Next Article in Journal
Feasibility of Traditional Open Levee System for River Flood Mitigation in Japan
Next Article in Special Issue
Different Toppling Bank Slope Failures under Hydrodynamic Action during Impoundment of the Miaowei Hydropower Station Reservoir
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding the Complexity of Drought within the Soil Profile in Beech Ecosystems on Their Lower Altitudinal Limit in Slovakia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Statistically Anisotropic Undrained Shear Strength on the Probability of Slope Failure
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/w14091342
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Root Functional Traits and Water Erosion-Reducing Potential of Two Indigenous C4 Grass Species for Erosion Control of Mudstone Badlands in Taiwan

by
Jung-Tai Lee
*,
Yu-Syuan Lin
,
Cheng-Ying Shih
and
Ming-Jen Lee
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, College of Agriculture, National Chiayi University, Chiayi 60004, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(9), 1342; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091342
Submission received: 31 March 2022 / Revised: 18 April 2022 / Accepted: 19 April 2022 / Published: 20 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Landslides Induced by Surface and Groundwater)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In southern Taiwan, mudstone badland accounts for over 1000 km2 of the upstream region of watersheds. Rainstorms often induce interrill and surface erosion on the mudstone slopes. Furthermore, the large quantity of soils detached by surface runoff result in severe sedimentation in reservoirs. Thus, soil erosion control of mudstone badlands represents one of the most pressing problems in reservoir watershed management. Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. (Bermuda grass) and Eremochloa ophiuroides (Munro) Hack. (Centipedegrass) are two native predominant C4 grass species appearing on mudstone badlands. They play a key role in erosion control and the revegetation of mudstone slopes. Nevertheless, their root functional traits and water erosion-reducing potential have not been investigated. In this study, the root traits were examined. Vertical pullout and tensile tests were conducted to measure root pullout resistance and root tensile strength. Hydraulic flume tests were also performed to evaluate their water erosion-reducing potentials. The results demonstrated that the root systems of C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides grasses all belonged to the fibrous M-type. C. dactylon had remarkably better root traits compared to those of E. ophiuroides. Furthermore, the root tensile resistance of C. dactylon was remarkably higher than that of E. ophiuroides. In addition, hydraulic flume tests showed that C. dactylon has remarkably smaller soil detachment rates than that of E. ophiuroides. Altogether, our data clearly show that C. dactylon has better root traits, root pullout resistance, root tensile resistance and water erosion-reducing potential than E. ophiuroides and is more suitable for erosion control of mudstone badland. Further studies on large-scale implementation techniques of these species for efficient vegetation restoration are needed.

1. Introduction

In southwestern Taiwan, mudstone badlands, characterized by gullies and erosion, occupy over 1000 km2 of upstream area of eight reservoir watersheds (Figure 1). Badland soils, consisting mainly of CaCO3, clay and silt, are poorly congealed and are very prone to rill and interrill erosion [1,2,3,4]. The badland soils are also low in mineral nutrients to support plant growth [2]. In recent years, earthquakes and typhoon rainstorms have frequently induced serious landslide, debris flow, and runoff erosion disasters [5]. Large amounts of eroded mudstone soils cause major problems of sedimentation in reservoir and river systems [6,7]. Consequently, erosion control of mudstone badlands has become a major issue of soil and water conservation [8,9]. Ecological restoration has frequently been used for erosion control and bio-reclamation of degraded lands [10,11,12]. Aridity, low fertility, high erosion rates, and sharp terrain are common features of badlands [8,13]. Generally, native grass species play an important role in soil stabilization of mountainous marly lands [14]. C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides are indigenous warm-season C4 grasses occurring on badland soils in Taiwan [15]. Previous studies have demonstrated that C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides, characterized by drought and high salinity tolerance, which are creeping and which propagate easily, are beneficial for revegetation of mudstone badlands [16,17].
Grass roots have remarkable influence on reinforcing slope stability and reducing runoff erosion [18,19,20]. The root systems of C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides are categorized as fibrous massive M-type [21]. Previous studies have shown that plant root reinforcement is closely correlated with root system architecture, functional traits, root pullout resistance, and root tensile resistance [22,23,24,25]. However, the root system architecture, root characteristics, biomechanical characteristics, and water erosion-reducing potential of C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides have not been fully inspected. Hence, this research was focused on: (1) examining the root system and characteristics, biomechanical properties and water erosion-reducing potential of these two indigenous grasses; and (2) comparing the dissimilarities between the two species with respect to erosion control and ecological restoration of mudstone badlands. Since there have been very few studies inspecting the relationships among plant root functional traits, root biomechanical properties and water erosion-reducing potential in vegetation engineering for erosion control of mudstone badlands, there is novelty and originality in this research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Preparation

