Next Article in Journal
Morphological Patterns and Drivers of Urban Growth on Africa’s Wetland Landscapes: Insights from the Densu Delta Ramsar Site, Ghana
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Inclusive Framework Studio for Inclusive Education—Perceptions of Teachers, Parents, and Students in United Arab Emirates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 15
10.3390/su16156374
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Biomechanical Study of Potential Plants for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization of Highland in Thailand

by
Warakorn Mairaing
1,
Apiniti Jotisankasa
2,*,
Nisa Leksungnoen
3,*,
Monir Hossain
2,
Chatchai Ngernsaengsaruay
4,
Prem Rangsiwanichpong
5,
Jarunee Pilumwong
6,
Sony Pramusandi
7,
Surat Semmad
8 and
Abu Noman Faruq Ahmmed
9
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Nakhon Pathom 73140, Thailand
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
3
Department of Forest Biology, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
4
Department of Botany, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
5
Department of Water Resources Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
6
Highland Research and Development Institute (Public Organization), Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
7
Department of Civil Engineering, State Polytechnic of Jakarta, Depok City 16425, Indonesia
8
Department of Construction Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-Ok, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
9
Department of Plant Pathology, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(15), 6374; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156374 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 14 June 2024 / Revised: 10 July 2024 / Accepted: 24 July 2024 / Published: 25 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Nature-Based Solutions-2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soil bioengineering provides a sustainable method for erosion control and soil slope stabilization using vegetation with multiple co-benefits. This study evaluated ten plant species in Thailand’s highland regions for their soil bioengineering potential and additional benefits. Root architecture, tensile strength, and Young’s modulus were measured to compare biomechanical traits. G. sepium, F. griffithii, P. americana, B. asiatica, and C. arabica exhibited H-type roots with wide lateral spread, while M. denticulata and C. officinarum had VH-type roots with deep taproots and wide lateral extent. A. sutepensis showed M-type roots with most root matrix in the top 0.3 m, where C. cajan and C. sinensis had R-type roots with deep, oblique growth. Most species showed a negative power relationship between the root strength and Young’s modulus with the root diameter except C. cajan that showed a positive correlation. P. americana, F. griffithii, C. officinarum, and C. arabica showed relatively high values of 1 mm root tensile strength (exceeding 24 to 42 MPa), while M. denticulata, G. sepium, and B. asiatica exhibited intermediate root tensile strength (ranging from 8 to 19 MPa). A. sutepensis, C. cajan, and C. sinensis demonstrated the lowest root tensile strength, up to 7 MPa. It is advised to plan slope vegetation by selecting diverse plant species with varying root structures and benefits, addressing both engineering and socioeconomic needs of the sustainable nature-based solution.

1. Introduction

Due to the current climate change and extreme weather conditions, land degradation and rainfall-triggered landslide are one of the most pressing environmental concerns particularly in mountainous highlands. These problems are accelerating in recent years due to land scarcity and the increasing pressure for food security that lead local farmers in highland to follow unsustainable agriculture practice such as slash and burn, associated with annual crops. In order to tackle this problem, a sustainable approach that promotes societal development while addressing economic and environmental needs is followed by Royal Project Foundation and Highland Research and Development Institute (HRDI) in Thailand [1]. Various long-term initiatives were developed to encourage local farmers in northern provinces to turn to more environmentally friendly agroforestry practice and reforestation. One of the philosophies proposed by the late King Bhumibol of Thailand regarding this issue is that of “three forests with four benefits”. The three kinds of forests include species for (a) general usage such as timbers, (b) edible fruits, and (c) fuels, which can yield four benefits, including the three original purposes, plus the fourth one being soil and water conservation and reforestation. Such a sustainable approach of plant selection is mostly adopted in community capacity development projects in the northern part of Thailand.
The vegetation planted on slopes not only serves as soil and water conservation and erosion control, benefiting the environment, but also provides economic incentives to local farmers, making these practices sustainable. In this way, all three key aspects of sustainability can be realized, that is, the environmental, economic, and social development aspects. However, biomechanical studies on how these species reinforce the soil and their application in soil bioengineering are relatively scarce [2]. A holistic discussion of all aspects of sustainability, combined with biomechanical studies of plant roots, is also rare.
Soil bioengineering is the use of plants for erosion control and shallow slope stabilization, normally combined with engineering techniques such as erosion control blankets, with some forms of retaining structures, namely gabion walls and soil bags [3,4,5,6]. This technique has recently received considerable attention in infrastructure development due to its attributes of being relatively low cost, emitting low levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), being aesthetically pleasing, and being environmentally friendly [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Plant roots can stabilize soil by providing mechanical reinforcement and creating a composite material with improved properties, such as enhanced resistance to tension [8,18,19]. The effectiveness of soil stabilization by plant roots depends on various factors including species, architectural shape, morphology, and interface properties of the root system, as well as their concentration, branching characteristics, and spatial distribution within the soil [20]. Essentially, it is the combination of root orientation, root concentration, and root tensile strength characteristics that collectively gives rise to the overall capacity of the root-reinforced soil [4].
Root strength and architecture are influenced by local soil and environmental conditions. Yen [21] classified root growth types into H-type, R-type, VH-type, V-type, and M-type. Styczen and Morgan [20] further elaborated on these root growth types, providing detailed explanations to enhance comprehension. According to Styczen and Morgan [20], H-type and VH-type plant roots are suitable for slope stabilization and wind resistance, while H-type and M-type roots are recommended for soil reinforcement [22]. Plant roots provide soil reinforcement by physically anchoring shallow soil to deeper layers, thereby preventing erosion and slope failures [23,24]. The size of roots has a significant impact on their effectiveness in soil reinforcement, with fibrous roots being particularly effective in creating a root–soil composite similar to fiber-reinforced soil [25,26]. Fibrous roots can exhibit greater cohesiveness compared with tap roots, even when considering the same root area ratio [27]. Smaller roots tend to have higher tensile strength than larger roots primarily due to their biological components such as cellulose [4,28]. Consequently, small roots can leverage their tensile strength to enhance soil–root friction, while larger roots intersect shear surfaces and mobilize soil–root friction force [24]. Root mechanical reinforcement is influenced by various factors, including root system morphology [29] and growth conditions [30], the number and relative amount of fine and coarse roots, the diameter [25,27,29,31], water content and suction [8,32,33,34], chemical composition [35], and tensile strength and stiffness, characterized by Young’s modulus (the initial linear part of a tensile stress–strain curve) [19,25] and the loading rate of testing [36,37]. It is noteworthy that root moisture content and root suction were found to have profound effects on root tensile strength as well as the stability of the root-reinforced slope subjected to long-term drought followed by heavy rain [8].
The most commonly utilized soil bioengineering method in Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries is the use of the vetiver (Chrysopogon zizanioides) system, known for its cost-effectiveness and environmental friendliness [38]. In Thailand, the predominant species is Chrysopogon zizanioides, a lowland vetiver, while Chrysopogon nemoralis, an upland vetiver, is less favored due to its potential invasiveness and shorter root system [39]. Despite its advantages, vetiver grass exhibits shade intolerance and is occasionally viewed as a monospecies solution. The incorporation of local plant species in addition to the vetiver system not only fosters biodiversity but also reduces expenses associated with harvesting, handling, and transportation [40].
This study aims to investigate locally cultivated plant species commonly found in landslide-prone regions within four HRDI project areas in northern Thailand for their potential use in erosion control and soil bioengineering applications, while also considering their additional benefits. The primary goal is to analyze the root characteristics of these species and assess their biomechanical properties, specifically focusing on tensile strength and modulus. Additionally, a comparative evaluation was undertaken to gauge the suitability of each species for soil bioengineering applications based on their biomechanical attributes and other benefits, presenting a promising avenue for future research in this field.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection of Plant Species and Sampling

