Hydrophobicity Is Then Believed to Re-appear When Soils Become Dry Again

• Journal List
• Springer Open Choice
• PMC6447521

Plant Soil. 2019; 437(1): 65–81.

Surface tension, rheology and hydrophobicity of rhizodeposits and seed mucilage influence soil water memory and hysteresis

M. Naveed,^{1, 2} Thou. A. Ahmed,³ P. Benard,³ L. Thou. Brown,^four T. Due south. George,⁴ A. G. Bengough,^{4, 5} T. Roose,^half-dozen Due north. Koebernick,⁶ and P. D. Hallett ¹

M. Naveed

ⁱSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU UK

ⁱⁱSchool of Calculating and Technology, University of W London, Ealing London, W5 5RF UK

M. A. Ahmed

³Faculty of Biology, Chemistry and World Sciences, Academy of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany

P. Benard

ⁱⁱⁱKinesthesia of Biological science, Chemistry and World Sciences, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany

50. K. Chocolate-brown

⁴The James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, DD2 5DA U.k.

T. Southward. George

⁴The James Hutton Establish, Invergowrie, Dundee, DD2 5DA Great britain

A. G. Bengough

^ivThe James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, DD2 5DA UK

⁵School of Scientific discipline and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HN UK

T. Roose

⁶Kinesthesia of Engineering and Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ UK

North. Koebernick

^{half dozen}Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Academy of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ UK

P. D. Hallett

¹School of Biological Sciences, Academy of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU United kingdom

Received 2018 Feb twenty; Accepted 2019 Jan 8.

Abstruse

Aims

Rhizodeposits nerveless from hydroponic solutions with roots of maize and barley, and seed mucilage washed from chia, were added to soil to measure out their bear on on water memory and hysteresis in a sandy loam soil at a range of concentrations. We examination the hypothesis that the effect of found exudates and mucilages on hydraulic backdrop of soils depends on their physicochemical characteristics and origin.

Methods

Surface tension and viscosity of the exudate solutions were measured using the Du Noüy band method and a cone-plate rheometer, respectively. The contact angle of h2o on exudate treated soil was measured with the sessile drop method. Water retention and hysteresis were measured by equilibrating soil samples, treated with exudates and mucilages at 0.46 and 4.6 mg g⁻¹ concentration, on dialysis tubing filled with polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution of known osmotic potential.

Results

Surface tension decreased and viscosity increased with increasing concentration of the exudates and mucilage in solutions. Modify in surface tension and viscosity was greatest for chia seed exudate and to the lowest degree for barley root exudate. Contact angle increased with increasing maize root and chia seed exudate concentration in soil, just not barley root. Chia seed mucilage and maize root rhizodeposits enhanced soil h2o retention and increased hysteresis index, whereas barley root rhizodeposits decreased soil water retention and the hysteresis effect. The bear upon of exudates and mucilages on soil water retention almost ceased when approaching wilting signal at −1500 kPa matric potential.

Conclusions

Barley rhizodeposits behaved equally surfactants, drying the rhizosphere at smaller suctions. Chia seed mucilage and maize root rhizodeposits behaved as hydrogels that hold more h2o in the rhizosphere, simply with slower rewetting and greater hysteresis.

Keywords: Root exudate, Seed exudate, Surface tension, Viscosity, Contact angle, Soil water retention, Hysteresis

Introduction

Limited water supply is one of the largest impediments to food production worldwide. Increasing establish drought tolerance and improving the capacity of plants to excerpt water from soil are fundamentally important for future sustainable food product. Plants accept a natural capacity to produce compounds that collaborate with soils to increment the capacity to deliver water to plants and retain h2o in soils (Bengough et al. 2011; Deng et al. 2015). Rhizodeposits produced by roots are polysaccharide rich gum from their tips, border cells sloughed off from the root cap, diffusible exudates that are lost passively, secretions as a response to environmental conditions and senescence-derived compounds (Jones et al. 2009). Seeds can take myxospermous glue coatings that are long-chained polysaccharides (Deng et al. 2015).

The release of a range of compounds from seeds and roots can have a plethora of effects, but in this context they could facilitate good contact with soil particles, modify water retention in the rhizosphere and control the motility of water from majority soil to the root or seed surface. Bulk soil refers to the soil beyond the rhizosphere that generally lies at a altitude greater than 0.fifteen cm from the surface of the root. Constitute root exudates and mucilages can form polymeric gels that are capable of arresting large volumes of water (McCully and Boyer 1997) that proceed the rhizosphere hydrated. Carminati et al. (2010) showed that the h2o content in the rhizosphere of lupin (Lupinus albus Fifty.) was greater than the bulk soil during a period of active transpiration. Based on the measured water content in the rhizosphere and bulk soil, they derived a water memory curve of the rhizosphere, which was different from that of bulk soil. Similarly, Moradi et al. (2011) observed increasing soil water contents towards the root surface in rhizosphere of chickpea (Cicer arietinum), white lupin (Lupinus albus), and maize (Zea mays). Kroener et al. (2014) reported an increase in h2o retentivity of sandy loam soil treated with chia seed (Salvia hispanica L.) glue at any water potential, which was validated past other studies (Ahmed et al. 2014; Deng et al. 2015). Although these studies suggest that root derived compounds increase water memory in the rhizosphere, other studies showed the reverse. Increased drying of the rhizosphere was postulated by Read et al. (2003) to be due to the smaller surface tension of root mucilages compared to water. Earlier piece of work attributed the drib in surface tension to phospholipids (Read and Gregory 1997). Whalley et al. (2005) also reported a reduction in water retention of the rhizosphere of wheat, maize and barley compared to that of bulk soil. The importance of the surface tension of rhizodeposits is currently poorly understood, but it is likely to play an important function in rhizosphere hydrology. The opposing impacts of rhizodeposits on soil water retention could potentially be explained by variations in rhizodeposit composition among plant species and their chemical characteristics (Naveed et al. 2017). Moreover, rhizosphere soil physical backdrop may vary depending on the drying-wetting history (Moradi et al. 2011).

With drying rhizodeposits may impact soil water dynamics by making the rhizosphere water repellent. Rhizodeposits may glaze particles with material that becomes hydrophobic when it dries beyond a critical h2o content. Carminati et al. (2010) showed a markedly drier lupin rhizosphere on rewetting compared to that of majority soil. It took approximately 2 days for the rhizosphere to become wet again. Similarly, Moradi et al. (2012) found significantly greater contact angles for the rhizosphere than the majority soil afterward drying, suggesting water repellency in the rhizosphere. The effect of repellency on water uptake past a root system may be complex. Repellency may provide a useful hydraulic barrier that slows h2o loss to dry out bulk soil, peculiarly that surrounding older root tissue. In wet soil, fresh mucilages by young roots may facilitate water uptake that compensates for whatsoever slower h2o uptake by older root segments (Carminati and Vetterlein 2013).

In improver to root historic period, plant species and environmental conditions may influence how roots influence the development of water repellency. Direct measurements of water transport by Hallett et al. (2003) observed reduced water sorptivity and increased repellency in the rhizosphere compared with bulk soil for barley, just not oil-seed rape. Zickenrott et al. (2016) demonstrated that h2o repellency of the rhizosphere was affected past the quantity, too as species-dependent quality, of the rhizodeposits of Lupinus albus, Vicia faba, Zea mays, and Triticum aestivum.

Clearly the rhizosphere oft has different hydrological properties to bulk soil, which will have a pregnant bear on on how plants can capture water and potentially influence water storage in soil. Rhizodeposits can exist polymeric gels that hold h2o, or form hydrophobic coatings on dry soil, or be surface active compounds that diminish surface tension (Brax et al. 2017; Read and Gregory 1997). To date, no report has provided concurrent measurements of all these physiochemical properties of rhizodeposits and their resulting impact on water memory.