Seeds were gathered from plants of C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides on the badlands located at Qishan Village, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan (120°23′22″ E, 22°53′13″ N) in September 2018 and stored under natural conditions. In October 2018, 200 seeds of each species were germinated in badland soils collected from the same site. One-month-old seedlings of C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides, getting to a mean height of 3.2 ± 0.5 cm and 2.8 ± 0.3 cm, respectively, were transplanted to high wooden crates (35 cm × 35 cm × 30 cm, l × w× h, 1 plant per crate) and low wooden crates (35 cm ×35 cm × 20 cm, l × w × h, 40 plants per crate), packed with badland soils collected from the same area. The soils were packed utilizing rammer to duplicate the physical properties of mudstone soils [26]. For analyses of root configuration, root trait and root biomechanical characteristics, one seedling of each species was planted to 32 high wooden crates individually. For hydraulic flume test, 40 seedlings of each species were transplanted to 24 short crates, individually. After transplanting, all wooden crates were arrayed at random in the nursery of National Chiayi University (120°29′06.67″ E, 23°01.69″ N) under natural conditions, and watered every four days. Twenty low crates without seedlings served as control for hydraulic flume test. All crates were rotated weekly to decrease shading influence. Collectively, the azimuth of crates was unchanged.

2.2. Growth Traits

A pilot study conducted by the authors revealed that the wooden crate had enough space for root growth. After four months of cultivation, 14 plants of each species were selected arbitrarily for root growth characteristics and architecture investigations. Roots were cautiously extracted from soil with running water. Root configuration was estimated and documented. Root area ratio was calculated according to Bischetti et al. [27]. Root system photos were recorded for root system configuration investigation. Root surface area and length were evaluated utilizing WinRHIZO software (Regent Inc., Quebec, QC, Canada) [28], while root volume was estimated using water displacement technique [29]. Root dry unit weight was also measured [30]. These figures were used to determine root traits. Together, live roots were gathered for subsequent tensile testing.

2.3. Pullout Test

For each species, one plant from each crate was selected arbitrarily for vertical pullout test. The mudstone soils have an average dry mass of 18.5 kN m−3, and water moisture of 12.2 ± 1.2%. Prior to each pullout test, stems were cut off from 10 cm beyond the stem base. Vertical pullout test was executed utilizing a pullout machine (USPA-003, U-Soft Tech Co., Taipei, Taiwan) [31]. The maximum pullout resistance (PRmax, N) was calculated utilizing the following equation:
PR max = F max
where Fult is the maximum pullout force at uprooting (N).

2.4. Root Tensile Test

After whole root extraction, live root samples were classified into 0–1-, 1–2-, and 2–5-mm-diameter grades. Only undamaged root sections were selected and cut into 40 mm lengths and stored [27]. Fifty root segments of each species were tested within 20 h of collection. Root tensile test was performed using a tensile testing apparatus (USPT-003, U-Soft Tech Co., Taipei, Taiwan) [31]. Prior to testing, the diameter of the mid-segment was measured. Root segment was fastened with screw grips and the tensile test was subsequently carried out at a consistent speed of 4.5 mm min−1 till fracture. Twenty-seven middle segments of C. dactylon and 20 middle segments of E. ophiuroides plants were tested. The tensile strength (Tsi, MPa) was calculated utilizing the following formula [14,31]:
T si = 4 F max π d i 2
where Fmax is the maximum tensile force at breakage (N), and di is the diameter (mm) of mid-segment measured at the midpoint.
Moreover, the relation between root tensile strength (Ts) and diameter (d) was computed utilizing the subsequent equation [32]:
T s =   α   ·   d − β
where α and β are experimental coefficients contingent on species.

2.5. Hydraulic Flume Experiment

Hydraulic flume tests were performed utilizing a flume resembling Lee et al. [33]. The flume was constructed with steel (5 mL, 0.35 mW) with an opening (0.35 mL, 0.35 mW) at the bottom, equaling the width of the low wooden crate, so that the surface of the crate suits the flume surface (Figure 2). Prior to the test, the aerial parts of plants were severed at the base. Crates were submerged in water for 3 h and drained for 12 h. The rims between the sample crate and the flume were fixed with epoxy sealant to avoid edge effects. The soil surface slope, flow discharge, mean bottom flow discharge, and water temperature were recorded, and the bottom flow shear stress (τ, Pa) was computed using the subsequent equation [34,35].
τ = ρwgRS
where ρw is the water density (kg m−3), g is the acceleration caused by gravity (m s−2), R is hydraulic radius (m), and S is the sin α in which α is soil surface slope angle (°). Afterwards, samples were exposed to a consistent flow of 0.61 m3 m−1 for three minutes. Pilot experiments demonstrated that erosion primarily occurred during the first three minutes of the test. For each species, 10 plant sample boxes were tested at a slope of 15°. Ten bare-soil boxes without plants served as control. Water and sediments were collected in 50 L plastic pails every three-minute time interval from the flume outlet. The collected soil sediments were separated by settling for 12 h, dried at 75 °C for 60 h before measurements. The relative soil detachment rate (RSD) of each species was calculated as dividing the soil loss amount from plant samples with the mean soil loss amount from control ones. The hydraulic flume tests included two grass species, with one control for each slope and ten replicates.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Differences in root characteristics, root biomechanical properties and water erosion-reducing potential between species were analyzed with t-test using IBM SPSS V22.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Microsoft Excel Regression analysis (Microsoft Excel 2013, Redmond, WA, USA) was utilized to analyze the relationships between root tensile force, tensile strength, and root diameter.