In selecting plant species for soil bioengineering applications in this study, careful consideration is given to various factors, including not only their effectiveness in resisting mechanical stresses but also the habitat of the species being both native and exotic species that are available in the study areas as well as their other uses. Furthermore, observations from local farmers and expertise from relevant authorities (HRDI) contributed to the selection process, ensuring other tangible benefits such as economic value, timber resources, and soil and water conservation. Various plant species (10 species in total; details of which are shown in Table 1 and Table 2) were selected for root architecture study and tensile strength testing based on their availability in four project areas of HRDI in northern provinces of Thailand. In Tak province (Mae Song project area), Cajanus cajan, Persea americana, Fraxinus griffithii, and Cinnamomum officinarum were tested. In Chiang Rai province (Mae Salong project area), Camellia sinensis, Aspidistra sutepensis, and Coffea arabica were featured. The Sop Moei project area, Ma Hongsorn province, included Macaranga denticulata and Buddleja asiatica. The excavation and washing methods were employed to examine the root architecture of the selected species from the study areas and to collect root specimens for further biomechanical analysis. In spite of the risk of breaking smaller roots, even with careful handling [41,42], this technique was considered the most reliable option given the resources and tools available during this study.
From Table 2, it is noted that the eight selected species—Persea americana, Fraxinus griffithii, Cajanus cajan, Cinnamomum officinarum, Camellia sinensis, Coffea arabica, and Gliricidia sepium—are all non-invasive exotic species. These plants have been primarily cultivated for various benefits, such as fruits, food, timber, and ornamental purposes, in addition to soil and water conservation. Over time, these exotic species have become naturalized to the environment in Thailand, integrating into the native ecosystem and demonstrating their ability to survive. This adaptation is likely reflected in their root tensile strength.

2.2. Measurements of Root Biomechanical Properties

After excavation and washing, the root specimens were placed in sealed plastic bags, transferred to the laboratory, and stored in a refrigerator at 8 °C. Subsequently, all specimens were tested at ambient temperature in the moisture condition they retained post-sampling. This condition is hereafter referred to as as-sampled moisture condition. However, for Cinnamomum officinarum, additional series of tensile strength tests were carried out on root specimens that had been dried for 7 days in order to explore the effects of drying. In the tensile strength test, the root specimen was gripped using a drill-bit clamp connected to a load cell, and tension was applied using a loading frame at a constant speed of 4 mm/min [8]. To ensure secure gripping of fine roots, a customized gripping mechanism was employed, utilizing two chuck grips at the ends of the root. Epoxy resin or latex glue was applied to reinforce up to 5 mm at the root ends to prevent squeezing and pulling out during testing, and sometimes a rubber membrane and gauze cloth were also used between the root and the grip to avoid stress concentrations and improve the grip. After reinforcement of root ends (within 30 min), specimens were subjected to testing, with the root segment length between clamps set at 50 mm. Only test results of specimens with ruptures occurring near the middle part were considered reliable and included in the data analysis. In the case of any slippage, the tensile test was discarded. Figure 1 shows the complete assembly of the tensile testing machine used in this study. The root tensile strength (MPa) at maximum load and Young’s modulus (MPa) were obtained from the stress–strain curve of the tested sample [30]. The tensile strength (Tr) at maximum load was calculated using Equation (1).
T r = F π d 2 4  
where F is the maximum force (Newton) the root can sustain before breaking, and d is the root diameter (mm) (the arithmetic mean of three-point measurements made after the tensile test). Young’s modulus (Er) was calculated from the gradient of the stress–strain curve measured at the peak stress:
E r = F L o π d 2 4 ∆ L
where Lo is the initial length (mm) of the root sample (i.e., 50 mm), and ΔL is the change in the root length (mm) at peak stress [27,30]. The root diameter is, therefore, a key parameter that can affect both the values of root tensile strength and Young’s modulus (Equations (1) and (2)).

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Root Morphology and Architecture

The morphology and architectural shape of plant roots (Figure 2) were characterized using patterns of root growth outlined by Yen [21] and Styczen & Morgan [20] in this study. According to Yen’s classification, Gliricidia sepium, Persea americana, Fraxinus griffithii, Coffea arabica, and Buddleja asiatica exhibit H-type roots. These roots are characterized by a wide lateral extent, with 80% of the root matrix concentrated in the top 60 cm of soil, and moderate depth for maximum root length. On the other hand, Macaranga denticulata and Cinnamomum officinarum have VH-type roots, similar to H-type but with a main taproot penetrating deep into the ground while lateral roots extend horizontally. Aspidistra sutepensis possess M-type roots, where the main root profusely grows under the stump with a narrow lateral extent, and the majority of the root matrix accumulates in the top 30 cm of soil. Lastly, Cajanus cajan and Camellia sinensis are characterized by R-type roots, which have deep maximum root growth but grow obliquely, with only 20% of the root matrix found in the top 60 cm of soil and with main roots extending at right angles to the slope.
Understanding the root architecture of different tree species can greatly aid in the strategic arrangement of vegetation planting on slopes. Planting only a single tree species (monoculture) or a certain type of root morphology on slopes can pose risks to slope stability. Monocultures tend to have uniform root patterns, lacking the diverse root systems of mixed-species forests, thereby reducing their resistance to a variety of slope failure mechanisms. They are also more susceptible to diseases and pests, which can devastate the entire tree population and further compromise slope stability. In contrast, a diverse array of plant species with varied root architectures (H-, VH-, R-, and M-types) can enhance slope stability by addressing different types of mass movement, both surface and deep-seated. Additionally, such diversity improves ecological values, decreases vulnerability to diseases and pests, and provides economic and societal benefits. It should be noted that while the site conditions across the study areas are similar, i.e., hilly terrain, there may be variations in soil types and nutrient availability from one site to another. These factors can influence root architecture and the extent to which root types vary with site conditions. Further detailed studies on specific species are needed to elucidate these variations.