Our study tests the hypothesis that the physicochemical characteristics and origin of rhizodeposits and seed mucilage controls their impact on the h2o retention characteristics of soil. Nosotros used rhizodeposits collected by hydroponics from barley and maize roots, and by washing the mucilage coating from chia seed (Naveed et al. 2017). The surface tension and viscosity were measured at a range of concentrations of rhizodeposits and seed mucilages. They were and then mixed with soil and their impact on soil water repellency, water retention and hysteresis was quantified. With these data, we suggest a conceptual framework showing the significance of surface tension and viscosity of rhizodeposits in modifying hydraulic properties of the rhizosphere.

Materials and methods

Collection of rhizodeposits and seed mucilage

The collection of rhizodeposits and seed mucilage used the aforementioned approaches every bit Naveed et al. (2017). For rhizodeposits this volition include gum, secretions and border cells, as the only feasible method to collect large enough volumes to measure out soil water retention impacts was hydroponics.

Extraction of chia seed mucilage

To collect chia mucilage, 10 g of seeds were mixed with 100 g distilled water for 2 min at 50 °C with a magnetic stirrer, and then left to cool to room temperature (twenty °C) for four hours (Ahmed et al. 2014). Seeds were removed from the mucilage by pushing the mixture through a 500 μm sieve using pressure applied using a syringe that was cutting at the end. As reported past Naveed et al. (2017) some glue remained bound to seeds, but later five repeated extraction attempts nigh 80% of the mucilage was harvested. Brawl-milling of an aliquot of chia seed glue was washed with an aim to fragment large polymers to study the result of chia seed mucilage later on fragmentation of polymers.

Collection of barley and maize root rhizodeposits

To collect barley (Hordeum vulgare L., cv. Optic) and maize (Zea mays L. cv. Freya) rhizodeposits, plants were grown in an aerated hydroponics system (Giles et al. 2017). Surface sterilized seeds (2% hypochlorite) were pre-germinated on one% agar (Sigma-Aldrich, Gillingham, Britain) and, when the radicals reached approximately ane cm long (2–3 days mail service germination), 180 individual barley or maize plants were transferred to sixty fifty aerated hydroponic tanks. Plants were grown with 200 μmol quanta m^−two s⁻¹ of lite nether a xiv h day and x h night cycle. For maize the 24-hour interval temperature was 25 °C and the night temperature was 22 °C. For barley the twenty-four hour period temperature was xviii °C and the night temperature was xiv °C. The hydroponic tanks were filled with a food solution (pH v.5) containing three mM NH_fourCl, 4 mM Ca(NO_iii)₂, four mM KNO₃, 1 mM KH_iiPO_four, iii mM MgSO₄ and 0.1 mM Fe-EDTA with micronutrients (vi μM MnCl_ii, 23 μM H₃BO₃, 0.half-dozen μM ZnCl₂, 1.six μM CuSO_four, ane.0 μM Na₂MoO₄ and 1.0 μM CoCl₂). To begin with the food solution was at 0.25 concentration, then inverse every iii days to increasing concentrations of 0.5, 0.75 and finally ane.0. Afterwards xiv days growth, either 5 barley or 3 maize plants grown in the hydroponics organisation were then placed in 150 ml pots containing 75 ml distilled h2o for 12 h to collect rhizodeposits. The liquid in the collection pots was first frozen at −20 °C and then freeze-dried to concentrate the rhizodeposits. This method to collect rhizodeposits was necessary to obtain sufficient volumes and to facilitate storage, and transport between the hydroponics system and a larger freeze-drier. However, it is limited past combining all forms of rhizodeposits together and inducing artefacts through freezing and rehydrating freeze-dried samples. Carbon and nitrogen contents of 5 replicates of each of barley and maize rhizodeposits, and chia seed mucilage were measured using a CNS elemental analyser (CE Instruments, Wigan, UK).

Surface tension measurement of the exudates and mucilages solution

Freeze-dried barley or maize rhizodeposits, or chia seed glue (earlier and after ball-milling) were mixed into distilled h2o to concentrations of 0.0092, 0.092, 0.92, two.3, iv.vi and 9.2 mg ml⁻¹. Surface tension of these exudate solutions was measured at twenty °C with an Attension Sigma 701 Force Tensiometer using the Du Noüy band method (Biolin Scientific AB, Stockholm, Sweden). This measures the force required to remove a metal ring from the surface of a liquid.

Rheological behaviour of the exudate solutions

Freeze-dried barley or maize rhizodeposits, or chia seed mucilage (freeze-stale and freeze-dried, ball-milled) were mixed with distilled h2o to concentrations of 0.92, 4.six and nine.2 mg 1000⁻¹. These exudate solutions were and then measured with a Discovery Hybrid Rheometer Hr-3 (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, Usa) using the same test parameters equally Naveed et al. (2017). It had a cone-plate geometry (sixty mm bore, 1^o angle) with a gap of 500 μm. A frequency sweep exam practical increasing oscillating shear stress, with stress and displacement (shear rate) measurements taken at five points for every order of magnitude of applied stress. The normal force was initially at 0 North and restricted to <0.1 N during testing, the test temperature was xx °C controlled with a Peltier plate and the test duration was 15 min. Each exam required nigh 1.5 ml of exudate solution and three replicates of each concentration and exudate type were measured. The apparent viscosity data as a function of shear rate were fitted with the Carreau-Yasuda model (Carreau 1968 and Yasuda 1979) as:

where η, η _o and η _∞ are the credible fluid viscosity, fluid viscosity at zero shear rate and fluid viscosity at space shear rate, respectively. The rheological parameters λ is the dimensional fourth dimension constant, γ' is the magnitude of the shear rate, n is the power-police force index and a describes the transition region betwixt nil shear charge per unit viscosity and the power-law region. For shear-thinning fluids, the ability-constabulary index could be every bit small-scale as 0.08.

Choice and preparation of soil

Soil was collected from 0 to 100 mm depth in Bullion Field at the James Hutton Establish (JHI), Dundee (56^o 27′ 39′′ N and 3^o 04′ 11′′ Due west). Barley was planted in the field at the time of sampling. This soil is classified as a Eutric Cambisol, has a sandy loam texture (clay = sixteen%, silt = 24%, sand = lx%), 22.v thousand kg⁻¹ full carbon, 1.6 one thousand kg^−one total nitrogen and soil pH in CaCl_two of 5.48 (Naveed et al. 2017). It was air-stale and then passed through a 2 mm sieve.

Contact angle measurements

Contact angle, CA was measured on barley or maize rhizodeposits, or chia seed glue (before and after ball-milling), at concentrations of 0, 0.046, 0.46, two.iii and iv.6 mg dry exudate g^−ane dry soil. From measurements of mucilage product from a range of species, Zickenrott et al. (2016) calculated that concentrations of 0.5 to 50 mg dry out exudate yard⁻¹ dry out soil were realistic. This was achieved past adding exudate and mucilage solutions at advisable concentrations to bring the soil to a water content of 20 grand 100 g⁻¹, including a control treatment prepared past just mixing distilled water in the soil at xx thousand h2o 100 g⁻¹ soil. The control soil and soils mixed with these exudate treatments were outset incubated at four °C for 24 h to achieve homogenization. Following this, soils were allowed to dry at forty °C for 24 h. We measured the CA on a thin layer of these soil treatments using dry soil particles fixed on adhesive tape, co-ordinate to the standard procedure described by Bachmann et al. (2003). A smoothen microscope glass slide was covered with double-sided adhesive record (TESA, type 55,733, Beiersdorf), which was pressed against the exudate-treated dry soil surface for a few seconds. The slide was then lifted upwards gently to remove a single layer of soil particles from the soil surface. Using a syringe, ane 2 μL drop of deionized water was placed on the soil sample and the CA was determined after 30 ms contact fourth dimension from the three-phase boundary line (liquid–solid–gas) using a CCD-equipped CA microscope (Drib Shape Analyzer DSA25S; KRÜSS GmbH) (Ahmed et al. 2016). The contact bending of each drib is given every bit the hateful of the left and the right sides in the images. For each concentration of the exudates and mucilages, 3 slides were prepared, and v measurements per slide were carried out.