3. Results

3.1. Root System Configuration

After 4 months of cultivation in the crates, C. dactylon grass produced more profuse root systems than E. ophiuroides grass (Figure 3). The root architecture for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides were categorized as M-type according to Yen [21]. Furthermore, C. dactylon distributed most of its roots at 0–15 cm soil depth (Figure 3a), whereas E. ophiuroides developed its roots at 0–10 cm deep in soil (Figure 3b). Statistical results of root area ratio (RAR) demonstrated remarkable differences between these two species (Table 1). Altogether, the root area ratio and growth performance of C. dactylon were superior to those of E. ophiuroides.

3.2. Root Characteristics

Statistical data demonstrated significant differences in root characteristics between these two species (Table 2). Essentially, all root traits except for total root length and root length density were remarkably greater for C. dactylon than for E. ophiuroides. Overall, the root traits, such as root biomass, tip number, volume, root density, total root surface area and root tissue density, of C. dactylon were remarkably better than those of E. ophiuroides.

3.3. Root Pullout Resistance

Vertical pullout test measures the pullout force for raising the plant until it drops as the root breaks. The maximal pullout resistance of C. dactylon (0.31 ± 0.03 kN) was about twofold that of E. ophiuroides (0.16 ± 0.52 kN) (Table 3), indicating that C. dactylon plants have higher anchorage ability than E. ophiuroides plants.

3.4. Root Tensile Strength

Statistical results showed remarkable dissimilarities in root diameter and tensile force between these two species. The average root diameter of C. dactylon (0.42 ± 0.02 mm) was notably larger than that of E. ophiuroides (0.34 ± 0.01 mm). The average root tensile resistance of C. dactylon (13.21 ± 0.65 N) was also remarkably higher than that of E. ophiuroides (9.0 ± 0.46 N). However, there was no notable dissimilarity in average root tensile strength between these two species (Table 4). Furthermore, for both species, root tensile resistance decreased with decreasing root diameter (Figure 4), although root tensile strength increased with decreasing root diameter (Figure 5). Taken together, the root diameter and tensile resistance of C. dactylon were notably higher than those of E. ophiuroides.

3.5. Water Erosion-Reducing Potential

A soil surface slope of 15° was applied to assess the water erosion-reducing potential for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides. Since this experiment was focused on the implementation of revegetation for water erosion control of mudstone badlands, the surface slope was set at 15°, according to the guideline of vegetation engineering (18). At this slope, the average flow velocity, flow discharge, and bottom flow shear stress were 49.72 cm s−1, 0.95 L s−1 and 0.0035 Pa, respectively. The analytical data showed that the average soil loss amount was remarkably differed among root-permeated soil samples and control sample. At the slope of 15°, the average soil loss amount for bare soil (411.11 ± 30.13 g min−1) was much greater than that of root-permeated soil samples of C. dactylon (44.74 ± 6.62 g min−1) and E. ophiuroides (72.8 ± 9.81 g min−1) (Table 5). Furthermore, the average relative soil detachment rate of E. ophiuroides (27.36 ± 3.82%) was about 1.7 times higher than that of C. dactylon (16.15 ± 2.26%) (Table 6). Regression analysis showed a positive relation between relative soil detachment rate and root density for the two species (Table 7, Figure 6). Taken together, these results clearly demonstrate that C. dactylon possesses a higher water erosion-reducing potential than E. ophiuroides.

4. Discussion

4.1. Root System Architecture

C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides are the main indigenous pioneer grass species growing in the mudstone badlands in Taiwan. They are perennial C4 grasses belonging to the Poaceae family, and are less sensitive to drought and low soil fertility than C3 plants [15,36,37]. In addition, being C4 plants, they exhibit superior photosynthetic performance at warm temperatures to boost their growth. Our results showed that the root systems of C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides resemble fibrous M-type root system with stolons. Earlier studies have demonstrated that M-type root systems are more suitable for soil and water conservation, as well as erosion and sediment control [22,38]. Thus, C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides with massive root systems are favorable for erosion control of mudstone badlands. Moreover, the RAR distribution demonstrated that C. dactylon has more profuse roots in soil depths 0–20 cm than E. ophiuroides, suggesting that C. dactylon is superior to E. ophiuroides for erosion control.