3.2. Root Tensile Strength

This study investigates the root tensile strength across 10 plant species, ranging in diameter from 0.22 mm to 3.43 mm (Table 3). Average tensile strengths for all root diameters are also shown to vary across the species, with values ranging from 4.06 MPa (Aspidistra sutepensis, the lowest value) to 36.82 MPa (Fraxinus griffithii, the highest value) in an as-sample root moisture condition. Notably, Fraxinus griffithii demonstrated the highest strength per individual root section, reaching 89.12 MPa for a 0.612 mm diameter root segment. The effect of root drying was clearly evident by comparing the root tensile strengths of Cinnamomum officinarum in as-sampled and in 7-day drying conditions. The average tensile strength increased from 19.11 MPa to 33.37 MPa as the roots dried for 7 days. This trend of increasing strength with decreasing moisture content is in line with the behavior of other woody species observed by Hales and Miniat [33] and Boldrin et al. [32], and herbaceous plants reported by Zhang et al. [34], while it contradicted that of the grass species reported by Mahannopkul and Jotisankasa [8]. It is noted that the range of root suction tested by Mahannopkul and Jotisankasa [8] was only up to 50 kPa, while the root suction during drying of Cinnamomum officinarum in this study was unknown. Table 3 presents the fitting equations based on the power law relationship, including the coefficients of determination (R2) and p-values obtained from regression analysis and ANOVA in Microsoft Excel. For seven species—Persea Americana, Fraxinus griffithii, Cajanus cajan, Cinnamomum officinarum (7 day drying), Camellia sinensis, Coffea Arabica, and Buddleja asiatica—a significant relationship (p-value < 0.05) was found between the root diameter and tensile strength. In contrast, the relatively low R2 values and higher p-values (>0.05) for Cinnamomum officinarum (as sampled), Aspidistra sutepensis, Gliricidia sepium, and Macaranga denticulata suggest that factors beyond the root diameter, such as root suction and moisture conditions, likely contribute to variations in tensile strength.
Interestingly, this study identified two distinct trends in the tensile strength–diameter relationship across species, which may be described by two different types of fitting equations (Figure 3; Table 3). Among the species, 9 show a negative power trend in the tensile strength–diameter relationship, indicating a decrease in tensile strength with an increasing root diameter, while the Cajanus cajan exhibit positive relationships between strength and diameter and show an increase in tensile strength with diameter. The positive correlation can be attributed to several factors, including changes in root structure, namely their relative cellulose and lignin percentages, with root diameter [50]. In the case that larger roots exhibit a higher proportion of the lignin/cellulose ratio, known to provide material strength, this results in positive correlations. For negative correlation, an increase in diameter may correspond to a lower lignin/cellulose ratio, typically associated with decreased strength as reported by Yang et al. [50]. However, there is still no root cross-sectional image studies to confirm this hypothesis. Further studies are required, in particular, to understand the basic cellular structure of dicot and monocot roots of these species.
Figure 4a presents the tested root tensile strength as a boxplot. The largest variation in strength with root diameter was found in Fraxinus griffithii, which was also reflected in the high exponent value (1.414) of its negative power law curve fitting as shown in Table 3. In other words, an increase in the root diameter can bring about a faster rate of reduction in tensile strength for the roots of Fraxinus griffithii as compared with other species. The roots of Persea americana, Cinnamomum officinarum, and Coffea arabica exhibited a more moderate variation, while the others showed a narrow variation in tensile strength. However, it should also be noted that the range of root diameters was different among the tested species. The narrow variation in tensile strength for some species can be due to the fact that no smaller root size was presented in the specimens tested, or these smaller roots were too soft to handle during the tests.

3.3. Young’s Modulus of Roots

Figure 5 and Table 3 illustrate the relationship between Young’s modulus of roots for each tested species. The average Young’s modulus of various plant specimens significantly ranged from 62.90 MPa for Aspidistra sutepensis to 615.63 MPa for Fraxinus griffithii. For Cinnamomum officinarum under as-sampled condition, Young’s modulus was measured at 269.28 MPa, a lower value than the drier roots, demonstrating the same trend as that of tensile strength as explained earlier. The tested species displayed a relationship between Young’s modulus and the root diameter (Figure 5, Table 3), akin to trends observed in strength–diameter relationships. The modulus–diameter relationship, with p-values lower than 0.05 indicating significant relationships, was only found for Fraxinus griffithii, Cajanus cajan, Camellia sinensis, and Coffea arabica. Other species, including Persea Americana, Cinnamomum officinarum, Aspidistra sutepensis, Gliricidia sepium, Macaranga denticulate, and Buddleja asiatica, showing p-values higher than 0.05, demonstrated larger deviation of moduli from the fitting trend line, reflecting their intrinsic natural variability. Stiffer roots, characterized by higher Young’s modulus values, are shown to effectively mobilize stress, potentially enhancing soil shear strength and stability. Figure 4b presents the tested root Young’s modulus as a boxplot. A similar trend can be observed regarding the variation in the modulus as the tensile strength. The largest variation in the modulus with the root diameter was still found in Fraxinus griffithii followed by Coffea arabica, which showed a more moderate variation, while the other species exhibited a more constant modulus.
Figure 6 focuses on comparing the root tensile strength among different plant species using a standardized root diameter of 1 mm. This 1 mm root tensile strength can be directly obtained from the fitting equations of trendlines as summarized in Table 3. The root diameter of 1mm is typically associated with fibrous root reinforcement, which contributes more significantly to the root reinforcement than thicker roots, as shown in previous studies [27,28]. Notably, exotic species such as Cinnamomum officinarum, Persea americana, Fraxinus griffithii, and Coffea arabica demonstrate relatively higher values of 1mm root tensile strength while not being native to Thailand. These exotic species, showing a similar range of tensile strength to Chrysopogon zizanioides, would be able to contribute to not only soil erosion control but also their usage for foods and economic purposes. Additionally, this study categorizes species into intermediate (Macaranga denticulata, Gliricidia sepium, and Buddleja asiatica) and low root tensile strength groups, with species like Aspidistra sutepensis, Camellia sinensis, and Cajanus cajan exhibiting the lowest root tensile strength. However, it is noted that even species with relatively lower root tensile strength can contribute to soil stability if their density (root biomass per soil volume) is sufficiently high [51,52].
Table 4 provides a concise overview of the soil reinforcing properties and diverse advantages of several plant species investigated in this study. Persea americana and Fraxinus griffithii stand out with higher tensile strength and are considered effective in soil and water conservation, with Persea americana also providing high economic and edible fruit benefits. Cinnamomum officinarum, also known for its commercial values and medicinal use, possesses moderate tensile strength and a dense root system, rendering it appropriate for reinforcing soil and conserving soil and water at a medium to high level. Cajanus cajan and Aspidistra sutepensis have low tensile strength but would still contribute to soil conservation, as their root density varies from medium to high. They also provide high edible fruit benefits. Coffea arabica is distinguished by relatively high tensile strength and root density, which shows its potential for soil reinforcement and conservation in addition to its well-known commercial use. Other species, like Gliricidia sepium and Buddleja asiatica, offer medium tensile strength and root density, with varying benefits for general use, economic use, and soil conservation.