Soil h2o retention and hysteresis measurements

Sieved Bullion field soil was mixed with either barley or maize rhizodeposits, or chia seed or chia seed ball-milled mucilages to achieve concentrations of 0, 0.46 and 4.6 mg dry exudate and/or mucilage g⁻¹ dry soil at a h2o content of 20 g 100 thou⁻ⁱ. These soil treatments were incubated at four °C for 24 h to ameliorate homogenization, and then packed in triplicate in soil cores of three cm diameter and 1 cm height at one.2 m cm⁻³ bulk density.

Soil cores were saturated overnight and water memory characteristics were measured using polyethylene glycol, PEG and dialysis tubing to equilibrate soil samples at water potentials of −10, −50, −100, −380 and − 1800 kPa. This method to command water potential has been used in other studies (Ajdari et al. 2016; Williams and Shaykewich 1969). To mensurate the water potential of drier soil samples, a WP4C potentiometer (METER Group, Inc. U.s.a.) was used. The osmotic potentials of different concentrations of PEG molecular weight 20,000 (MERCK-Schuchdart) solution at a constant temperature of 4 °C were adamant using a WP4C potentiometer. The concentration of PEG in g 100 1000^−one in solution was related to the osmotic potential in MPa, ψ past,

ψ = 2.2 × 10 − 3 PEG 2 − 5.i × 10 − 3 PEG RMSE = 0.034 r 2 = 0.99

2

The PEG solution was independent within dialysis tubing, which for our tests was Spectra/Por ane (molecular cutting-off weight of 6000–8000) with a diameter of 7 cm. The ends of the tubing were sealed using medical tubing clips. To minimise evaporative losses from both the soil cores and the PEG solution, all equipment was housed in a desiccator. The soil cores were placed on top of the dialysis tubing filled with PEG of certain concentration at a desired matric potential. The soil cores were outset saturated and then the drying limb of the soil water characteristic curve was measured. The wetting limb of the soil water feature curve was measured on samples initially equilibrated to −1800 kPa past wetting using the PEG method.

The mass of the soil cores was recorded at regular time intervals until equilibrium was reached, with no modify in mass indicating equilibration (tolerance is ane mg). Generally, 2–3 weeks were needed for equilibrating soil cores to a sure matric potential as negative as −1800 kPa. Later on each week of the measurements, the PEG solution and dialysis tubing were changed. Both the drying and wetting limbs of the soil h2o characteristic curve were conducted at a constant temperature of 4 °C to suppress exudate decomposition in soil during measurements.

The drying limb of the soil water characteristic curve was fitted with the Fredlund and Xing (1994) model, which was selected because it provides reliable fits for a wide range of soil types and matric potentials. The wetting limb of the soil h2o feature curve was fitted with a 3rd order polynomial because of the lack of an S-shaped bend. The hysteresis alphabetize was quantified between −10 to −380 kPa matric potentials past the method of Lu and Khorshidi (2015) as given in Eq. 3. This is based on the difference in water content between the drying and wetting limbs, with a hysteresis index of 0.20 indicating a twenty% difference in mean h2o content.

Hysteresis index = ∑ i = 1 i = north due west di − due west wi west mi n

3

where, due west _di and w _wi are the water contents of the drying bend and wetting curve at matric potential i, w _mi is the boilerplate water content at matric potential i, and northward is number of matric potentials over which hysteresis index was quantified.

Statistical analysis

Contact angle, surface tension, hysteresis alphabetize and rheology data were compared using analysis of variance with blazon of exudate and concentration as the chiselled predictors. A graphical analysis was carried out to cheque the absence of autocorrelation and rest normality. Tukey tests were used for mail-hoc mean comparing.

Results

The general characteristics of the seed mucilage and rhizodeposits used can be found in Naveed et al. (2017). Chia seeds had 0.13 ± 0.03 (mean ± SE) g one thousand⁻¹ dry seed total mucilage, simply but 0.10 ± 0.02 m g⁻¹ dry seed of seed mucilage could be extracted. The average freeze-stale weights of rhizodeposits collected from individual barley and maize establish were 4.i ± 0.9 (mean ± SE) and 6.iv ± i.seven (mean ± SE) mg individual^−ane, respectively. Total carbon contents of freeze-stale barley and maize rhizodeposits, and chia seed mucilage were 149, 166, and 407 yard kg^−ane, respectively. Total nitrogen content of freeze-dried barley and maize rhizodeposits, and chia seed mucilage were 62, 33, and 11 g kg⁻¹, respectively. This resulted in C/N ratios of the exudates and mucilages of ii.four for barley root, 5.1 for maize root and 37.0 for chia seed. The pH of the aqueous exudate and mucilage solutions at 4.6 mg 1000⁻¹ concentration was viii.9 for barley root, 9.35 for maize root and 6.7 for chia seed.

Surface tension of the different plant exudate and mucilage solutions as a role of their concentration are shown in Fig.one. With increasing exudate concentration, surface tension mostly decreased. Chia seed mucilage, however, first had a decreased surface tension, followed by an increase with increasing gum concentration later on 1 mg ml⁻¹, reaching about the surface tension of water at the highest concentration of ix.2 mg ml⁻¹. To examination whether this was an artefact of the high viscosity of chia mucilage, ball milling was washed to fragment longer concatenation polysaccharides. Chia seed glue BM had a surface tension that continued to decrease with increasing exudate concentration. With increasing concentration from 0 (pure water) to ix.two mg ml⁻¹, surface tension decreased from 72.86 mN g⁻¹ (pure water) to 41.71 mN m⁻¹ for barley rhizodeposits, to 46.63 mN grand⁻¹ for maize rhizodeposits, and to 52.26 mN m⁻¹ for chia seed mucilage BM (P < 0.01).

The relationship betwixt surface tension (mean ± 1 standard error) and the concentration of the chia seed, chia seed after brawl-milling (BM), maize root and barley root exudates and mucilages in water at a range of concentrations. The dashed line is the surface tension of water

Chia seed mucilage BM, maize rhizodeposits and barley rhizodeposits showed non-Newtonian behaviour as their viscosity depended on shear rate. The Carreau-Yasuda model (Eq. 1) described the viscosity as a function of shear rate information for chia seed gum, chia seed mucilage BM, maize rhizodeposits and barley rhizodeposits at 0.92, 4.vi and 9.ii mg ml⁻¹ concentrations (Fig.two). The model fitting parameters are provided in Table ​ i. The greatest viscosity at nil-shear rate was measured for chia seed glue, followed by chia seed glue BM, maize rhizodeposits and barley rhizodeposits (P < 0.01). Similar to this, viscosity at infinite-shear rate (asymptote) was greatest for chia seed mucilage, least for barley rhizodeposits, with maize rhizodeposits in betwixt these extremes (P < 0.01). Both zero- and infinite-shear charge per unit viscosities were decreased with decreasing concentration for chia seed mucilage, maize rhizodeposits and barley rhizodeposits (P < 0.01).