4.2. Root Traits

Our results showed that all root characteristics, except for total root length and root length density, differed significantly between these two species. The root traits were notably greater for C. dactylon than for E. ophiuroides. Earlier investigations have demonstrated that root biomass, root density and root tissue density have remarkable effects on root pullout resistance and erosion-reducing potential [38,39,40,41,42]. On the mudstone badlands, native vegetation rehabilitation is critical for erosion control and badland reclamation. C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides are indigenous dominant C4 grasses able to resist adverse environments in badlands and are advantageous for ecological reclamation. Taken together, our findings indicate that C. dactylon plants have better root traits and can grow better in mudstone badlands than E. ophiuroides plants.

4.3. Root Pullout Resistance

Statistical data demonstrated that the maximal root pullout resistance of C. dactylon is remarkably higher than that of E. ophiuroides. Earlier studies also demonstrated positive relations between pullout resistance, root biomass, architecture, and root surface area [30,39,43]. Clearly, C. dactylon with more profuse fibrous roots, root biomass and total root surface has higher pullout resistance than E. ophiuroides. Altogether, C. dactylon has better anchorage capability than E. ophiuroides and is more advantageous for erosion control of mudstone badlands.

4.4. Root Tensile Strength

Root tensile resistance and root distribution play a critical role in soil conservation and slope stability [44,45,46]. Our results demonstrated that root tensile resistance and root configuration varied notably between these two species. Root tensile force of C. dactylon was remarkably higher than that of E. ophiuroides, although there was no notable dissimilarity in root tensile strength between the two species. Furthermore, root tensile resistance and tensile strength were highly related to root diameter, congruent with earlier investigations [14,33,47,48,49]. Evidently, C. dactylon possesses higher root tensile resistance force than E. ophiuroides and is more advantageous for soil reinforcement of mudstone badlands.

4.5. Water Erosion-Reducing Potential

In Taiwan, gully erosion and interrill erosion are responsible for soil detachment on mudstone badlands [5,50]. In general, grass root functional traits have notable influence on slope stabilization and gully erosion control [51,52]. C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides are indigenous pioneer C4 plants and are able to adapt to the adverse environmental conditions of mudstone badlands, such as drought, salinity and low soil fertility [16]. Their roots can increase soil erosion resistance, and reduce soil detachment rates [53]. However, our results demonstrate the remarkable dissimilarity between the two grass species with respect to soil loss amounts and soil detachment rates at slope 15.0°. The bare soil has the highest soil loss amount, the root-permeated soil of E. ophiuroides ranks second, and C. dactylon the lowest. Moreover, the average soil detachment rate of E. ophiuroides is significantly greater than that of C. dactylon. Our analytical data also highlight that the root density of C. dactylon was remarkably higher than that of E. ophiuroides, and the relative soil detachment rates declined with increasing root density. Earlier studies have indicated that higher root density and root mass density have a positive effect on reducing soil erosion [18,25,51,52]. Overall, our results clearly display that the water erosion-reducing potential of C. dactylon is notably higher than that of E. ophiuroides.
In southern Taiwan, rainstorms often cause severe surface runoff and gully erosion as well as interrill erosion on mudstone badlands [6,50]. Vegetation engineering has become an efficient technique for soil conservation and restoration of degraded lands [1,50,52,54]. C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides are indigenous pioneer grass species on mudstone badlands. They have important influences on erosion control, soil reinforcement and ecosystem sustainability. Taken together, our results demonstrate that there are notable dissimilarities in root traits, pullout resistance, tensile resistance, and water erosion-reducing potential between these two grass species, and that C. dactylon is better than E. ophiuroides for erosion control of mudstone badlands. However, there are limitations, such as large-scale practical application techniques and costs. Further studies are needed to enhance revegetation and erosion control of mudstone badlands.

