
Fig. 7 Tensile force and strength (a) and elastic modulus (b) of roots in different diameter classes. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different diameter classes at P<0.05 level. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences between species at P<0.05 level. Bars are standard errors.
Fig. 8 Correlation of root pullout force and root tensile force with root diameter for Medicago sativa (a) and Hippophae rhamnoides (b), and correlation of root pullout strength and root tensile strength with root diameter for Medicago sativa (c) and Hippophae rhamnoides (d)
Parameter Root displacement Peak pullout force Pullout strength Root-soil friction coefficient Pullout energy
Medicago sativa
Loading rate -0.042 0.315 0.206 0.379* 0.011
Root diameter -0.305 0.627** -0.809** -0.435** -0.181
Hippophae rhamnoides
Loading rate -0.157 0.162 0.078 0.153 0.005
Root diameter -0.233 0.718** -0.544** 0.152 0.282
Fracture root diameter -0.422* 0.603** -0.265 0.212 -0.092
Fracture root length 0.212 0.017 0.186 0.164 0.172
Table 2 Correlation coefficients of root diameter and loading rate with pullout performance of Medicago sativa and Hippophae rhamnoides roots
[1]   Abdi E, Majnounian B, Rahimi H, et al. 2009. Distribution and tensile strength of hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) roots growing on slopes of Caspian Forests, Iran. Journal of Forestry Research, 20(2): 105-110.
doi: 10.1007/s11676-009-0019-x
[2]   Abernethy B, Rutherfurd I D. 2001. The distribution and strength of riparian tree roots in relation to riverbank reinforcement. Hydrological Processes, 15(1): 63-79.
doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
[3]   Cislaghi A, Alterio E, Fogliata P, et al. 2021. Effects of tree spacing and thinning on root reinforcement in mountain forests of the European Southern Alps. Forest Ecology and Management, 482: 118873, doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118873.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118873
[4]   Cofie P, Koolen A J. 2001. Test speed and other factors affecting the measurements of tree root properties used in soil reinforcement models. Soil & Tillage Research, 63(1-2): 51-56.
[5]   Cohen D, Schwarz M, Or D. 2011. An analytical fiber bundle model for pullout mechanics of root bundles. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 116(F3): 01886, doi: 10.1029/2010JF001886.
doi: 10.1029/2010JF001886
[6]   De Baets S, Poesen J, Gyssels G, et al. 2006. Effects of grass roots on the erodibility of topsoils during concentrated flow. Geomorphology, 76(1-2): 54-67.
doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.10.002
[7]   De Baets S, Poesen J, Reubens B, et al. 2008. Root tensile strength and root distribution of typical Mediterranean plant species and their contribution to soil shear strength. Plant and Soil, 305(1-2): 207-226.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9553-0
[8]   Docker B B, Hubble T. 2008. Quantifying root-reinforcement of river bank soils by four Australian tree species. Geomorphology, 100(3-4): 401-418.
doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.01.009
[9]   Dupuy L, Fourcaud T, Stokes A. 2005. A numerical investigation into factors affecting the anchorage of roots in tension. European Journal of Soil Science, 56(3): 319-327.
doi: 10.1111/ejs.2005.56.issue-3
[10]   Fan C C, Tsai M H. 2016. Spatial distribution of plant root forces in root-permeated soils subject to shear. Soil & Tillage Research, 156: 1-15.
[11]   Genet M, Stokes A, Salin F, et al. 2005. The influence of cellulose content on tensile strength in tree roots. Plant and Soil, 278(1-2): 1-9.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-8768-6
[12]   Giadrossich F, Schwarz M, Cohen D, et al. 2013. Mechanical interactions between neighbouring roots during pullout tests. Plant and Soil, 367(1-2): 391-406.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-012-1475-1
[13]   Giadrossich F, Cohen D, Schwarz M, et al. 2016. Modeling bio-engineering traits of Jatropha curcas L.. Ecological Engineering, 89: 40-48.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.005
[14]   Giadrossich F, Schwarz M, Cohen D, et al. 2017. Methods to measure the mechanical behaviour of tree roots: A review. Ecological Engineering, 109: 256-271.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.08.032
[15]   Hales T C, Cole-Hawthorne C, Lovell L, et al. 2013. Assessing the accuracy of simple field based root strength measurements. Plant and Soil, 372(1-2): 553-565.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1765-2
[16]   Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L. 2014. The varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides, 11(2): 167-194.