The human relationship between viscosity (hateful ± ane standard error) and shear rate for different concentrations of exudates and mucilages; a chia seed, b chia seed later brawl-milling (BM), c maize and d barley

Tabular array 1

Carreau-Yasuda model parameters obtained by fitting concentration-viscosity curves

Exudate and glue	Concentration	η 0	η inf	a	n	λ
	mg ml−ane	Pa.south	Pa.s	–	–	sec
Chia seed	9.two	1030	0.065	0.eight	0.08	350
	4.vi	95.1	0.008	0.8	0.08	150
	0.92	ix.half dozen	0.006	0.eight	0.08	60
Chia seed (Ball-milled)	nine.ii	126.8	0.061	one	0.2	200
	4.6	12.1	0.008	ane	0.two	forty
	0.92	0.47	0.005	i	0.2	2.2
Maize root	9.2	2.8	0.002	one.5	0.2	lxxx
	four.6	0.65	0.001	1.5	0.two	35
	0.92	0.11	0.0007	1.5	0.two	30
Barley root	ix.2	i.xvi	0.0008	iii	0.2	twoscore
	4.6	0.l	0.0006	iii	0.two	thirty
	0.92	0.05	0.0005	three	0.2	20

η ₀ = zip-shear viscosity, η _inf = infinite-shear viscosity

Contact angles (a measure of soil water repellency) of water on soils amended at 0, 0.046, 0.46 and four.6 mg k^−ane concentrations of barley or maize rhizodeposits, or chia seed mucilage (before and after ball milling) are shown in Fig.3. The 2-way ANOVA showed that both the source of exudate as well every bit their concentration in soil significantly affected contact angle, with a significant exudate-concentration interaction (Table ​ 2). Barley rhizodeposits did not significantly affect contact angle at any of the tested concentrations. Contact bending generally increased with increasing maize rhizodeposits concentration in soil, but meaning impacts were only observed at iv.half dozen mg g⁻¹. For chia seed gum after ball milling, contact angle was significantly greater for all the tested concentrations compared to the untreated command. For chia seed mucilage without ball milling, contact angle was only significantly greater at 4.6 mg thou⁻ⁱ concentration compared to the control (Fig. ​ three).

Contact angles (mean ± 1 standard error) on dried soil of a barley root, b maize root, c chia seed exudate after ball milling (BM) and d chia seed exudates and mucilages treated soil at different concentrations in h2o

Table ii

Summary results for the contact angle from Ii-way ANOVA

Source	df	SS	MS	F	P
Exudates and mucilage	three	11,291	2763	62.half dozen	< 0.001
Concentration	4	5361	1340	22.three	< 0.001
Exudates and mucilage.concentration	12	8448	704	11.seven	< 0.001
Residuum	280	16,834	threescore
Total	299	41,935	140

df, caste of freedom; SS, sum of square; MS, mean square

Chia seed mucilage and maize rhizodeposits enhanced soil water retention, while barley rhizodeposits decreased soil water memory at exudate additions of 4.six mg 1000⁻¹ (Figs.4 and ​ 5). For example, at −100 kPa matric potential, soil water content was increased by 42% for chia seed mucilage without ball milling, xix% for chia seed glue after ball-milling and 13% for maize rhizodeposits compared to unamended soil. Barley rhizodeposits at −100 kPa h2o potential decreased soil water content by 15% compared to unamended soil (Fig.4). Barley and maize rhizodeposits, and chia seed gum (both earlier and after ball milling) at a concentration of 0.46 mg g^−one did not accept a meaning upshot on soil water retention compared to unamended soil (Fig.5). The Fredlund and Xing (1994) model adequately fitted the drying limb of the soil water characteristic curves both at 0.46 and iv.6 mg chiliad⁻¹ exudate concentrations (Figs. ​ iv and ​ 5). The model parameters explaining the shape of drying limb of the soil water feature curves are given in Table ​ 3. A third order polynomial adequately fitted the wetting limb of the soil water feature curves for soil treated with barley or maize rhizodeposits, or chia seed mucilage at 0.46 and iv.6 mg thousand⁻¹ concentrations (Figs. ​ 4 and ​ v). In that location was no observable effect of exudates and mucilages on wetting of soils compared to the control soil at either exudate improver concentrations. Significant effects of exudates and mucilages on the hysteresis index of soil were observed at iv.six mg g⁻ⁱ concentration, but not at 0.46 mg 1000^−one concentration. The smallest hysteresis index was observed for barley rhizodeposits treated soil, followed by control soil, maize rhizodeposits treated soil and chia seed glue treated soil (Table ​ 4).

Drying and rewetting curves at a range of matric potentials for unamended soil and soil treated with exudates and mucilages at a concentration of four.half dozen mg exudate g^−one dry soil. Grey shows the command soils that were not amended with exudate. The mean ± i standard error is shown. The drying bend is fitted with the Fredlund and Xing (1994) model. The wetting curve is fitted with a 3rd social club polynomial

Drying and rewetting curves at a range of matric potentials for unamended soil and soil treated with exudates and mucilages at a concentration of 0.46 mg exudate thousand^−ane dry soil. Grey shows the command soils that were not amended with exudates and mucilages. The mean ± 1 standard error is shown. The drying bend is fitted with the Fredlund and Xing (1994) model. The wetting curve is fitted with a third gild polynomial

Tabular array 3

Fredlund and Xing (1994) fitted model parameters for soil h2o drying curves

Exudate and mucilage	a	n	m
Exudate and mucilage concentration 4.vi mg g−ane
Chia seed	three.27	iii.79	2.72
Chia seed (BM)	iii.01	three.40	two.69
Maize root	ii.87	2.93	two.67
Barley root	2.29	two.45	2.sixty
Unamended	2.58	2.57	2.61
Exudate and mucilage concentration 0.46 mg g−1
Chia seed	two.59	ii.49	ii.72
Chia seed (BM)	two.73	2.61	two.81
Maize root	2.49	2.47	ii.69
Barley root	2.56	2.56	2.68
Unamended	2.54	2.51	2.69

Table four

Hysteresis index between matric potentials of −10 and − 380 kPa for soil treated with unlike exudates and mucilages

Exudate and gum amendment	Concentration (mg 1000−1)	Hysteresis alphabetize (−)
Unamended	0	0.26 ± 0.04bc
Barley root	0.46	0.23 ± 0.05b
Maize root	0.46	0.27 ± 0.02bc
Chia seed (BM)	0.46	0.23 ± 0.04b
Chia seed	0.46	0.21 ± 0.02b
Unamended	0	0.26 ± 0.04b
Barley root	iv.6	0.xi ± 0.01a
Maize root	iv.vi	0.33 ± 0.04c
Chia seed (BM)	iv.6	0.fifty ± 0.05d
Chia seed	4.half dozen	0.63 ± 0.04d