5. Conclusions

The results revealed that C. dactylon had remarkably greater root biomass, larger root surface area, larger root volume, higher root tip number, higher root density, and a higher root tissue density than those of E. ophiuroides. Furthermore, the root tensile resistance of C. dactylon was remarkably higher than that of E. ophiuroides. In addition, hydraulic flume tests showed that C. dactylon has remarkably smaller soil detachment rates than those of E. ophiuroides. Our findings highlight that C. dactylon has notably better root functional traits, pullout resistance, and root tensile resistance than E. ophiuroides. Importantly, hydraulic flume experiments showed that C. dactylon plants possess a higher water erosion-reducing potential than E. ophiuroides plants. Thus, our results contribute to enhancing ecoengineering technology of mudstone badlands by integrating the information of plant root functional traits, root biomechanical properties and water erosion-reducing potential. Furthermore, we suggest that companion planting with other indigenous C4 grasses, such as Formosan arundo (Arundo formosana), Pacific Island silvergrass (Miscanthus floridulus), Sour grass (Paspalum conjugatum), and Wild sugarcane (Saccharum spontaneum), can be applied to reduce water erosion and enhance biodiversity of mudstone badlands.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-T.L.; methodology, J.-T.L.; formal analysis, Y.-S.L. and C.-Y.S.; investigation, Y.-S.L. and C.-Y.S.; project administration, J.-T.L. and M.-J.L.; resources, J.-T.L.; software J.-T.L.; supervision, J.-T.L.; visualization, J.-T.L.; writing—original draft, Y.-S.L. and C.-Y.S.; writing—review and editing, J.-T.L. and M.-J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, Council of Agriculture of Taiwan (Grant No. SWCB 110–030).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Maurice S.B. Ku from Graduate School of Bio-agricultural Science, College of Agriculture, National Chiayi University for English editing, valuable comments, constructive suggestions and reviewing of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lee, D.H.; Lin, H.M.; Wu, J.H. The basic properties of mudstone slopes in southwestern Taiwan. J. GeoEngin. 2007, 2, 81–95. [Google Scholar]
  2. Nakata, E.; Chigira, M. Geochemistry of erosion processes on badland slopes: A case study of the Gutingkeng formation where mud volcanoes are distributed in southern Taiwan. J. GeoEngin. 2009, 118, 511–532. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hiramatsu, Y.; Tanahara, W.; Nakamura, S. Soil strength properties of the Shimajiri-mudstone Yonabaru layer and Shinzato layear. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 2013, 15, 6659–6669. [Google Scholar]
  4. Yang, C.J.; Lin, J.C.; Cheng, Y.C. Rill erosion of mudstone slope: A case study of southern Taiwan. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 2014, 16, 4598–4609. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lee, D.H.; Chen, P.Y.; Wu, J.H.; Chen, H.L.; Yang, Y.E. Method of mitigating the surface erosion of a high-gradient mudstone slope in southwest Taiwan. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2013, 72, 533–545. [Google Scholar]
  6. Higuchi, K.; Chigira, M.; Lee, D.H. High rates of erosion and rapid weathering in a Plio-Pleistocene mudstone badland, Taiwan. Catena 2013, 106, 68–82. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yang, C.J.; Turowski, J.M.; Hovius, N.; Lin, J.C.; Chang, K.J. Badland landscape response to individual geomorphic events. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4631. [Google Scholar]
  8. Higuchi, K.; Chigira, M.; Lee, D.H.; Wu, J.H. Simultaneous water and vapour transfer in an unsaturated mudstone in badlands terrain, southwestern Taiwan. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2020, 45, 3323–3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lin, C.Y.; Lai, W.J.; Chuang, C.W. A study of placement and benefits of vegetated buffer strips in a reservoir watershed. J. Chin. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 42, 15–34. [Google Scholar]
  10. Burylo, M.; Dutoit, T.; Rey, F. Species traits as practical tools for ecological restoration of marly eroded lands. Restor. Ecol. 2014, 22, 633–640. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ngugi, M.R.; Neldner, V.J.; Doley, D.; Kusy, B.; Moore, D.; Richter, C. Soil moisture dynamics and restoration of self-sustaining pioneer vegetation ecosystem on an open-cut coal mine. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Giupponi, L.; Leoni, V. Alpine pioneer plants in soil bioengineering for slope stabilization and restoration: Results of a preliminary analysis of seed germination and future perspectives. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Clarke, M.L.; Rendell, H.M. Process-form relationships in Southern Italian badlands: Erosion rates and implications for landform evolution. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2006, 31, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Burylo, M.; Hudek, C.; Rey, F. Soil reinforcement by the roots of six dominant species on eroded mountainous marly slopes (Southern Alps, France). Catena 2011, 84, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hsu, C.C. Poaceae. In Flora of Taiwan, 2nd ed.; Editorial Committee of Flora of Taiwan: Taipei, Taiwan, 2000; Volume 5, pp. 406–545. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lin, C.Y. Revegetation of bare mudstone slopeland for a watershed in southern Taiwan. J. Chin. Soil Water Conserv. 1997, 29, 169–181. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lin, S.H. Vegetation and slope stability. In Vegetation Engineering of Slopeland; Lin, S.H., Ed.; Wu-Nan Culture Enterprise: Taipei, Taiwan, 2016; pp. 105–120. [Google Scholar]