3.4. Plant Response to Biotic and Abiotic Stresses

Table 5 discusses the growth response of the tested species to biotic and abiotic stresses. Gliricidia sepium and Cajanus cajan are fast-growing legumes that enhance soil fertility through superior nitrogen fixation [53], even under drought conditions. Gliricidia sepium also offers high biomass and nutrient levels but does not significantly aid in erosion control or slope stabilization [54]. It tolerates frost and moderate salinity but struggles in waterlogged conditions like Aspidistra sutepensis, providing some protection against fungal, viral, and insect threats [55]. It also provides protection against certain fungal infections (rust), viral diseases (leaf spot), and insect infestations (stem borer) [56]. Persea americana faces growth challenges from water quality, drought, low soil fertility, and coffee berry disease [57,58]. Fraxinus griffithii is a saline-tolerant species capable of growing under drought stress, but it requires ample space due to its large canopy. However, Coffea arabica and Camellia sinensis thrive under shade but are highly susceptible to several pests and diseases mentioned in Table 5. As a medicinal plant, Buddleja asiatica leaves exhibit in vitro antifungal activities and possess antibacterial and cytotoxic properties, offering protection against pests such as rats [59] that help in slope stabilization. According to Joshi et al. [60], this shrub demonstrates antimicrobial activity against six bacteria (Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Proteus vulgaris, and Bacillus mycoides) and two fungi (Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans). Additionally, it works as an antifungal agent against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and is effective against Aspergillus niger when used with Fluconazole [60]. Similarly, Macaranga denticulata and Cinnamomum officinarum possess antioxidant properties, though not as potent as Buddleja asiatica.
It is well recognized [61] that planting diversified species as vegetation islands and terraces can enhance the heterogeneity of the natural ecosystem recovery and help to accelerate successional processes, creating hospitable microclimates and soil microflora and fauna that can mimic natural processes. The 10 studied species in this research not only provide a diversified vegetation, which is valuable for ecological improvement, but also are beneficial socially and economically. Their implementation for slope stabilization projects is still underway, and the results will be presented in the future.
Table 5. Growth response to biotic and abiotic stresses.
Table 5. Growth response to biotic and abiotic stresses.
Plant SpeciesAdvantageDisadvantageReferences
Gliricidia sepiumDrought, frost and saline tolerant, enhancing soil fertility, resistant to rust and leaf spot diseases and stem borer insect.Does not survive in waterlogged conditions[54,55,56]
Persea americanaImprove soil physical properties, increase water holding capacity (WHC), mitigate nutrient loss.Sensitive to water quality and few irrigations, drought, low soil fertility, susceptible to coffee berry disease.[56,57,62]
Fraxinus griffithiiDrought and saline tolerant.Requires ample space due to large canopy.
Coffea arabicaDirect sunlight not necessary.Susceptible to Xylotrechus quadripes, Xylosandrus compactus, and Hemileia vastatrix[59]
Buddleja asiaticaAntifungal, antibacterial, and cytotoxic properties against rat, resistant against six bacteria and two fungi.Sensitive to cold and dry/drought stress.[59,60,63]
Macaranga denticulataAntioxidant properties, survive in adverse soil and environment, have complex symbiotic mycorrhizal relationship that increase nutrient uptake.Difficult management and hand weeding needed.[64]
Cinnamomum officinarumAntioxidant propertiesNo report found
Aspidistra sutepensisGrows under diverse environmentDoes not survive in waterlogged soil.[65]
Cajanus cajanDrought, frost, saline tolerant, enhancing soil fertility, protest rust, leaf spot and stem borer.Does not survive in waterlogged conditions[65]
Camellia sinensisMinimum runoff, high organic matter and water holding capacity, natural habitat.Need a combination of cover crops, susceptible to Xylotrechus quadripes, Xylosandrus compactus, and Hemileia vastatrix[59,66]

4. Conclusions

This study investigated ten plant species in Thailand’s highland regions for their soil bioengineering potential and additional benefits. The root morphology along with the relationship between root tensile strength and Young’s modulus with a diameter was extensively studied. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
  • G. sepium, F. griffithii, P. americana, B. asiatica, and C. arabica possessed H-type roots and wide lateral spread. M. denticulata and C. officinarum demonstrated VH-type roots with deep taproots in addition to their lateral extent. A. sutepensis showed M-type roots with most root matrix in the top 0.3m, whereas C. cajan and C. sinensis had R-type roots with deep, oblique growth. This information is crucial for strategically arranging slope vegetation, enabling a more robust bioengineering system through diversified root reinforcement patterns and a variety of plant usages.
  • The root tensile strength and Young’s modulus–diameter relationships of the ten species highlighted two different trends. For nine of the species tested, P. americana, F. griffithii, M. denticulata, G. sepium, A. sutepensis, C. arabica, C. sinensis, C. officinarum, and B. asiatica demonstrated a decrease in tensile strength with the diameter, the commonly observed negative power law relationship with the exponent values ranging from −0.187 to −1.983. Conversely, C. cajan exhibited an increase in tensile strength with the diameter, the positive power law with the exponent value of 1.5474 diverging from the typical trend.
  • Plant species with relatively high values of 1-mm root tensile strength (exceeding 24 to 42 MPa) include P. americana, F. griffithii, C. officinarum, and C. arabica. Species exhibiting intermediate root tensile strength (ranging from 8 to 19 MPa) comprise M. denticulata, G. sepium, and B. asiatica. Conversely, A. sutepensis, C. cajan, and C. sinensis demonstrate the lowest root tensile strength, up to 7 MPa.
  • It is recommended to design slope vegetation by strategically selecting species with diverse root morphologies and mechanical properties, as well as incorporating a variety of plant species that offer multiple benefits. This approach addresses both the engineering and socioeconomic requirements of the nature-based solution.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.M. and A.J.; data curation, M.H., S.P. and S.S.; formal analysis, M.H. and A.J.; funding acquisition, A.J.; investigation, W.M., A.J., N.L., C.N., P.R., J.P., S.P. and S.S.; methodology, W.M., A.J. and N.L.; project administration, A.J. and J.P.; resources, A.J. and J.P.; supervision, A.J.; validation, A.J., N.L. and C.N.; writing—original draft, M.H. and A.J.; writing—review and editing, M.H., A.J., N.L., C.N. and A.N.F.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research grant was provided by Highland Research and Development Institute (HRDI) and the Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Thailand.