Different messages point pregnant difference at p < 0.05

Give-and-take

Surface tension of the exudate and mucilage solutions

The surface tension of soil solution is commonly 5–fifteen% less than pure water depending on organic carbon concentrations, quality of organic matter, soil pH and temperature (Anderson et al. 1995). Changes in surface tension of soil solution might have important implications for the behaviour of the soil as a whole potentially altering matric potentials, unsaturated flow rates past draining water conducting pores, solute solubilities, solute diffusion rates and gaseous transfer rates at the air-water interface. We have observed that rhizodeposits and seed mucilage solutions are even more surface agile compared to that of soil solution. The greatest reduction in surface tension was observed for barley rhizodeposits (43%) followed by maize rhizodeposits (36%) and chia seed glue afterwards ball milling (28%) at a concentration of 9.2 mg ml⁻¹ compared to pure h2o. This is maybe because of the departure in chemical characteristics of the exudates and mucilages, in that barley rhizodeposits had the greatest content of organic and amino acids followed past maize rhizodeposits and chia mucilage and vice versa for sugars (Naveed et al. 2017). It is known that organic acids, such as formic acid and acetic acid, generally reduce the surface tension of water (Álvarez et al. 1997), whilst sugars, such as glucose, increase the surface tension of water and are not surface active (Shaw 1980). Surface tension for barley and maize rhizodeposits measured in this study agreed well with those reported past Read and Gregory (1997), Read et al. (2003) and LeFevre et al. (2013) for dissimilar found rhizodeposits. Surface tension of chia seed mucilage without ball milling agreed well with surface tension of plant gums obtained from different species of Astragalus every bit reported by Balaghi et al. (2010). The increase in surface tension of chia seed mucilage solutions at concentrations greater than 1 mg ml^−ane was probable an experimental artefact acquired by the viscosity due to large polymers. The Harkins–Jordan (JW) correction factors used for the Du Noüy ring method do not consider the bear upon of viscosity, with other studies observing this artefact in surface tension occurring for sticky biopolymers (Lee et al. 2012). Future measurements on viscous found exudates and mucilages may avert this past using the drop weight method to quantify surface tension.

Viscosity of the exudate solutions

The viscosity of a liquid is a mensurate of its resistance to menstruation. Most pure liquids and dilute solutions of low-molecular-weight compounds prove Newtonian behaviour; they deform at a rate proportional to the applied stress and do not recover when the stress is removed. The viscosity of the Newtonian fluids is an absolute value that does not depend on the applied shear rate/shear stress. In contrast, solutions containing larger amounts of loftier-molecular-weight compounds (e.m. polysaccharides) show non-Newtonian behaviour and ofttimes exhibit viscoelasticity, as reported by Read and Gregory (1997) for root mucilage. When a viscoelastic material is stressed some energy is prodigal as oestrus during deformation, but the remainder is stored elastically. The viscosity of not-Newtonian liquids depend on the shear rate. When viscosity of the not-Newtonian liquids decreases with increasing shear charge per unit, they are depicting shear-thinning behaviour. The exudate solutions tested in the present study showed non-Newtonian shear thinning behaviour equally shown in Fig. ​ 2. The greatest viscosity was observed for chia seed mucilage without ball milling followed past chia seed mucilage afterward brawl milling, maize rhizodeposits and barley rhizodeposits. These were in agreement with Naveed et al. (2017) who did the same measurements on this batch of exudates and mucilages, simply at only ane concentration (4.half dozen mg yard^−ane) and at a different time. The variation in viscosities between dissimilar exudates and mucilages could exist attributed to polysaccharides i.e. more polysaccharide in the exudates and mucilages resulted in greater viscosities (Read and Gregory 1997; Naveed et al. 2017). Chia seed mucilage had the largest amounts of free and polysaccharide derived sugars followed by maize and barley rhizodeposits. The difference in viscosity betwixt chia seed gum past ball milling was probable due to the long chain polysaccharides being crushed, decreasing the size of these molecules. The viscosity of Capsella sp. seed mucilage measured by Deng et al. (2013) was like to the nix-shear viscosity of chia seed mucilage at similar concentrations in the present report. Bais et al. (2005) reported zero-shear and infinite-shear viscosities for scleroglucan (a fungal exudate) that were 10 times greater than chia seed gum at similar concentrations.

Impact of exudates and mucilages on soil water repellency

The dissimilar impact of exudates and mucilages on contact angle could be explained by their chemical characteristics (Naveed et al. 2017). The >60 caste contact angle measured on unamended soils has been reported for the same soil in other studies (Feeney et al. 2006) and will be due to the levels of carbon institute in the soil. Soils with less carbon and smaller contact angles may be affected more than by exudates. Insignificant impacts of barley rhizodeposits on contact angle might be due to the large amount of organic acids contained in exudates. Comparatively larger amounts of sugars (polysaccharides and free) in maize rhizodeposits and chia seed mucilage could explain the significantly increased the contact angle. Chia seed mucilage fabricated the soil extremely hydrophobic on drying. Results reflected that in one case the soil becomes dry the barley rhizosphere would readily rewet whereas a significant filibuster could occur in rewetting of the maize rhizosphere. Our findings are in line with the previous studies that observed different impacts of rhizodeposits on soil water repellency depending on species. Hallett et al. (2003) measured simply a slight increase in the water repellency of the barley rhizosphere. Much greater impacts were observed for maize past Ahmed et al. (2014), who measured an increase of contact angle of water of 20 to near 100 degrees with increasing dry mucilage concentration from 0 to 0.075 mg cm⁻². This can impact the uptake of water by the rhizosphere, every bit observed past Carminati et al. (2010) who showed that the rhizosphere of lupine remained markedly drier than the bulk soil when the samples were dried and subsequently irrigated. They establish that it took approximately two days for the rhizosphere to become wet again. However, water drop penetration time (WDPT) tests on the same soils used hither found wetting occurred within seven due south for unamended soils and 32 southward for soils amended with iv.six mg g⁻¹ chia seed mucilage (unpublished). This suggests that the effects of water repellency could be short-lived and have minimal bear on on h2o retentivity characteristics.

The water repellency of the rhizosphere is affected by the intrinsic chemic characteristics of rhizodeposits and the initial soil water content. Although water repellency in the rhizosphere is considered a negative impact of rhizodeposits, Carminati and Vetterlein (2013) suggested that such an event of rhizodeposits could be considered equally a plant strategy for regulating water supply. For instance, fresh and hydrated rhizodeposits may facilitate h2o uptake of young root segments, while dry and water repellent rhizodeposits may help isolate sometime root segments from drier soil regions.

Touch on of exudates and mucilages on soil water characteristics

Exudates and mucilages could human action both every bit surfactants (Whalley et al. 2005; Read et al. 2003) and hydrogels (Ahmed et al. 2014; Moradi et al. 2012) in the rhizosphere, depending on their origin and chemical characteristics. Surfactants reduce the surface tension of water, and therefore the water retention of soils is likely to decrease in the presence of surfactants (Karagunduz et al. 2001). Water stored in expanded hydrogel structures may serve equally a water reservoir for establish growth, especially in regions with reduced water availability (Mazen et al. 2015; Agaba et al. 2011). Desiccation of root gum in soil concentrates it inside smaller pores and increases adsorption to mineral surfaces (Reid and Goss 1982). The fibrous structures that are produced could increase the affinity of the glue to store water under drought (Albalasmeh and Ghezzehei 2014), although we institute the effects of exudates and mucilages were greatest under wetter weather condition. Barley rhizodeposits decreased the water memory of the soil and thus acted every bit a surfactant in our study. This agrees with the measured surface tension of rhizodeposits (Fig. ​ ane), which were smaller than the other establish exudates and mucilages studied. Relatively larger amounts of organic acids and fewer free and polysaccharide derived sugars present in the barley rhizodeposits could drive this decreased surface tension (Naveed et al. 2017) observed in reduced h2o retention of the soil.