  18. De Baets, S.; Poesen, J.; Knapen, A.; Barbera, G.G.; Navarro, J.A. Root characteristics of representative Mediterranean plant species and their erosion-reducing potential during concentrated runoff. Plant Soil 2007, 294, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Comino, E.; Druetta, A. The effect of Poaceae roots on the shear strength of soils in the Italian alpine environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 106, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ghestem, M.; Sidle, R.C.; Stokes, A. The influence of plant root systems on subsurface flow: Implications for slope stability. Bioscience 2011, 61, 869–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yen, C.P. Tree root patterns and erosion control. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Soil Erosion and Its Counter-Measures; Jantawat, S., Ed.; Soil and Water Conservation Society of Thailand: Bangkok, Thailand, 1987; pp. 92–111. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mickovski, S.B.; van Beek, L.P.H.; Salin, F. Uprooting of vetiver uprooting resistance of vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides). Plant Soil 2005, 278, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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]
  24. Nwoke, H.U.; Dike, B.U.; Okoro, B.C.; Nwite, S.A. Uprooting resistance and morphological traits of plants used in erosion mitigation. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2016, 7, 104–110. [Google Scholar]
  25. Noorasyikin, M.N.; Zainab, M. Mechanical root reinforcement of Bermuda grass toward slope stabiblity. Int. J. Eng. Res. Adv. Technol. 2019, 8, 426–430. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, J.T.; Lin, Y.S.; Shi, C.Y.; Lee, M.J. Morphological traits and root anchorage ability of native pioneer tree species for reforestation of mudstone badlands. J. For. Res. 2021, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bischetti, G.B.; Chiaradia, E.A.; Simonato, T.; Speziali, B.; Vitali, B.; Vullo, P.; Zocco, A. Root strength and root area ratio of forest species in Lombardy (Northern Italy). Plant Soil 2005, 278, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bouma, T.J.; Nielsen, K.L.; Koutstaal, K. Sample preparation and scanning protocol for computerized analysis of root length and diameter. Plant Soil 2000, 218, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pang, W.; Crow, W.T.; Luc, J.E.; McSorley, R.; Giblin-Davis, R.M.; Kruse, J.K. Comparison of water displacement and WinRHIZO software for plant root parameter assessment. Plant Dis. 2011, 95, 1308–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lee, J.T.; Yen, L.Z.; Chu, M.Y.; Lin, Y.S.; Chang, C.C.; Lin, R.S.; Chao, K.H.; Lee, M.J. Growth characteristics and anti-wind erosion ability of three tropical foredune pioneer species for sand dune stabilization. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Lee, J.T.; Yen, L.Z.; Lee, M.J. Wind affects the growth, root anchorage and tensile strength of Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) seedlings. J. For. Res. 2019, 24, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Boldrin, D.; Leung, A.K.; Bengough, A.G. Effects of root dehydration on biomechanical properties of woody roots of Ulex europaeus. Plant Soil 2018, 431, 347–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Lee, J.T.; Tsai, S.M.; Wu, Y.J.; Lin, Y.S.; Chu, M.Y.; Lee, M.J. Root characteristics and water erosion-reducing ability of alpine silver grass and Yushan cane for alpine grassland soil conservation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sidorchuk, A.; Sidorchuk, A. Model for estimating gully morphology. In Modelling Soil Erosion, Sediment Transport and Closely Related Hydrological Processes (Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Vienna, July 1998); IAHS Publications: Vienna, Austria, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gyssels, G.; Poesen, J.; Bochet, E.; Li, Y. Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water: A review. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2005, 29, 189–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Carmo-Silva, A.E.; Soares, A.S.; da Silva, J.M.; da Silva, A.B.; Alfred, J.; Keys, A.J.; Arrabaça, M.C. Photosynthetic responses of three C4 grasses of different metabolic subtypes to water deficit. Funct. Plant Biol. 2007, 34, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, J.; Guo, H.; Zong, J.; Chen, J.; Li, D.; Liu, J. Genetic diversity in centipedegrass [Eremochola ophiuroides (Munro) Hack.]. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Truong, P.; Loch, R. Vetiver system for erosion and sediment control. In Proceedings of the 13th International Soil Conservation Organization Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 1–4 July 2004; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  39. Burylo, M.; Rey, F.; Roumet, C.; Buisson, E.; Dutoit, T. Linking plant morphological traits to uprooting resistance in eroded marly lands (Southern Alps, France). Plant Soil 2009, 324, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Burylo, M.; Rey, F.; Mathys, N.; Dutoit, T. Plant root traits affecting the resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2012, 37, 1463–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Katuwal, S.; Vermang, J.; Cornelis, W.M.; Gabriels, D.; Moldrup, P.; De Jonge, L.W. Effect of root density on erosion and erodibility of a loamy soil under simulated rain. Soil Sci. 2013, 178, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Guo, M.M.; Wang, W.L.; Kang, H.L.; Yang, B. Changes in soil properties and erodibility of gully heads induced by vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau, China. J. Arid Land 2018, 10, 712–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Lee, J.T.; Chu, M.Y.; Lin, Y.S.; Kung, K.N.; Lin, W.C.; Lee, M.J. Root traits and biomechanical properties of three tropical pioneer tree species for forest restoration in landslide areas. Forests 2020, 11, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Roering, J.J.; Schmidt, K.M.; Stock, J.D.; William, E.D.; David, R.M. Shallow landsliding, root reinforcement, and the spatial distribution of trees in the Oregon Coast Range. Can. Geotech. J. 2003, 40, 237–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. De Baets, S.; Poeson, J.; Reubens, B.; Wemans, K.; Baerdemaeker, J.D.; 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]
  46. Ettbeb, A.E.; Rahman, Z.A.; Idris, W.M.R.; Jumaat, A.J.; Rahim, S.A.; Tarmidzi, S.N.A.; Lihan, T. Root tensile resistance of selected Pennisetum species and shear strength of root-permeated soil. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2020, 2020, 3484718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lateh, H.; Avani, N.; Bibalani, G. Tensile strength and root distribution of Acacia mangium and Macaranga tanarius at spatial variation (Case study: East-West highway, Malaysia). Int. J. Biosci. 2015, 6, 18–28. [Google Scholar]
  48. Comino, E.; Marengo, P.; Rolli, V. Root reinforcement effect of different grass species: A comparison between experimental and models results. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 110, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Su, X.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, J.; Cao, L.; Liu, J.; Wang, P. Estimating slope stability by the root reinforcement mechanism of Artemisia sacrorum on the Loess Plateau of China. Ecol. Model. 2021, 444, 109473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hsu, C.L.; Dai, S.Y. A study of ventilating and watertight resin on mudstone soil erosion control. Taiwan J. For. Sci. 2010, 25, 291–301. [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhang, G.H.; Tang, K.; Ren, Z.; Zhang, X.C. Impact of grass root mass density on soil detachment capacity by concentrated flow on steep slopes. Trans. ASABE 2013, 56, 927–934. [Google Scholar]
  52. Guo, M.; Wang, W.; Shi, Q.; Chen, T.; Kang, H.; Li, J. An experimental study on the effects of grass root density on gully headcut erosion in the gully region of China’s Loess Plateau. Land Degrad. Dev. 2019, 30, 2107–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, F.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, M.; Wang, J. Effect of Cynodon dactylon community on the conservation and reinforcement of riparian shallow soil in the Three Gorges Reservoir area. Ecol. Process. 2015, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Capobianco, M.; Stive, M.J.F. Soft intervention technology as a tool for integrated coastal zone management. J. Coast. Conserv. 2000, 6, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 14 01342 g001 550
Figure 1. Rugged terrain of mudstone badland in southwestern Taiwan.
Figure 1. Rugged terrain of mudstone badland in southwestern Taiwan.
Water 14 01342 g001
Water 14 01342 g002 550
Figure 2. Graphic illustration of hydraulic flume test.
Figure 2. Graphic illustration of hydraulic flume test.
Water 14 01342 g002
Water 14 01342 g003 550
Figure 3. Morphology of 4-month-old C. dactylon (a) and E. ophiuroides (b) plants grown in crates.
Figure 3. Morphology of 4-month-old C. dactylon (a) and E. ophiuroides (b) plants grown in crates.
Water 14 01342 g003
Water 14 01342 g004 550
Figure 4. Relationship between root tensile resistance and root diameter for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides. Level of significance: *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4. Relationship between root tensile resistance and root diameter for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides. Level of significance: *** p < 0.001.
Water 14 01342 g004
Water 14 01342 g005 550
Figure 5. Relationship between root tensile strength and root diameter for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides. Significance level: *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5. Relationship between root tensile strength and root diameter for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides. Significance level: *** p < 0.001.
Water 14 01342 g005
Water 14 01342 g006 550
Figure 6. Relationship between root density (RD) and relative soil detachment rate (RSD) at slope 15°. Significance level: * p < 0.05.
Figure 6. Relationship between root density (RD) and relative soil detachment rate (RSD) at slope 15°. Significance level: * p < 0.05.
Water 14 01342 g006
Table
Table 1. Means ± SEs of root area ratios at various soil depths for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides.