Data Availability Statement

Data for the formal analysis are presented in the article. Raw data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude for the grant provided by the Highland Research and Development Institute (HRDI) and the scholarship provided to the fourth author by Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University. They also acknowledge the students and staff at the Geotechnical Division of the Department of Civil Engineering at Kasetsart University and Green Ground Solutions, Co. Ltd., for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gadhoke, P. Walking the Middle Path of Food Sovereignty, Food Security, Nutrition, and Health in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. In Transformations of Global Food Systems for Climate Change Resilience: Addressing Food Security, Nutrition, and Health; CRC PRESS: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023; pp. 263–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jotisankasa, A.; Jamrueang, W.; Pramusandi, S.; Semmad, S.; Pilumwong, J. Field Observations of Soil Moisture, Suction and Movement of Cornfield in Tropical Highland with and without Vetiver System. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT 2023), E3S Web of Conference, Milos, Greece, 2–5 May 2023; Volume 382, p. 24004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Coppin, N.J.; Barker, D.L.; Richards, I. Use of Vegetation in Civil Engineering; Butterworths: London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gray, D.H.; Sotir, R.B. Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: A Practical Guide for Erosion Control; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  5. Stokes, A.; Norris, J.E.; Van Beek, L.P.H.; Bogaard, T.; Cammeraat, E.; Mickovski, S.B.; Jenner, A.; Di Iorio, A.; Fourcaud, T. How Vegetation Reinforces Soil on Slopes. Slope Stab. Eros. Control Ecotechnol. Solut. 2008, 4, 65–118. [Google Scholar]
  6. Stokes, A.; Douglas, G.B.; Fourcaud, T.; Giadrossich, F.; Gillies, C.; Hubble, T.; Kim, J.; Loades, K.W.; Mao, Z.; Mclvor, I.R.; et al. Ecological mitigation of hillslope instability: Ten key issues facing researchers and practitioners. Plant Soil 2014, 377, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jotisankasa, A.; Sirirattanachat, T. Effects of Grass Roots on Soil-Water Retention Curve and Permeability Function. Can. Geotech. J. 2017, 54, 1612–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mahannopkul, K.; Jotisankasa, A. Influence of Root Suction on Tensile Strength of Chrysopogon zizanioides Roots and Its Implication on Bioslope Stabilization. J. Mt. Sci. 2019, 16, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Inui, T.; Chau, C.; Soga, K.; Nicolson, D.; O’Riordan, N. Embodied Energy and Gas Emissions of Retaining Wall Structures. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011, 137, 958–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, Y.J.; Wang, T.W.; Cai, C.F.; Li, Z.X.; Cheng, D.B. Effects of Vegetation on Runoff Generation, Sediment Yield and Soil Shear Strength on Road-Side Slopes under a Simulation Rainfall Test in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 485, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Liu, G.; Hu, F.; Zheng, F.; Zhang, Q. Effects and Mechanisms of Erosion Control Techniques on Stairstep Cut-Slopes. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 656, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kim, J.H.; Fourcaud, T.; Jourdan, C.; Maeght, J.L.; Mao, Z.; Metayer, J.; Meylan, L.; Pierret, A.; Rapidel, B.; Roupsard, O.; et al. Vegetation as a Driver of Temporal Variations in Slope Stability: The Impact of Hydrological Processes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 4897–4907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, Z.; Liu, X.; Ai, Y.; Chen, J.; Luo, X.; Chen, J.; Zhong, S. Effects and Mechanisms of Revegetation Modes on Cadmium and Lead Pollution in Artificial Soil on Railway Rock-Cut Slopes. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 1602–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oshunsanya, S.O.; Li, Y.; Yu, H. Vetiver Grass Hedgerows Significantly Reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses from Fertilized Sloping Lands. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 661, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Grima, N.; Edwards, D.; Edwards, F.; Petley, D.; Fisher, B. Landslides in the Andes: Forest can provide cost-effective landslide regulation services. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 745, 141128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wu, Z.; Leung, A.K.; Boldrin, D.; Ganesan, S.P. Variability in root biomechanics of Chrysopogon zizanioides for soil eco-engineering solutions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 776, 145943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ng, C.W.W.; Leung, A.K.; Ni, J.J. Plant-Soil Slope Interaction; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  18. Docker, B.B.; Hubble, T.C.T. Quantifying root-reinforcement of river bank soil by four Australian tree species. Geomorphology 2008, 100, 401–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Boldrin, D.; Leung, A.K.; Bengough, A.G. Root biomechanical properties during establishment of woody perennials. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 109, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Styczen, M.E.; Morgan, R.P.C. Engineering properties of vegetation. In Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control: A Bioengineering Approach; Morgain, R.P.C., Rickson, R.J., Eds.; E & F N Spon: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yen, C. Tree Root Patterns and Erosion Control. 1987. Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/19930667066 (accessed on 13 June 2024).
  22. Fan, C.-C.; Chen, Y.-W. The effect of root architecture on the shearing resistance of root-permeated soils. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 813–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Capilleri, P.P.; Motta, E.; Raciti, E. Experimental Study on Native Plant Root Tensile Strength for Slope Stabilization. Procedia Eng. 2016, 158, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Persichillo, M.G.; Bordoni, M.; Meisina, C. The role of land use changes in the distribution of shallow landslides. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 924–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Stokes, A.; Atger, C.; Bengough, A.G.; Fourcaud, T.; Sidle, R.C. Desirable plant root traits for protecting natural and engineered slopes against landslides. Plant Soil 2009, 324, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Norris, J.E.; Di Iorio, A.; Stokes, A.; Nicoll, B.C.; Achim, A. Species selection for soil reinforcement and protection. In Slope Stability and Erosion Control: Ecotechnological Solutions; Norris, J.E., Stokes, A., Mickovski, S.B., Cammeraat, E., van Beek, R., Nicoll, B.C., Achim, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 167–210. [Google Scholar]