Read et al. (2003) also reported a reduction in water retention of soil treated with phosphatidylcholine (lecithin), chemically similar to the phospholipid surfactants identified in maize, lupine and wheat rhizodeposits. In directly measurements of the h2o retention characteristics of rhizosphere soil, Whalley et al. (2005) reported that the rhizospheres of both maize and barley tended to be drier at a given matric potential than bulk soil. This does not agree with our ascertainment of increased soil h2o memory for soils amended with maize root rhizodeposits and chia seed glue. However, Whalley et al. (2005) harvested rhizosphere soil from growing plants where microbial activeness may decompose and modify the properties of rhizodeposits. We intentionally suppressed microbial activity past conducting measurements at four °C. Our earlier enquiry plant that a measured increased viscosity of soils amended with maize rhizodeposits diminished considerably following microbial decomposition, suggesting fewer long-chain polysaccharides (Naveed et al. 2017). Information technology is likely that the influence of rhizodeposits acting as mucilaginous hydrogels diminishes over time, so these will accept greater impact at a growing root tip where water uptake is almost agile than in older root segments.

The mucilaginous (hydrogel) impact of chia seed glue appears to more than than outweigh the influence of decreased surface tension (Fig. ​ i). Further, the water retentivity of the soil was greatly enhanced by chia seed mucilage before ball milling compared to that after ball milling. This signifies the role of large polysaccharides in soil h2o retention (Brax et al. 2017). The increase in soil water memory by maize rhizodeposits and chia seed glue tin also be explained by the relatively greater amount of sugars (polysaccharides-derived and free) contained in these exudates and mucilage compared to that of barley rhizodeposits (Naveed et al. 2017). Supporting this, Carminati et al. (2010) showed that the h2o content in the rhizosphere of lupine (Lupinus albus L.) was greater than in the bulk soil during a menstruation of active transpiration. Moradi et al. (2012) also observed increasing soil h2o content towards the root surface for chickpea (Cicer arietinum), white lupine (Lupinus albus) and maize (Zea mays). Similar to the present study, Ahmed et al. (2014) and Kroener et al. (2014) reported a large increase in soil h2o retention by chia seed mucilage. Like chia seed mucilage, Capsella bursa-pastoris L. seed mucilage also increased soil water retention due to its hydrogel nature (Deng et al. 2015). This earlier study used the same soil and packing weather condition used in the current investigation, simply measured water retentiveness characteristics with conventional suction table and pressure plate methods. The treatments not amended with exudate or mucilage that formed the controls in each experiment had very skilful agreement, suggesting that the PEG approach was constructive at equilibrating soil water potential.

It was surprising to observe no apparent differences in the wetting limbs of the water memory curves between the control, barley and maize rhizodeposits, and chia seed gum treated soils (Figs. ​ four and ​ 5). This reflected the importance of the initial soil water content to the development of h2o repellency. Our most negative water potential of −1800 kPa is drier than the permanent wilting point, and retained 0.105 thousand³ m⁻³ water content. This is in contrast to the air-dried soils where significant soil water repellency was observed for maize rhizodeposits and chia seed mucilage treatments. This suggests that water repellency induced by the exudates and mucilages in the rhizosphere is simply of concern when soil dries beyond the critical limit, as may happen in the surface layers of soil during extended dry periods. Zeppenfeld et al. (2017) suggested that this may provide a competitive advantage at the ecosystem level by making the topsoil hydrophobic, so deep-rooted plants avoid competition with shallow-rooted plants. The variation in hysteresis alphabetize for different exudate treated soils (Table ​ 4) was therefore primarily because of the difference in soil water retention during drying of exudate treated soils.

Limitations of the experimental approach

A hydroponics based harvesting method was used to obtain sufficient quantities of rhizodeposits for our experiments. This meant that dissimilar components of rhizodeposits were non isolated and the hydrated atmospheric condition would influence their composition. The characteristics of rhizodeposits may differ in the soil environment equally well as under different stresses (Hinsinger et al. 2009). For instance, we found the rhizodeposits to exist alkaline, as observed past Pojasok and Kay (1990) for rhizodeposits in sand. This could exist due to the secretion of anions (Hinsinger et al. 2009) that our hydroponic system would not buffer similar soil. Nitrate fertiliser was also used, which other studies take observed to increase rhizodeposit pH in soil (Gahoonia et al. 1992).

We have measured surface tension, viscosity and pH of the exudates and mucilages of dissimilar cultivars of barley and maize collected using the hydroponic method. Equally the results were like betwixt unlike cultivars of the same species (data are non provided in the manuscript), we did not pursue farther physical testing of cultivar specific impacts. Through the use of small-scale testing approaches, such as those developed by Naveed et al. (2018), and non-invasive imaging of rhizodeposit:soil interactions in soils (Brax et al. 2017; Holz et al. 2018), there is scope to test the combined impacts of cultivars and environmental atmospheric condition on soil concrete changes by rhizodeposits farther.

Albalasmeh and Ghezzehei (2014) discussed several studies that found mucilage product by roots to be accentuated in xeric environments as an evolutionary machinery to decrease water stress to plants. There is ample scope for futurity research on individual components of rhizodeposits collected under different environmental stresses, but a challenge remains in collecting sufficient quantities. New rhizodeposit harvesting methods can assistance to some extent (Zickenrott et al. 2016), which could remove artefacts such every bit osmotic shocks inducing plasmolysis that may have accentuated exudate harvesting with hydroponics.

Consequences of exudates and mucilages for institute water uptake and function

Depending on origin and chemical characteristics, we found that plant exudates and mucilage could increase or decrease water retention of soil at their surfaces compared to majority soil. These contrasting roles of the exudates and mucilages have their own advantages and disadvantages. Enhanced soil h2o retentiveness by exudates and mucilages, equally observed in the nowadays report for maize rhizodeposits and chia seed mucilage, could offer an advantage to plants in the water scarce areas as protection against drought: An increment in h2o retention of the rhizosphere or soil surrounding a germinating seed, especially when the soil is dry, may limit the driblet in unsaturated hydraulic electrical conductivity past maintaining the hydraulic contact between soil and roots (Carminati et al. 2011, 2016; Ahmed et al. 2014) or seeds (Deng et al. 2015). On or about saturation of rhizosphere and subsequent hydration of such exudates and mucilage, saturated water flow would decrease possibly considering of pore bottleneck by viscous nature of exudates and mucilage (Kroener et al. 2014, 2016). In dissimilarity, the reduction in soil water retentiveness by surfactant natured exudates and mucilages, such as barley rhizodeposits in the nowadays report, may initially help roots to extract h2o more easily from the fine pores (Passioura 1988). Smaller soil h2o contents in the rhizosphere compared to bulk soil increases air-filled porosity near to roots or germinating seeds. This might be important where soil would exist more prone to poor aeration, albeit at the expense of decreased unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (Carminati et al. 2016; Dunbabin et al. 2006). Despite these studies and speculations, the impact of different types of exudates and mucilages on water flow from bulk soil through the rhizosphere to the plant roots warrants further studies to comprehensively empathize root water uptake.

Plant root exudates and mucilages have the capacity to modify both surface tension and viscosity of soil solution in the rhizosphere (Figs.1 and ​ 2). Generally, an increment in viscosity was coupled with a subtract in surface tension of soil solution in the rhizosphere. These modifications in the rhizosphere could impact soil-plant-water relations. Viscosity is related to the corporeality of long-chain polymers in the exudates and mucilages (Naveed et al. 2017) so information technology provides an indirect measurement of their capacity to human action every bit hydrogels. Similarly, a decrease in surface tension of soil solution by root exudates and mucilages would tend to decrease soil water retention. In Fig.6 we are speculating the possible scenarios of soil h2o retention in the rhizosphere based on surface tension and viscosity of the soil solution. If surface tension and viscosity of the soil solution lies close to hypothetical cut-off indicated past the dotted line, the soil water retention in the rhizosphere would be quite like to that of bulk soil. As we move above the dotted line, either because of an increase in viscosity or surface tension, the soil water retention of the rhizosphere would exist greater compared to that of the bulk soil. This has been measured in the case of maize root and chia seed exudates and mucilages in the present study. Similarly, if the intersection of viscosity and surface tension lies below the dotted line, the soil water retention of the rhizosphere would exist less compared to that of bulk soil. This conceptual framework is based on a few information points that were measured in this written report, thus future studies should aim to examination the hypotheses. Further the impact of surface tension and viscosity of exudates and mucilages on soil water retention as set out in this conceptual framework besides depends on the matric potential.