doi: 10.1007/s10346-013-0436-y
[17]   Iverson R M, George D L, Allstadt K, et al. 2015. Landslide mobility and hazards: Implications of the 2014 Oso disaster. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 412: 197-208.
doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.12.020
[18]   Ji X D, Cong X, Dai X Q, et al. 2018. Studying the mechanical properties of the soil-root interface using the pullout test method. Journal of Mountain Science, 15(4): 882-893.
doi: 10.1007/s11629-015-3791-4
[19]   Leung F T Y, Yan W M, Hau B C H, et al. 2015. Root systems of native shrubs and trees in Hong Kong and their effects on enhancing slope stability. CATENA, 125: 102-110.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2014.10.018
[20]   Leung F T Y, Yan W M, Hau B C H, et al. 2018. Mechanical pull-out capacity and root reinforcement of four native tree and shrub species on ecological rehabilitation of roadside slopes in Hong Kong. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 30(1): 25-38.
doi: 10.26525/jtfs
[21]   Liu J K, Shih P. 2013. Topographic correction of wind-driven rainfall for landslide analysis in central Taiwan with validation from aerial and satellite optical images. Remote Sensing, 5(6): 2571-2589.
doi: 10.3390/rs5062571
[22]   Marden M, Rowan D, Phillips C. 2005. Stabilising characteristics of New Zealand indigenous riparian colonising plants. Plant and Soil, 278(1-2): 95-105.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-004-7598-2
[23]   Mattia C, Bischetti G B, Gentile F. 2005. Biotechnical characteristics of root systems of typical Mediterranean species. Plant and Soil, 278(1-2): 23-32.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-7930-5
[24]   Mickovski S B, Ennos A R. 2003. The effect of unidirectional stem flexing on shoot and root morphology and architecture in young Pinus sylvestris trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33(11): 2202-2209.
doi: 10.1139/x03-139
[25]   Mickovski S B, Bengough A G, Bransby M F, et al. 2007. Material stiffness, branching pattern and soil matric potential affect the pullout resistance of model root systems. European Journal of Soil Science, 58(6): 1471-1481.
doi: 10.1111/ejs.2007.58.issue-6
[26]   Mickovski S B, Bransby M F, Bengough A G, et al. 2010. Resistance of simple plant root systems to uplift loads. Revue Canadienne de Géotechnique, 47(1): 78-95.
doi: 10.1139/T09-076
[27]   Norris J E. 2005. Root reinforcement by hawthorn and oak roots on a highway cut-slope in southern England. Plant and Soil, 278(1-2): 43-53.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-1301-0
[28]   Operstein V, Frydman S. 2000. The influence of vegetation on soil strength. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Ground Improvement, 4(2): 81-89.
[29]   Osman N, Abdullah M N, Abdullah C H. 2011. Pull-out and tensile strength properties of two selected tropical trees. Sains Malaysiana, 40(6): 577-585.
[30]   Peng C, Lin Y. 2013. Debris-flow treatment: The integration of botanical and geotechnical methods. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 4(2): 97-104.
doi: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2013.02.001
[31]   Pollen N, Simon A. 2005. Estimating the mechanical effects of riparian vegetation on stream bank stability using a fiber bundle model. Water Resources Research, 41(7): 1-11.
[32]   Pollen N. 2007. Temporal and spatial variability in root reinforcement of streambanks: Accounting for soil shear strength and moisture. CATENA, 69(3): 197-205.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2006.05.004
[33]   Reubens B, Poesen J, Danjon F, et al. 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(4): 385-402.
doi: 10.1007/s00468-007-0132-4
[34]   Ruan S, Tang L, Huang T. 2022. The pullout mechanical properties of shrub root systems in a typical Karst area, Southwest China. Sustainability, 14(6): 3297, doi: 10.3390/SU14063297.
doi: 10.3390/SU14063297
[35]   Schwarz M, Lehmann P, Or D. 2010a. Quantifying lateral root reinforcement in steep slopes-from a bundle of roots to tree stands. Earth Surface Processes & Landforms, 35(3): 354-367.