  27. De Baets, S.; Poesen, J.; Reubens, B.; Wemans, K.; De Baerdemaeker, J.; Muys, B. Root tensile strength and root distribution of typical Mediterranean plant species and their contribution to soil shear strength. Plant Soil 2008, 305, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Genet, M.; Stokes, A.; Salin, F.; Mickovski, S.B.; Fourcaud, T.; Dumail, J.-F.; van Beek, R. The Influence of Cellulose Content on Tensile Strength in Tree Roots. Plant Soil 2005, 278, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mao, Z.; Wang, Y.; McCormack, M.L.; Rowe, N.; Deng, X.; Yang, X.; Xia, S.; Nespoulous, J.; Sidle, R.C.; Guo, D.; et al. Mechanical traits of fine roots as a function of topology and anatomy. Ann. Bot. 2018, 122, 1103–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Loades, K.W.; Bengough, A.G.; Bransby, M.F.; Hallett, P.D. Biomechanics of nodal, seminal and lateral roots of barley: Effects of diameter, waterlogging and mechanical impedance. Plant Soil 2013, 370, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ghestem, M.; Cao, K.; Ma, W.; Rowe, N.; Leclerc, R.; Gadenne, C.; Stokes, A. A framework for identifying plant species to be used as ‘Ecological Engineers’ for fixing soil on unstable slopes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e95876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Boldrin, D.; Leung, A.K.; Bengough, A.G. Effects of root de-hydration on bio-mechanical properties of woody roots of U. europaeus. Plant Soil 2018, 431, 347–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hales, T.C.; Miniat, C.F. Soil moisture causes dynamic adjustments to root reinforcement that reduce slope stability. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2016, 42, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, C.B.; Zhou, X.; Jiang, J.; Wei, Y.; Ma, J.; Hallett, P.D. Root moisture content influence on root tensile tests of herbaceous plants. Catena 2019, 172, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Loades, K.W.; Bengough, A.G.; Bransby, M.F.; Hallett, P.D. Effect of root age on the biomechanics of seminal and nodal roots of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in contrasting soil environments. Plant Soil 2015, 395, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cofie, P.; Koolen, A.J. Test speed and other factors affecting the measurements of tree root properties used in soil reinforcement models. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 63, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, C.; Chen, L.; Jiang, J.; Zhou, S. Effects of gauge length and strain rate on the tensile strength of tree roots. Trees 2012, 26, 1577–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Truong, P.; Van, T.T.; Pinners, E. Vetiver System Applications: Technical Reference Manual. Vetiver Netw. Int. 2008, 89. [Google Scholar]
  39. Cuong, D.C.; Truong, P.; Van Minh, V.; Minh, P.T.; Truong, P.N. Confusion between Chrysopogon nemoralis and Chrysopogon zizanioides at Bo Bo Mountain in Quang Nam Province, Vietnam. Available online: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/88699934/2_20Doan_20Chi_20Cuong_20Paper-libre.pdf?1658101759=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D1_CONFUSION_BETWEEN_Chrysopogon_nemorali.pdf&Expires=1721788768&Signature=FKeOhqDSU6j4XPbuFlujtkUoam81QeLjFizuQgDIks9j1HmEJnpqANThkoaW4~-ykMIABiLi~rljJuRgc05uIhTOZbx3xvl0eOdvNFiCHqX4PDlXlIlk9JKaC0S-XKTzPRUu3I994MPab0qY2yUGkKDdQL5kR4fJWL1DhrwDfjvXfYKzAGQKyOYOMcE3DTucDhdXrZAT0P-coegf2JyVbOSd05XdZG2vJ--5Kv5NGMPZ3IsKM8kQq9Zpjf7JFAAgj8hWtp5JGQOi16rOfc32NaRDm2GYl9DcPMBySvx4Ybljc56Eh1XgC3pyyUcH~ZbTwXcRI8KuzBJJgVvmgRmviA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA (accessed on 13 June 2024).
  40. Lewis, L. Soil Bioengineering: An Alternative for Roadside Management; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology & Development Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  41. Zhang, Z.; Fan, B.; Song, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Q.; Ye, B. Advances in Root System Architecture: Functionality, Plasticity, and Research Methods. J. Resour. Ecol. 2023, 14, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, J.B.; Zhang, X.J.; Wu, C. Advances in experimental methods for root system architecture and root development. J. For. Res. 2015, 26, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. POWO. Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 2024. Available online: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/ (accessed on 9 May 2024).
  44. Chang, M.C.; Qiu, L.Q.; Green, P.S. Oleaceae. In Flora of China; Wu, C.Y., Raven, P.H., Hong, D.Y., Eds.; Science Press: Beijing, China; Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis, MO, USA, 1996; Volume 15, pp. 272–319. [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, X.W.; Li, J.; Huang, P.H.; Wei, F.N.; Cui, H.B.; van der Werff, H. Lauraceae. In Flora of China; Wu, C.Y., Raven, P.H., Hong, D.Y., Eds.; Science Press: Beijing, China; Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2008; Volume 7, pp. 102–254. [Google Scholar]
  46. Keng, H. Theaceae. In Flora of Thailand; Smitinand, T., Larsen, K., Eds.; The Forest Herbarium, Royal Forest Department: Bangkok, Thailand, 1972; Volume 2, Part 2, pp. 142–158. [Google Scholar]
  47. Bartholomew, B. Theaceae. In Flora of China; Wu, C.Y., Raven, P.H., Hong, D.Y., Eds.; Science Press: Beijing, China; Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2007; Volume 12, pp. 366–478. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ding, H.B.; Xiong, K.C.; Yang, B.; Yin, J.T.; Bouamanivong, S.; Tani, Y.H. New species and taxonomic notes of Aspidistra (Asparagaceae) for the flora of China and Laos. Taiwania 2021, 66, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. van Welzen, P.C.; Chayamarit, K. Euphorbiaceae (Genera G–Z). In Flora of Thailand; Santisuk, T., Larsen, K., Eds.; The Forest Herbarium, National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department: Bangkok, Thailand, 2007; Volume 8, Part 2, pp. 305–592. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yang, Y.; Chen, L.; Li, N.; Zhang, Q. Effect of root moisture content and diameter on root tensile properties. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nilaweera, N.S. Effects of Tree Roots on Slope Stability—The Case of Khao Luang Mountain Area, Southern Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani, Thailand, 1994; p. 452. [Google Scholar]