Conceptual framework showing the relative significance of surface tension and viscosity of the exudates and mucilages in soil to water retention and hysteresis. Viscosity provides an indirect measurement of long-chain polymers that may act equally a hydrogel. The increase or subtract in water retention was observed from the drying limbs in Figs. ​ 4 and ​ 5, where simply barley acquired a decrease. The Dashed line is a hypothetical cut-off represents the transition between compounds that have a net effect of acting similar a surfactant versus a hydrogel

This research provides contrasting bear witness of the influence of institute exudates and mucilages on soil water retention characteristics, which are driven by the physicochemical properties of the exudates and mucilages. As exudates and mucilages perform many functions in soil, across physical modification, it would be interesting to explore evolutionary drivers for differences between unlike institute species and possibly crop cultivars. The persistence of the impacts in relation to root historic period and environmental weather condition remains poorly understood, but information technology is vital to sympathise how unabridged root systems excerpt water from soil. Over time rhizodeposits are decomposed, so the surfactant properties establish for barley could exist replaced by hydrogel properties of microbial by-products (Naveed et al. 2017). This could ultimately help to select root traits with a greater ability to tolerate drought or aeration stresses in soils.

Conclusions

The large impact of plant exudates and mucilages on water memory characteristics can exist explained past differences in surface tension, contact angle and viscosity between exudates and mucilages of different origin. These backdrop may exist driven by the relative amounts of organic acids and sugars (gratuitous and polysaccharide derived) in the exudates and mucilages. Barley rhizodeposits, which had the lowest surface tension, contact angle and viscosity, acquired soils to hold less water at a given water potential. Chia seed mucilage had the greatest surface tension, contact bending and viscosity, which caused soils to concord more water at a given water potential. Maize rhizodeposits savage in between. Whereas the drying limbs of the water retention characteristics were affected significantly past amendments with different exudates and mucilages, the wetting limbs were very similar to control soils with no added exudates and mucilages. This was unexpected and suggests that the driest point in our study (−1800 kPa water potential) was besides wet to impart h2o repellency in this soil. Pore clogging by exudates and mucilages would be expected to decrease the wetting of soil equally well, simply perhaps this was outset by the water held in the exudate.

Exudates and mucilages may have important effects on soil-plant-water relations that tin be explained by the origin and physico-chemic characteristics of the exudates and mucilages. This cognition needs to be extended to empathize how whole institute root systems tin extract water from soil depending on exudate backdrop, soil conditions and decomposition.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded past the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Quango (BBSRC) project 'Rhizosphere by Blueprint' (BB/L026058/1, BB/J000868/i and BB/J011460/ane) with support from a Regal Guild University Research Fellowship, EPSRC EP/M020355/i, BBSRC SARIC BB/P004180/i, NERC NE/L00237/1 and ERC Consolidator grant DIMR 646809. The James Hutton Institute receives funding from the Scottish Government.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