[36]   Schwarz M, Cohen D, Or D. 2010b. Root-soil mechanical interactions during pullout and failure of root bundles. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 115(F4): 1603, doi: 10.1029/2009JF001603.
doi: 10.1029/2009JF001603
[37]   Schwarz M, Cohen D, Or D. 2011. Pullout tests of root analogs and natural root bundles in soil: Experiments and modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 116(F2): 1753, doi: 10.1029/2010JF001753.
doi: 10.1029/2010JF001753
[38]   Simon A, Collison A. 2002. Quantifying the mechanical and hydrologic effects of riparian vegetation on streambank stability. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 27(5): 527-546.
doi: 10.1002/esp.v27:5
[39]   Spiekermann R I, McColl S, Fuller I, et al. 2021. Quantifying the influence of individual trees on slope stability at landscape scale. Journal of Environmental Management, 286: 112194, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112194.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112194
[40]   Stokes A, Atger C, Bengough A G, et al. 2009. Desirable plant root traits for protecting natural and engineered slopes against landslides. Plant and Soil, 324(1-2): 1-30.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-0159-y
[41]   Stubbs C J, Cook D D, Niklas K J. 2019. A general review of the biomechanics of root anchorage. Journal of Experimental Botany, 70(14): 3439-3451.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/ery451 pmid: 30698795
[42]   Vergani C, Schwarz M, Soldati M, et al. 2016. Root reinforcement dynamics in subalpine spruce forests following timber harvest: A case study in Canton Schwyz, Switzerland. CATENA, 143: 275-288.
[43]   Waldron L J. 1977. The shear resistance of root-permeated homogeneous and stratified soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 41(5): 843-849.
doi: 10.2136/sssaj1977.03615995004100050005x
[44]   Wang X, Hong M M, Huang Z, et al. 2019. Biomechanical properties of plant root systems and their ability to stabilize slopes in geohazard-prone regions. Soil & Tillage Research, 189: 148-157.
[45]   Wang Y, Shu Z, Zheng Y, et al. 2015. Plant root reinforcement effect for coastal slope stability. Journal of Coastal Research, 73: 216-219.
doi: 10.2112/SI73-038.1
[46]   Wu T H. 1979. Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 16(1): 19-33.
doi: 10.1139/t79-003
[47]   Xie M. 1990. A study on the soil mechanical role of tree roots in the stability of slopes. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 4: 7-14. (in Chinese)
[48]   Yildiz A, Graf F, Rickli C, et al. 2018. Determination of the shearing behaviour of root-permeated soils with a large-scale direct shear apparatus. CATENA, 166: 98-113.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2018.03.022
[49]   Zhang C B, Chen L, Jiang J, et al. 2012. Effects of gauge length and strain rate on the tensile strength of tree roots. Trees, 26(5): 1577-1584.
doi: 10.1007/s00468-012-0732-5
[50]   Zhang C B, Chen L, Jiang J. 2014. Vertical root distribution and root cohesion of typical tree species on the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Arid Land, 6(5): 601-611.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-014-0004-x
[51]   Zhang C B, Zhou X, Jiang J, et al. 2019. Root moisture content influence on root tensile tests of herbaceous plants. CATENA, 172: 140-147.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2018.08.012
[52]   Zhang C B, Liu Y, Li D, et al. 2020a. Influence of soil moisture content on pullout properties of Hippophae rhamnoides Linn. roots. Journal of Mountain Science, 17: 2816-2826.
doi: 10.1007/s11629-020-6072-9
[53]   Zhang C B, Liu Y, Liu P, et al. 2020b. Untangling the influence of soil moisture on root pullout property of alfafa plant. Journal of Arid Land, 12(4): 666-675.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-020-0017-6
[1] LIANG Shen, WANG Shu, LIU Yabin, PANG Jinghao, ZHU Haili, LI Guorong, HU Xiasong. Mechanism underlying the uprooting of taproot-type shrub species in the loess area of northeastern Qinghai- Xizang Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(10): 1426-1443.
[2] LIU Yabin, SHI Chuan, YU Dongmei, WANG Shu, PANG Jinghao, ZHU Haili, LI Guorong, HU Xiasong. Characteristics of root pullout resistance of Caragana korshinskii Kom. in the loess area of northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(7): 811-823.
[3] ChaoBo ZHANG, LiHua CHEN, Jing JIANG. Vertical root distribution and root cohesion of typical tree species on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2014, 6(5): 601-611.