  52. Nilaweera, N.S.; Nutalaya, P. Role of tree roots in slope stabilisation. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 1999, 57, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gargi, B.; Semwal, P.; Jameel Pasha, S.B.; Singh, P.; Painuli, S.; Thapliyal, A.; Cruz-Martins, N. Revisiting the Nutritional, Chemical and Biological Potential of Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Molecules 2022, 27, 6877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fagbola, O.; Osonubi, O.; Mulongoy, K.; Odunfa, S. Effects of drought stress and arbuscular mycorrhiza on the growth of Gliricidia sepium (Jacq). Walp, and Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit. in simulated eroded soil conditions. Mycorrhiza 2001, 11, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wartenberg, A.C.; Blaser, W.J.; Roshetko, J.M.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Six, J. Soil fertility and Theobroma cacao growth and productivity under commonly intercropped shade-tree species in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Plant Soil 2020, 453, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Elevitch, C.R.; Francis, J.K. Gliricidia sepium (gliricidia). Species Profiles Pac. Isl. Agrofor. 2006, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  57. Juma, I. Production, local trade and diversity of avocado (Persea americana Mill.) in the southern highlands of Tanzania. Acta Univ. Agric. Sueciae 2020, 2020, 26. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sina, B.; Demissie, H.; Rezene, Y. Assessment of the Constraints and Challenges in Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) Production and Marketing in Southern Ethiopia. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2024, 24, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liao, Y.H.; Houghton, P.J.; Hoult, J.R. Novel and known constituents from Buddleja species and their activity against leukocyte eicosanoid generation. J. Nat. Prod. 1999, 62, 1241–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Joshi, S.; Mishra, D.; Khetwal, K.S.; Bisht, G. Antibacterial and Antifungal Properties of Crude Extracts of Buddleja asiatica L. Aerial Parts. J. Pharm. Res. 2011, 4, 2282. [Google Scholar]
  61. Schaefer, J.W.; Dhar, A.; Chanasyk, D.S.; Naeth, M.A. Reclamation of an eroded lakeshore slope using small vegetation islands and terraces. Ecol. Eng. 2024, 206, 107327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Atucha, A.; Merwin, I.A.; Brown, M.G.; Gardiazabal, F.; Mena, F.; Adriazola, C.; Lehmann, J. Soil erosion, runoff and nutrient losses in an avocado (Persea americana Mill) hillside orchard under different groundcover management systems. Plant Soil 2013, 368, 393–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kriticos, D.J.; Watt, M.S.; Potter, K.J.; Manning, L.K.; Alexander, N.S.; Tallent-Halsell, N. Managing invasive weeds under climate change: Considering the current and potential future distribution of Buddleja davidii. Weed Res. 2011, 51, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Changkija, S.; Thakuria, D.; Cynthia, A. Traditional Use of Macaranga Trees for Soil Fertility: By Naga shifting cultivators in northeast India. In Farmer Innovations and Best Practices by Shifting Cultivators in Asia-Pacific; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 557–570. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dwivedi, A.K.; Tripathi, B.D. Pollution tolerance and distribution pattern of plants in surrounding area of coal-fired industries. J. Environ. Biol. 2007, 28, 257–263. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sahoo, D.C.; Madhu, M.G.; Bosu, S.S.; Khola, O.P. Farming methods impact on soil and water conservation efficiency under tea [Camellia sinensis (L.)] plantation in Nilgiris of South India. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2016, 4, 195–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 06374 g001
Figure 1. Root biomechanical testing equipment (root tensile strength test).
Figure 1. Root biomechanical testing equipment (root tensile strength test).
Sustainability 16 06374 g001
Sustainability 16 06374 g002aSustainability 16 06374 g002bSustainability 16 06374 g002c
Figure 2. Morphological shapes of plant roots: H type (a) Gliricidia sepium, (b) Persea americana, (c) Fraxinus griffithii, (d) Coffea arabica, and (e) Buddleja asiatica; VH type (f) Macaranga denticulata and (g) Cinnamomum officinarum; M type (h) Aspidistra sutepensis; R type (i) Cajanus cajan and (j) Camellia sinensis.
Figure 2. Morphological shapes of plant roots: H type (a) Gliricidia sepium, (b) Persea americana, (c) Fraxinus griffithii, (d) Coffea arabica, and (e) Buddleja asiatica; VH type (f) Macaranga denticulata and (g) Cinnamomum officinarum; M type (h) Aspidistra sutepensis; R type (i) Cajanus cajan and (j) Camellia sinensis.
Sustainability 16 06374 g002aSustainability 16 06374 g002bSustainability 16 06374 g002c
Sustainability 16 06374 g003
Figure 3. Root tensile strength versus diameter for the 10 species tested (also see Table 3) (Cinnamomum officinarum* tested after 7 days drying).
Figure 3. Root tensile strength versus diameter for the 10 species tested (also see Table 3) (Cinnamomum officinarum* tested after 7 days drying).
Sustainability 16 06374 g003
Sustainability 16 06374 g004
Figure 4. Boxplots of root tensile strength (a) and Young’s modulus (b) tested species for different species. The bottom and top of the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, while the line within the box marks the median and the circle represents outlier (Cinnamomum officinarum* refers to 7-day drying condition).
Figure 4. Boxplots of root tensile strength (a) and Young’s modulus (b) tested species for different species. The bottom and top of the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, while the line within the box marks the median and the circle represents outlier (Cinnamomum officinarum* refers to 7-day drying condition).
Sustainability 16 06374 g004
Sustainability 16 06374 g005
Figure 5. Young’s modulus versus root diameter for the 10 species tested (Cinnamomum officinarum* refers to 7-day drying condition).
Figure 5. Young’s modulus versus root diameter for the 10 species tested (Cinnamomum officinarum* refers to 7-day drying condition).
Sustainability 16 06374 g005
Sustainability 16 06374 g006
Figure 6. Root tensile strengths of 1 mm diameter root size of the studied species (blue bars), including data of **Chrysopogon zizanioides (red bar) from Mahannopkul and Jotisankasa [8] for comparison (Cinnamomum officinarum* refers to 7-day drying condition; other cases referred to as as-sampled moisture condition).
Figure 6. Root tensile strengths of 1 mm diameter root size of the studied species (blue bars), including data of **Chrysopogon zizanioides (red bar) from Mahannopkul and Jotisankasa [8] for comparison (Cinnamomum officinarum* refers to 7-day drying condition; other cases referred to as as-sampled moisture condition).
Sustainability 16 06374 g006
Table 1. Selected plant species for this study and their family, tree height, age, perimeter, longest measurable root length, root type, and site coordinates.
Table 1. Selected plant species for this study and their family, tree height, age, perimeter, longest measurable root length, root type, and site coordinates.
Plant Species Family Site CordinatesAge, YearHeight, mTree Perimeter, cmLongest Measurable Root Length, mType of Root *
Persea americanaLauraceae17.507069°,98.216669°101.35313.37H