Table 1. Means ± SEs of root area ratios at various soil depths for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides.
SpeciesRoot Area Ratio (%)
0–5 cm5–10 cm10–15 cm15–20 cm20–25 cm
Cynodon dactylon
Eremochloa ophiuroides		1.34 ± 0.23 a
0.46 ± 0.14 b		1.64 ± 0.34 a
0.18 ± 0.03 b		0.63 ± 0.07 a
0.13 ± 0.02 b		0.12 ± 0.03 a
0.04 ± 0.01 b		0.02 ± 0.01 a
0.01 ± 0.01 a
Different superscripts in the same column present remarkable dissimilarity (t-test) between species. N = 14.
Table
Table 2. Means ± SEs of root traits for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides.
Table 2. Means ± SEs of root traits for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides.
Root TraitsC. DactylonE. Ophiuroidesp
RB (kg)0.012 ± 0.002 a0.006 ± 0.0004 b0.001 ***
RT5111.75 ± 492.3 a3715.63 ± 200.05 b0.020 *
RV (cm3)46.5 ± 1.48 a36.63 ± 1.24 b0.000 ***
TRL (cm)4751.13 ± 408.014 a4195.88 ± 398.57 a0.34 ns
RD (kg m−3)0.22 ± 0.02 a0.1 ± 0.01 b0.001 ***
RLD (km m−3)0.88 ± 0.08 a0.78 ± 0.07 a0.32 ns
RSA (cm2)4830.85 ± 513.94 a3297.77 ± 230.35 b0.017 *
RTD (g cm−3)0.26 ± 0.06 a0.15 ± 0.01 b0.001 ***
RB, root biomass; RT, root tips; RV, root volume; TRL, total root length; RD, root density; RLD, root length density; RSA, total root surface area; RTD, root tissue density. Different superscripts in the same row represent notable dissimilarities (t-test) between species. N = 14. Significance levels: ns, non-significant, * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Means ± SEs of maximal pullout resistance for the two species.
Table 3. Means ± SEs of maximal pullout resistance for the two species.
Biomechanical PropertiesC. DactylonE. Ophiuroidest-Value
Maximal pullout resistance (kN)0.31 ± 0.03 a0.16 ± 0.02 b5.301 **
Different superscripts in the same row specify remarkable dissimilarities (t test) between species. N = 14. Level of significance: ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Means ± SEs of root diameter, root tensile resistance force and root tensile strength for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides.
Table 4. Means ± SEs of root diameter, root tensile resistance force and root tensile strength for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides.
ParametersC. DactylonE. Ophiuroidesp
Root diameters (mm)0.42 ± 0.02 a0.34 ± 0.01 b0.001 ***
Tensile resistance force (N)13.21 ± 0.65 a9.0 ± 0.46 b0.000 ***
Tensile strength (MPa)104.705 ± 6.56 a104.54 ± 4.24 a0.978 ns
Different superscripts in the same row represent notable dissimilarities (t-test) between species. Level of significance: *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Means ± SEs of soil loss amount for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides and bare soil.
Table 5. Means ± SEs of soil loss amount for C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides and bare soil.
Slope (°)Soil Loss Amount (g min−1)ANOVA (p)
C. DactylonE. OphiuroidesBare Soil
1544.74 ± 6.62 c 72.8 ± 9.81 b411.11 ± 30.13 a0.000 ***
Superscripts in the same row signify notable dissimilarities (ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test) among species. N = 10. Level of significance: *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 6. Means ± SEs of relative soil detachment rates between C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides.
Table 6. Means ± SEs of relative soil detachment rates between C. dactylon and E. ophiuroides.
Slope (°)Relative Soil Detachment Rate (%)p
C. DactylonE. Ophiuroides
1516.15 ± 2.26 b 27.36 ± 3.82 a0.031 *
Superscripts in the same row represent notable dissimilarity (T test) between species. N = 10. Level of significance: * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 7. Relationship between root density and relative soil detachment rate at slope 15° for the two species.
Table 7. Relationship between root density and relative soil detachment rate at slope 15° for the two species.
Root Functional Traits SpeciesRegression EquationR2F
RD (kg m−3)C. dactylonRSD = −80.14RD + 32.8050.573 *6.452
E. ophiuroidesRSD = −219.95RD + 47.0630.607 *7.713
RD, root density; RLD, root length density. Level of significance: * p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, J.-T.; Lin, Y.-S.; Shih, C.-Y.; Lee, M.-J. Root Functional Traits and Water Erosion-Reducing Potential of Two Indigenous C4 Grass Species for Erosion Control of Mudstone Badlands in Taiwan. Water 2022, 14, 1342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091342

AMA Style

Lee J-T, Lin Y-S, Shih C-Y, Lee M-J. Root Functional Traits and Water Erosion-Reducing Potential of Two Indigenous C4 Grass Species for Erosion Control of Mudstone Badlands in Taiwan. Water. 2022; 14(9):1342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091342

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Jung-Tai, Yu-Syuan Lin, Cheng-Ying Shih, and Ming-Jen Lee. 2022. "Root Functional Traits and Water Erosion-Reducing Potential of Two Indigenous C4 Grass Species for Erosion Control of Mudstone Badlands in Taiwan" Water 14, no. 9: 1342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091342

APA Style

Lee, J.-T., Lin, Y.-S., Shih, C.-Y., & Lee, M.-J. (2022). Root Functional Traits and Water Erosion-Reducing Potential of Two Indigenous C4 Grass Species for Erosion Control of Mudstone Badlands in Taiwan. Water, 14(9), 1342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091342

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