• Agaba H, Orikiriza LJB, Obua J, Kabasa JD, Worbes Thou, Huüttermann A. Hydrogel amendment to sandy soil reduces irrigation frequency and improves the biomass of Agrostis stolonifera. Agric Sci. 2011;2:544–550. [Google Scholar]
• Ahmed MA, Kroener E, Holz G, Zarebanadkouki 1000, Carminati A. Mucilage exudation facilitates root water uptake in dry soils. Funct Institute Biol. 2014;41:1129–1137. doi: 10.1071/FP13330. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ahmed MA, Kroener Due east, Benard P, Zarebanadkouki M, Kaestner A, Carminati A. Drying of gum causes water repellency in the rhizosphere of maize: measurements and modelling. Found Soil. 2016;407:161–171. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2749-one. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ajdari M, Monghassem M, Lari HR. A modified osmotic diaphragmatic oedometer for investigating the hydro-mechanical response of unsaturated soils. Geotech Test J. 2016;39:xvi. doi: ten.1520/GTJ20150142. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Albalasmeh AA, Ghezzehei TA. Interplay between soil drying and root exudation in rhizosheath development. Plant Soil. 2014;374:739–751. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1910-y. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Álvarez E, Vázquez G, Sánchez-Vilas Grand, Sanjurjo B, Navaza JM. Surface tension of organic acids + water binary mixtures from xx °C TO l °C. J Chem Eng Data. 1997;42:957–960. doi: 10.1021/je970025m. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Anderson MA, Hung AYC, Mills D, Scott MS. Factors affecting the surface tension of soil solutions and solutions of humic acids. Soil Sci. 1995;160:111–116. doi: 10.1097/00010694-199508000-00004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bachmann J, Woche SK, Goebel M-O (2003) Extended methodology for determining wetting properties of porous media. Water Resour Res: WR002143. 10.1029/2003WR002143
• Bais D, Trevisan A, Lapasin R, Partal P, Gallegos C. Rheological label of polysaccharide-surfactant matrices for cosmetic O/W emulsions. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2005;290:546–556. doi: ten.1016/j.jcis.2005.04.044. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Balaghi S, Mohammadifar MA, Zargaraan A. Physicochemical and rheological characterization of Gum Tragacanth exudates from six species of Iranian Astragalus. Food Biophys. 2010;5:59–71. doi: x.1007/s11483-009-9144-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bengough AG, McKenzie BM, Hallett PD, Valentine TA. Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: a review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. J Exp Bot. 2011;62(1):59–68. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq350. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Brax Grand, Buchmann C, Schaumann GE. Biohydrogel induced soil-h2o interactions: how to untangle the gel consequence? A review. J Constitute Nutr Soil Sci. 2017;180:121–141. doi: x.1002/jpln.201600453. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Carminati A, Vetterlein D. Plasticity of rhizosphere hydraulic properties every bit a fundamental for efficient utilization of scarce resource. Ann Bot. 2013;112:277–290. doi: ten.1093/aob/mcs262. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Carminati A, Moradi AB, Vetterlein D, Vontobel P, Lehmann E, Weller U, Vogel HJ, Oswald SE. Dynamics of soil water content in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil. 2010;332:163–176. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0283-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Carminati A, Schneider CL, Moradi AB, Zarebanadkouki Thou, Vetterlein D, Vogel HJ, Hildebrandt A, Weller U, Schuler Fifty, Oswald SE. How the rhizosphere may favor h2o availability to roots. Vadose Zone J. 2011;10:988–998. doi: 10.2136/vzj2010.0113. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Carminati A, Zarebanadkouki K, Kroener East, Ahmed MA, Holz M. Biophysical rhizosphere processes affecting root water uptake. Ann Bot. 2016;118:561–571. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcw113. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Carreau P (1968) Reological equation from molecular network theories. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison
• Deng West, Iannetta PPM, Hallett PD, Toorop PE, Squire GR, Jeng D-S. The rheological backdrop of the seed glaze mucilage of Capsella bursa-pastoris L. Medik. (shepherd's handbag) Biorheology. 2013;50:57–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Deng W, Hallett PD, Jeng D-South, Squire GR, Toorop PE, Iannetta PP. The effect of natural seed coatings of Capsella bursa-pastoris L. Medik. (shepherd's purse) on soil-water memory, stability and hydraulic conductivity. Plant Soil. 2015;387:167–176. doi: 10.1007/s11104-014-2281-eight. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dunbabin VM, McDermott South, Bengough AG (2006) Upscaling from rhizosphere to whole root organization: modelling the effects of phospholipid surfactants on water and food uptake. Plant Soil 283: 57–72
• Feeney DS, Crawford JW, Daniell T, Hallett PD, Nunan N, Ritz K, Rivers M, Young IM (2006) Iii-dimensional microorganization of the soil-root-microbe organization. Microl Ecol 52:151–158 [PubMed]
• Fredlund DG, Xing A. Equations for the soil-water characteristic bend. Can Geotech J. 1994;31:521–532. doi: x.1139/t94-061. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gahoonia TS, Claassen Northward, Jungk A. Mobilization of phosphate in unlike soils by ryegrass supplied with ammonium or nitrate. Establish Soil. 1992;140:241–248. doi: ten.1007/BF00010600. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Giles CD, Brown LK, Adu MO, Mezeli MM, Sandral GA, Simpson RJ, Wendler R, Shand CA, Menezes-Blackburn D, Darch T, Stutter MI, Lumsdon DG, Zhang H, Blackwell MSA, Wearing C, Cooper P, Haygarth PM, George TS. Response-based selection of barley cultivars and legume species for complementarity: root morphology and exudation in relation to food source. Plant Sci. 2017;255:12–28. doi: x.1016/j.plantsci.2016.eleven.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hallett PD, Gordon DC, Bengough AG. Plant influence on rhizosphere hydraulic properties: direct measurements using a miniaturized infiltrometer. New Phytol. 2003;157:597–603. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00690.10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hinsinger P, Bengough AG, Vetterlein D, Immature IM. Rhizosphere: biophysics, biogeochemistry and ecological relevance. Establish Soil. 2009;321:117–152. doi: ten.1007/s11104-008-9885-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Holz 1000, Zarebanadkouki One thousand, Kaestner A, Kuzyakov Y, Carminati A. Rhizodeposition under drought is controlled past root growth rate and rhizosphere h2o content. Establish Soil. 2018;423:429–442. doi: x.1007/s11104-017-3522-4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jones DL, Nguyen C, Finlay RD. Carbon menstruation in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil-root interface. Institute Soil. 2009;321:five–33. doi: ten.1007/s11104-009-9925-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Karagunduz A, Pennell KD, Young MH. Influence of a non-ionic surfactant on the water memory properties of unsaturated soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2001;65:1392–1399. doi: x.2136/sssaj2001.6551392x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kroener Eastward, Zarebanadkouki Yard, Kaestner A, Carminati A. Nonequilibrium h2o dynamics in the rhizosphere: how mucilage affects water flow in soils. Water Resour Res. 2014;50:6479–6495. doi: 10.1002/2013WR014756. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kroener East, Zarebanadkouki M, Bittelli M, Carminati A. Simulation of root water uptake nether consideration of nonequilibrium dynamics in the rhizosphere. H2o Resour Res. 2016;52:5755–5770. doi: 10.1002/2015WR018579. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lee B-B, Chan E-S, Ravindra P, Khan TA. Surface tension of gummy biopolymer solutions measured using the du Nouy ring method and the driblet weight methods. Polym Balderdash. 2012;69:471–489. doi: 10.1007/s00289-012-0782-two. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• LeFevre GH, Hozalski RM, Novak PJ. Root exudate enhanced contaminant desorption: an abiotic contribution to the rhizosphere result. Env Sci Tech. 2013;47:11545–11553. doi: 10.1021/es402446v. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lu Northward, Khorshidi Thou. Mechanisms for soil water retention and hysteresis at high suction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2015;141:04015032. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001325. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mazen AM, Radwan DEM, Ahmed AF. Growth responses of maize plants cultivated in sandy soil amended past dissimilar superabsorbant hydrogels. J Found Nutr. 2015;38:325–337. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2014.957393. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McCully ME, Boyer JS. The expansion of maize root-cap gum during hydration. 3. Changes in h2o potential and water content. Physiol Establish. 1997;99:169–177. doi: x.1111/j.1399-3054.1997.tb03445.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Moradi AB, Carminati A, Vetterlein D, Vontobel P, Lehmann E, Weller U, Hopmans JW, Vogel HJ, Oswald SE. Three-dimensional visualization and quantification of water content in the rhizosphere. New Phytol. 2011;192:653–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03826.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Moradi AB, Carminati A, Lamparter A, Woche SK, Bachmann J, Vetterlein D, Vogel HJ, Oswald SE (2012) Is the rhizosphere temporarily h2o repellent? Vadose Zone J xi. 10.2136/vzj2011.0120
• Naveed M, Brown LK, Raffan AC, George TS, Bengough AG, Roose T, Sinclair I, Koebernick N, Cooper Fifty, Hackett CA, Hallett PD. Establish exudates may stabilize or weaken soil depending on species, origin and fourth dimension. Eur J Soil Sci. 2017;68:806–816. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12487. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Naveed M, Brown LK, Raffan AC, George TS, Bengough AG, Roose T, Sinclair I, Koebernick N, Cooper L, Hallett PD. Rhizosphere-scale quantification of hydraulic and mechanical properties of soil impacted by root and seed exudates. Vadose Zone J. 2018;17:12. doi: ten.2136/vzj2017.04.0083. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pojasok T, Kay BD. Effect of root exudates from corn and bromegrass on soil structural stability. Can J Soil Sci. 1990;70(3):351–362. doi: 10.4141/cjss90-036. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Passioura JB. Water transport in and to roots. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Establish Mol. Biol. 1988;39:245–265. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pp.39.060188.001333. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Read DB, Gregory PJ. Surface tension and viscosity of axenic maize and lupin root mucilages. New Phytol. 1997;137:623–628. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1997.00859.10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Read DB, Bengough AG, Gregory PJ, Scrimgeour CM, Zhang K. Constitute roots release phospholipid surfactants that alter the physical and chemic backdrop of soil. New Phytol. 2003;157:315–326. doi: x.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00665.ten. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Reid JB, Goss MJ. Interactions between soil drying due to establish water-apply and decreases in aggregate stability acquired by maize roots. J Soil Sci. 1982;33:47–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1982.tb01746.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Shaw DJ. Introduction to colloid and surface chemistry. 3. London: Butterworths; 1980. [Google Scholar]
• Whalley WR, Riseley B, Leeds-Harrison Lead, Bird NRA, Leech PK, Adderley WP. Structural differences between bulk and rhizosphere soil. Eur J Soil Sci. 2005;56:353–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2004.00670.ten. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Williams J, Shaykewich CF. An evaluation of polyethylene glycol (P.East.Chiliad.) 6000 and P.Due east.G. 20,000 in the osmotic control of soil water matric potential. Can J Soil Sci. 1969;49:397–401. doi: 10.4141/cjss69-054. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yasuda K. Thesis. Cambridge: MIT; 1979. Investigation of the analogies betwixt viscometric and linear viscoelastic properties of polystyrene. Ph.D. [Google Scholar]
• Zeppenfeld T, Balkenhol N, Kóvacs Grand, Carminati A (2017) Rhizosphere hydrophobicity: A positive trait in the competition for water. 12(7):e0182188. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182188 [PMC costless article] [PubMed]
• Zickenrott I-1000, Woche SK, Bachmann J, Ahmed MA, Vetterlein D. An efficient method for the collection of root mucilage from different plant species - a example study on the effect of mucilage on soil water repellency. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2016;179:294–302. doi: ten.1002/jpln.201500511. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

denniewhishatell.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6447521/

Share this post