Fraxinus griffithiiOleaceae17.503434°,98.216081°22.25.872.3H
Cajanus cajanFabaceae17.519346°,98.098063°0.75319.641.3R
Cinnamomum officinarumLauraceae17.503434°,98.216081°22.35164.5VH
Camellia sinensisTheaceae20.152026°,99.616434°350.7229.420.9R
Aspidistra sutepensisAsparagaceae20.148751°,99.614794°20.82NA0.3M
Coffea arabicaRubiaceae20.148751°,99.614794°22.265.761.07H
Gliricidia sepiumFabaceae17.860048°,97.842293°23.6513.721.5H
Macaranga denticulataEuphorbiaceae17.861017°,97.841098°Unknown1.85.592.1VH
Buddleja asiaticaScrophulariaceae17.861017°,97.841098°Unknown2.555.21.4H
* Root types according to Yen [21]. NA = Not applicable.
Table 2. Selected plant species for this study with additional information on vetiver, their distributions, origin, invasiveness, and references.
Table 2. Selected plant species for this study with additional information on vetiver, their distributions, origin, invasiveness, and references.
Scientific NamesDistributionsNative/Exotic SpeciesInvasive/Non-Invasive SpeciesReferences
Persea americana Mill.Central Mexico to Costa Rica.It is a non-invasive exotic species and is cultivated as a fruit tree, especially in the highland areas of northem Thailand.Non-invasive species[43]
Fraxims griffinh C. B. ClarkeBangladesh to Nansei-shoto, Java to Lesser Sunda Islands (Bali).It is a non-invasive exotic species and is cultivated for its wood in the highland habitats of northem ThailandNon-invasive species[43,44]
Cajanus cajan (L.) HuthIndian Subcontinent.It is a non-invasive exotic species and is used as animal food.Non-invasive species[43]
Cirnamonum officinarian (L.) J. PreslKorea (Jeju-do), W. Central & S. Japan to E. & S. Taiwan.It is a non-invasive exotic species.Non-invasive species[43,45]
Camellia sinensis (L.) KuntzeE. Himalaya to S. China and N. Indo-China, Hainan.Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze var. assamica (Royle ex Hook.) Steenis is a native variety. Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze var. sinensis (Royle ex Hook) Steenis is a non-invasive exotic variety. The native range of this variety is S. China.Unknown[43,46,47]
Aspidistra sutepensis K. LarsenChina (Yunnan) to N. Thailand.It is anative species.Unknown[43,48]
Coffee arabica L.E. South Sudan, SW. Ethiopia, N. Kenya (Mt. Marsibit).It is a non-invasive exotic species and is cultivated for its seeds.Non-invasive species[43]
Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) KunthMexico to Colombia.It is a non-invasive exotic species.Non-invasive species[43]
Macaranga denticulata (Blume) Müll. Arg.S. China to Tropical Asia.It is a native species.Unknown[43,49]
Buddleja asiatica Lour.Central & S. China to Tropical Asia and Marianas.It is a native species.Invasive species[43]
Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty PoaceaeNE. India to Indo-China.It is a native species.Unknown[43]
Table 3. Summary of the data on root tensile strength and Young’s modulus (Mean) per tested species. The best-fit equations, R2, and p-values are given for the strength and Young’s modulus–diameter relations.
Table 3. Summary of the data on root tensile strength and Young’s modulus (Mean) per tested species. The best-fit equations, R2, and p-values are given for the strength and Young’s modulus–diameter relations.
Plant Species Diameter Range, (mm)No of Samples, nAverage Tensile Strength, (MPa)Average Young’s Modulus, (MPa)Fitting Equation, R2 and p-Values
Tensile StrengthYoung’s Modulus
Persea americana0.84–2.591626.99309.74Tr = 39.838d−1.109 (R2 = 0.277, p = 0.036)Mr = 302.81d−0.538 (R2 = 0.044, p = 0.437)
Fraxinus griffithii0.58–2.851036.82615.63Tr = 34.442d−1.414 (R2 = 0.815, p = 0.0003)Mr = 455.65d−2.71 (R2 = 0.768, p = 0.0009)
Cajanus cajan0.68–2.20135.53276.97Tr = 2.9691d1.5474 (R2 = 0.472, p = 0.0095)Mr = 124.24d1.732 (R2 = 0.436, p = 0.014)
Cinnamomum officinarum* 0.86–1.79833.37476.03Tr = 42.002d−0.884 (R2 = 0.617, p = 0.021)Mr = 482.87d−0.297 (R2 = 0.061, p = 0.743)
Cinnamomum officinarum0.48–3.431019.11269.28Tr = 17.89d−0.187 (R2 = 0.066, p = 0.472)Mr = 252.63d0.0523 (R2 = 0.012, p = 0.760)
Camellia sinensis0.92–3.1984.48187.94Tr = 5.2934d−0.395 (R2 = 0.514, p = 0.045)Mr = 260.97d−1.135 (R2 = 0.555, p = 0.034)
Aspidistra sutepensis1.03–2.7854.0662.90Tr = 6.3501d−0.882 (R2 = 0.569, p = 0.141) Mr = 106.23d−1.064 (R2 = 0.618, p = 0.115)
Coffea arabica0.22–2.34833.36460.47Tr = 24.654d−0.483 (R2 = 0.506, p = 0.048)Mr = 259.21d−0.865 (R2 = 0.646, p = 0.016)
Gliricidia sepium1.20–1.99512.44242.35Tr = 15.79d−0.566 (R2 = 0.331, p = 0.310)Mr = 558.7d−3.087 (R2 = 0.1612, p = 0.503)
Macaranga denticulata1.24–2.80810.97242.07Tr = 16.995d−0.712 (R2 = 0.458, p = 0.065)Mr = 343.67d−0.606 (R2 = 0.235, p = 0.224)
Buddleja asiatica1.10–1.6997.40106.82Tr =13.107d−1.983 (R2 = 0.4491, p = 0.048)Mr = 176.91d−2.084 (R2 = 0.213, p = 0.211)
Note: Cinnamomum officinarum* is tested after 7 days drying, Tr = root tensile strength, Mr = Young’s modulus of root.
Table 4. Summary of the strengthening properties of plant roots and their applications.
Table 4. Summary of the strengthening properties of plant roots and their applications.
Plant SpeciesSoil ReingforcementBenefits
Tensile StrengthRoot DensityGeneral UseEconomic UseEdible FruitsSoil and Water Conservation
Persea americanaHighMediumMediumHighHighMedim-High
Fraxinus griffithiiHighHighHighUnknownUnknownHigh
Cajanus cajanLowHighMediumUnknownHighMedium
Cinnamomum officinarumMediumHighHighUnknownMediumMedim-High
Camellia sinensisLowHighLowHighHighMedium
Aspidistra sutepensisLowMediumNoUnknownHighMedium
Coffea arabicaHighHighLowHighHighHigh
Gliricidia sepiumMediumMediumMediumUnknownMediumMedium
Macaranga denticulataMediumMediumLowUnknownUnknownMedium
Buddleja asiaticaMediumMediumHighUnknownUnknownMedium
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mairaing, W.; Jotisankasa, A.; Leksungnoen, N.; Hossain, M.; Ngernsaengsaruay, C.; Rangsiwanichpong, P.; Pilumwong, J.; Pramusandi, S.; Semmad, S.; Ahmmed, A.N.F. A Biomechanical Study of Potential Plants for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization of Highland in Thailand. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156374

AMA Style

Mairaing W, Jotisankasa A, Leksungnoen N, Hossain M, Ngernsaengsaruay C, Rangsiwanichpong P, Pilumwong J, Pramusandi S, Semmad S, Ahmmed ANF. A Biomechanical Study of Potential Plants for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization of Highland in Thailand. Sustainability. 2024; 16(15):6374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156374

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mairaing, Warakorn, Apiniti Jotisankasa, Nisa Leksungnoen, Monir Hossain, Chatchai Ngernsaengsaruay, Prem Rangsiwanichpong, Jarunee Pilumwong, Sony Pramusandi, Surat Semmad, and Abu Noman Faruq Ahmmed. 2024. "A Biomechanical Study of Potential Plants for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization of Highland in Thailand" Sustainability 16, no. 15: 6374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156374

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop