Next Article in Journal
Growth Characteristics, Phytochemical Contents, and Antioxidant Capacity of Trachyandra ciliata (L.f) Kunth Grown in Hydroponics under Varying Degrees of Salinity
Next Article in Special Issue
Organic Fertilization of Growing Media: Response of N Mineralization to Temperature and Moisture
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Molecular Mechanisms of Pepper Fruit Tolerance to Storage via Transcriptomics and Metabolomics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Basil as Secondary Crop in Cascade Hydroponics: Exploring Salinity Tolerance Limits in Terms of Growth, Amino Acid Profile, and Nutrient Composition
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Environmental and Cultivation Factors Affect the Morphology, Architecture and Performance of Root Systems in Soilless Grown Plants

1
Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, Agricultural University of Tirana, 1029 Tirana, Albania
2
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
3
Department of Agronomical Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, 30203 Cartagena, Spain
4
INRES—Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Division of Horticultural Sciences, University of Bonn, 53121 Bonn, Germany
5
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ege University, Bornova, Izmir 35040, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2021, 7(8), 243; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7080243
Submission received: 9 July 2021 / Revised: 4 August 2021 / Accepted: 7 August 2021 / Published: 12 August 2021

Abstract

:
Soilless culture systems are currently one of the fastest-growing sectors in horticulture. The plant roots are confined into a specific rootzone and are exposed to environmental changes and cultivation factors. The recent scientific evidence regarding the effects of several environmental and cultivation factors on the morphology, architecture, and performance of the root system of plants grown in SCS are the objectives of this study. The effect of root restriction, nutrient solution, irrigation frequency, rootzone temperature, oxygenation, vapour pressure deficit, lighting, rootzone pH, root exudates, CO2, and beneficiary microorganisms on the functionality and performance of the root system are discussed. Overall, the main results of this review demonstrate that researchers have carried out great efforts in innovation to optimize SCS water and nutrients supply, proper temperature, and oxygen levels at the rootzone and effective plant–beneficiary microorganisms, while contributing to plant yields. Finally, this review analyses the new trends based on emerging technologies and various tools that might be exploited in a smart agriculture approach to improve root management in soilless cropping while procuring a deeper understanding of plant root–shoot communication.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Roots are an essential organ that provides physical anchorage, water, nutrient uptake, stress avoidance mechanisms, and specific signals to the aerial part biome [1]. Root architecture considers the root elongation and hairiness, and lateral and adventitious roots (ARs) developed during plant evolution. It enables plants to respond to changing environmental conditions and adapt to different growing media [2]. Understanding how plant root system architecture enables plants to adapt to their environment and enhance this potential is essential for effective crop management [3].
While taking up water and nutrients, roots compete with other plants, fungi, and microorganisms in the rootzone, where positive or negative interactions occur due to complex processes [3]. Root architecture under abiotic stress conditions is regulated by phytohormones, inducing or repressing the process depending on the adverse condition [4,5,6]. However, environmental factors, such as temperature, nutrient elements, and water and salt stress [2,7] play significant roles.
Due to increasing problems in soil-based crop production, such as the loss of arable land, soil degradation, and, mainly, the impacts of climate change and soil-borne pathogens, soilless culture systems (SCS) are currently one of the fastest-growing sectors in horticulture [8,9,10]. They are used both in simple greenhouses and in advanced controlled-environment conditions. Recently, alongside typically grown plants, such as fruit and leafy vegetables and ornamental plants, there is an increasing interest in growing and producing other plants in soilless culture systems. For instance, figs (Ficus carica L.), table grape (Vitis vinifera L.), and other traditionally soil-grown fruit and vegetable crops, greens and herbs, wild vegetables, and recently cannabis have been cultivated in these systems [11].
In SCS, the roots are confined into a specific rootzone, one of the main distinctions between plants grown in soil and SCS [12]. In response to small rooting volume, plants increase root density, which involves greater water, nutrient, and oxygen consumption per unit volume of the rootzone [8]. Moreover, there are differences in root growth based on the type of SCS. For instance, root morphology is visually distinct among hydroponic types, such as deep water culture, ebb-flood, and aeroponic sub-mist systems, compared to a solid medium [13].
Growing plants in a limited rooting volume, root restriction, is a powerful technique to improve the utilization efficiency of agricultural resources such as space, water, and nutrition [14]. However, in container plants, the root system is more exposed to every environmental change and human-imposed mistake. According to [15], the following issues can be caused by mistakes in container-grown plants: root death due to oxygen shortage as a result of over-irrigation (particularly during hot growing periods), salt accumulation in the rootzone when it is not sufficiently leached by irrigation water, ammonium toxicity as a result of the application of high concentrations of fertilizer throughout extreme high-temperatures periods, or exposure of the plant container to direct solar radiation that may provoke over-heating and subsequently, root death.
The physical and chemical characteristics of the growing medium, changes in the nutrient solution, rootzone volume and depth, water availability, and microbial organisms inhabiting the rhizosphere can all affect root growth [16]. Bláha [17] reported a general acceptation that a 1% change in root system size corresponds to a 2% change in the yield. Hence, appropriate conditions should be provided in the rootzone for healthy root development, although extensive root growth may not be the best for most SCSs [16].
Considering the essential role of the root system in plant growth, yield, and product quality, in this review, we summarize the recent scientific evidence regarding the effects of several environmental and cultivation factors on the morphology, architecture, and performance of the root system of plants grown in soilless culture systems. Root restriction, nutrient solution, irrigation frequency, rootzone temperature, oxygenation, vapour pressure deficit, lighting, rootzone pH, root exudates, CO2, and beneficiary microorganisms are discussed.

2. Root Restriction

Apart from porosity that is much higher in growing media, the difference between soil and SCS is the limited volume of plant roots [9]. Root restriction affects the root system (by reducing root dry matter and inducing ARs formation and a dense mat of roots) and yield. There are reported cases of reduced yield, but there is always a significant increase in plants’ harvest index. A summary of several recently published papers regarding the influences of root restriction on root morphology and plant yield are presented in Table 1.
Commonly, roots in container-grown plants are very dense to compensate for limited rootzone volume. On the other hand, the increased root density means more oxygen and an increased nutrient consumption per unit volume of the rootzone. While in general, no changes in root anatomy have been seen in unrestricted plants [20,21], small volume causes significant changes in the morphology of the root system. These changes are mainly manifested by forming ARs, a rapid elongation of apical meristematic tissues, barriers to radial oxygen loss, and air films in the upper cuticle [26]. The replacement of primary root by ARs [21] is a typical adaptive change in root morphologyin response to stress conditions [27]. ARs can promote the exchange of gases by alleviating the adverse effects of oxygen deficiency [26,28] and enhancing the absorption of nutrients [26,27,29]. Experiments conducted with cucumbers grown in a floating system confirmed that the primary roots of root-restricted plants, grown in a container with a 40 mL volume, proliferate towards the bottom of the container producing numerous shorter lateral roots (LR) that filled the entire volume with a dense mat of roots [20]. The mat of ARs accelerating the loss of primary roots was also observed in root-restricted tomato plants [21]. Due to the volume restriction, the LRs impede their growth, and the root system displays an apparent water-logging performance indicated by the browning of roots [20]. The ‘root turnover’ progresses with the loss of older roots and the subsequent gain of new roots.
Root restriction significantly depresses root and shoot growth [14,19,20]. However, the effects of root restriction on reduced shoot growth are not implemented through nutrient deficiency or water stress [30]. Root-restricted plants develop more densely branched root systems than root-unrestricted plants [31]. Since the distal root orders play a key role in the uptake and translocation of minerals [32], new, fine roots might be a reason for a higher nutrient uptake rate in root-restricted plants.
Plant photosynthetic capacity can also be depressed by root restriction [18,33]. The reduction in the photosynthesis rate in root-restricted plants is often explained by a feedback inhibition mechanism of the excessive carbohydrate accumulation in leaves [34,35]. This was related to decreased sink activity due to removing active sinks [36] or reducing phloem transport to the available sinks [37]. However, some recent evidence does not support that claim. No carbohydrate built-up was found in root-restricted chili pepper plants [18]. Similarly, Shi et al. [33] found that decreased photosynthesis rate due to carbohydrate-induced feedback inhibition did not occur because carbohydrate concentration was lower in root-restricted tomato plants. The decreased plant ability to capture photosynthetically active radiation due to reduced leaf area is the main factor for the decreased photosynthetic activity of root-restricted plants [33]. Further, [14] have found a significant decrease in root respiration, cytochrome pathway capacity, hydrolytic ATP-ase activities, and root cell viability. In addition, they reported a significant decrease in leaf water potential, stomatal conductance, intercellular CO2 concentration, and increases in the stomatal limitation and the xylem sap ABA concentration [33].
Usually, a larger container size provides higher yields. Thus, the total and first quality yields of pepper plants grown in a closed irrigation system were highest in the variant with 16.6 L plant−1 perlite, followed by 6.7 and 3.3 L plant−1 [38]. Similarly, Sakamoto and Suzuki [22] reported that sweet potato plants grown in small-sized pots (1.6 L) decreased the fresh weight of tuberous roots compared with plants grown in 3.0 L and 4.5 L pots. By analyzing the effects of pot volume on tomato growth and yield, Tüzel et al. [23] found that 8 L rooting volume per plant resulted in a higher total yield (7.4 kg plant−1) than 4 L plant−1(6.2 kg plant−1). Saito et al. [24] found that, in 1 and 6 L root volume, fruit number per plant, fruit fresh weight, and yield of processing tomatoes were significantly smaller than 16 L and 26 L treatment. However, differently from the above, Pires et al. [25] found that the medium volume did not affect the number of fruits and the total yield of tomatoes grown in pots (5, 7.5, and 10 L plant−1) filled with coconut fiber substrate. However, the number of non-marketable fruits was higher in the lowest volume irrigated once a day, due to calcium deficiency.
Despite partly contradictory results, there are fine pieces of evidence that root restriction increases the harvest index—the ratio of edible to total biomass [18,19,30]. Any loss in edible biomass production is offset by including more plants in a given volume [19]. As such, root restriction can save up to 50% of medium volume and would be beneficial in reducing production costs [18]. In addition, if properly managed, root restriction can be a tool for increasing volume use efficiency in both terrestrial and space-flight plant production systems and reducing inedible biomass burdens in bio regenerative life-support systems [19]. However, to maximize the benefits of root restriction, further studies should be conducted focusing on manipulating the limited root system by ensuring adequate nutrition, optimum irrigation frequency, and maintaining proper rootzone temperature and oxygenation level.

3. Nutrient Solution

Plants in soil typically exhibit good root growth to gain water and nutrients from less-explored regions. Contrary to that, in frequently flushed soilless rootzones, the near-absence of clear depletion zones somewhat diminishes the need by the plant for such active ‘foraging’ [12]. A considerable number of research publications have shown that variation in root system architecture plays a key role in crop nutrient efficiency [39,40]. A summary of plant responses to nutrient solutions in SCSs is presented in Table 2. Correspondingly, root architecture can also be significantly influenced by nutrient availability, the heterogeneity of the nutrient supply, and symbiotic microorganisms [41]. Forde and Lorenzo [42] reported two ways to monitor the nutrient supply: directly through localized changes in the nutrient solution or indirectly through changes in the internal nutrient status of the plant itself. The direct pathway allows plants to respond to short-term changes of nutrients and provides roots with spatial information about the nutrient distribution within the medium profile. Thus, the developmental responses are concentrated to that region of the medium to benefit from the nutrient acquisition. The indirect pathway has the advantage of enabling the plant to integrate its nutritional signals with those coming from the range of other physiological processes, such as photosynthesis [42].
The phenotypic consequence of a change in nutrient supply in a given genotype depends on exact nutrient concentration, nutrient distribution and gradients, concentrations of other nutrients, developmental stage of the plant, and environmental factors [43]. Awika et al. [44] tested baby spinach accessions in small pots to determine phenotypic and genetic correlations between root traits and the shoot fresh weights under low and high nitrogen concentrations. They also found that, in a restricted soilless medium, the architecture of roots is a function of genetics defined by the soilless matrix and exogenously supplied nutrients. When plants face nutrient starvation, root morphology is affected, and its root surface area (RSA) usually increases. However, the specific effects depend on the element supplied in lower quantities, as the root response is focused on the assimilation of a specific nutrient [45]. Thus, although the response to low P is species-dependent, the general plant response includes primary root growth inhibition, increase in LR and root hairs, and cluster root formation [46,47].
The general response to low N includes an increase in vertical, deep roots [47]. Gruda and Schnitzler [48] reported differences in root length (RL) and root mass of tomato transplants within and outside of containers, depending on N supply. The root mass inside the container was higher with higher N-application rates. In contrast, outside the containers, the root mass was significantly higher at low N-application rates. Thus, the RL increased to search for more nutrients outside the containers.
On the other hand, the effect of nitrate on LR initiation is controversial. Several studies report a positive effect of nitrate on LR density, while others have found no effects of nitrate on LR number or density [43]. In general, at the morphological level, the inhibition of primary root (PR) growth is a typical response to most nutrient deficiencies, except for sulphur and zinc. In contrast, deficiency-induced LR responses vary considerably between nutrients producing nutrient-specific patterns of LR length, density, and branching [43]. However, how different root architectures affect the nutrient status of aboveground tissues and vice versa is a question that cannot be fully understood if nutrients are investigated in isolation [49]. The crosstalk between different nutrient signals and the benefits of RSA responses in a particular condition are yet to be characterized [43].
Table 2. Plant responses to nutrient solution.
Table 2. Plant responses to nutrient solution.
Plant ResponseCropSCSAdditional InformationReference
No increase in plant yield by increasing N fertilization ratesLettuceWashed sand; 2.5 L
(no confinement, the control); 1.0 L
(moderate) and 0.4 L
(severe root restriction)
Total nitrogen concentrations in mM L1, 5.55, 8.05, 10.55, 13.05 and 15.55.[50]
SpinachStyrofoam trays floated into 80 cm × 44 cm × 19 cm (52 L) plastic basins“Full dose” nutrient solution (mg L−1: N 150, P 50, K 150, Ca 150, Mg 50, Fe 5.0, Mn
0.50, Zn 0.05, B 0.50, Cu 0.03, Mo 0.02), “half dose” (with macro elements reduced by 50%)
[51]
Baby leaf lettuceStyrofoam trays floated into 135 cm × 125 cm × 20 cm a flotation bedNutrient solutions with 12 and 4 mM L−1 N[52]
Primary root growth inhibition, increase in lateral roots and root hairsVarious cropsVarious production systemLimited P supply[39,41,46]
Increase in vertical, deep rootsVarious cropsVarious production systemsLimited N supply[40,43,47]
Increased root dry weight, specific root length, root tissue density, and root length density due to increased irrigation intervalsTomato, Zinnia450 mL plastic pots containing either Metromix 360 (MM360) or Ball Professional Growing Mix (BPGM)24-h, 48-h, and 96-h irrigation intervals[53]
Chili pepper31 cm × 15 cm × 60 cm container filled with sandy-loamy soil1-, 3- and 5-day irrigation intervals[54]
When the growing system enables maintaining a constant concentration of each nutrient at the root surface, as is the case of NFT, DFT, and aeroponics, the ability of the restricted root system to meet plant requirements is not a limiting factor [12]. This is because frequent fertigation might improve the uptake of nutrients through the continuous replenishment of nutrients in the depletion zone at the vicinity of the root interface and enhance the transport of dissolved nutrients by mass flow [55].
In commercial production, soilless grown crops are commonly provided with high levels of inorganic nutrients. While this practice prevents growth from being limited by nutrient supply, it can exacerbate the release of nutrients into the environment. According to Grewal et al. [56], the drainage water contained 59% of applied N, 25% of applied P, and 55% of applied K. Similarly, Yang and Kim [57] reported in a recent study that only 30–40% and 46–62% of total N and P inputs, were assimilated into aquaponic crops. Lower proportions of 14–25% and 11–21% of total N and P inputs were assimilated into hydroponic crops. Therefore, it is recommended to decrease nutrient concentrations, especially N, in feeding recipes [58].
According to Cardoso et al. [50], root confinement reduces plant growth. However, the increase of N concentrations in the nutrient solution does not compensate the entire reduction in plant growth; the increase of N concentration in the nutrient solution enhanced shoot growth at the expense of decreased root growth. By studying the effect of different nutrient solution concentrations in a floating system, Öztekinet et al. [51] found no differences between full and half dose applications in many measured parameters of spinach. The authors concluded that half-dose application might be preferred in terms of yield and water consumption. Meantime, a reduction in leaf nitrate content due to reduced N concentration in the nutrient solution (4 mM vs. 12 mM) was reported in baby leaf lettuce grown in a floating system [52]. The limitation of nutrient element supply (3-0.5-1.25mM of N-P-K), particularly combined with the restriction of root volume (9 L), tended to induce early flowering, fruit set and maturation, and enhanced the allocation of assimilates to pepper fruits [30]. Savvas and Gruda [10] and Gruda et al. [59] also reported some methods to reduce the nitrate contents in SCS-leafy vegetables by lowering or eliminating the NO3-N supply a few days before harvesting. However, nitrate-lowering strategies require appropriate calibration based on species-/genotype-specific responses interacting with climate and growing conditions [60].

4. Water Supply and Irrigation

The exact time to initiate an irrigation event and the respective amount of water are the most critical factors for efficient irrigation management and saving water [61,62]. Irrigation frequency affects plant growth and productivity (Table 3), either directly by affecting the wetting patterns and water distribution in the medium volume, modulating root distribution and growth, or indirectly on nutrient availability [63].
The irrigation method, rate, timing, and interval affect root initiation, elongation, branching, development, and dry-matter partitioning between roots and shoots [67]. Roberts et al. [53] reported that plug-cell transplants irrigated at intervals of 48 h for zinnia (Zinnia elegans Jacq.) or 96 h for tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) showed significantly higher root parameters than similar transplants watered daily [53]. Similarly, Ismail and Ozawa [54] found that a 3-day irrigation interval showed a remarkably higher root development for chili pepper than 1 or 5 d treatments.
According to Savvas and Gruda [10], the particle size of the growing media and container geometry affects water availability and aeration in the rootzone. Generally, root development is better in well-aerated growing media with high air volume and high saturated hydraulic conductivity. For instance, root development of plants grown in wood fibers and coir is better than in a peat-based substrate [68]. The growing medium’s interaction with water supply influences wetting patterns in the rootzone, easily available water, leaching fraction, water availability [68,69,70], and consequently, root formation [66]. Variation in water supply led to different heights of substrate moisture in containers. Usually, the wetted layer of the substrate is larger in optimum water supply treatments and reduced in drought conditions. Gruda and Schnitzler [66] reported that the substrate moisture of the whole container could be achieved only for the treatments with a high matrix potential. This is reflected in a reduced development of rooting mass in drought treatments [66]. The vertical distribution of moisture content in containers affects the vertical root-density distribution [71]. Typically, the root distribution pattern mimics moisture distribution [54]; the geotropic and hydrotropic nature of roots favor the formation of a root layer at the bottom of the container.
The main mechanisms by which irrigation frequency enhances nutrient acquisition by the plant are the frequent replenishment of the nutrient solution in the depletion zone adjacent to the root surface and the enhancement of mass flow transport [55,63]. Thus, the increase of irrigation in SCS fertigation frequency could serve as an efficient tool to enhance crop yield by improving the availability of less mobile nutrients, such as P and K and water [55,72]. In addition, altering irrigation frequency increases N’s availability in the growing medium or the ability of roots to absorb it with a generally increased N use efficiency [73]. However, at high irrigation frequencies, as the time interval between consecutive fertigations is reduced, the NH4 concentration increases. Therefore, an adjustment of the NH4/NO3 ratio to diminish the risks of NH4 toxicity in sensitive crops is recommended [55,63].
Irrigation frequency affects the target nutrient concentration, which Bar Yosef [74] defines as a concentration providing an uptake rate equalling the target nutrient consumption rate by the crop at the specific growth stage. For example, pepper fertigated 18 times per day gave a similar total yield, large fruit yield, and unmarketable yield under target N concentrations of 70 and 140 mg L. In contrast, tomato response to N target concentration was even more assertive than pepper, showing an evident decline in total, marketable, and large fruit yields as N concentration increased from 50 to 150 and 250 mg L−1 N [74]. As a general rule, at a higher frequency, the nutrient depletion zones around roots are more often replenished by a fresh solution, increasing the time-averaged concentration in the rootzone. Therefore, under similar weather and substrate conditions, a higher target nutrient concentration is required under low irrigation frequency [38].
Irrigation frequency, directly or indirectly, influences plant yield and several physiological aspects [63]. However, the results regarding the effect of irrigation frequency on plant production are sometimes contradictory. For instance, Nikolaou et al. [74] reported that irrigation frequency did not influence cucumber crop’s growth and production. According to the authors, plants at low irrigation frequency induce water stress conditions, whereas high irrigation frequency increases the plants’ transpiration rate, resulting in less water and nutrient losses. On the contrary, Taweesak et al. [64] reported that increased irrigation frequency improves plant growth and the number of flowers of chrysanthemum plants grown under restricted root conditions. Similarly, Rodriguez-Ortega et al. [65] concluded that for the optimal fertigation management of tomato plants grown in growing bags filled with perlite, moderate- or high-frequency irrigation is required. According to them, low-frequency irrigation is not recommended because it causes water deficit in plants due to salts accumulation in the medium. The effects of irrigation frequency and water availability in the rootzone in SCSs could be related to the heterogeneity of root distribution in the rootzone [61] and photoassimilate partitioning between shoot and root [25]. However, container geometry, the temperature in the rootzone [75], and the hydraulic conductivity of the medium affect the water status characteristics [76].
Lastly, high irrigation frequency can positively affect the radicle length of different species by washing phytotoxic compounds when forestry products, such as bark, sawdust, and woodchips, were used. These results were not only found in bioassays [77,78] but also in container plants [77].

5. Rootzone Temperature

The environment temperature is a key factor in seed germination and subsequent root system development [79]. A summary of recent publications studying the effects of rootzone temperature is presented in Table 4. Optimum root temperatures will stimulate constant growth and the formation of new roots and improve nutrients and water uptake, crucially essential for the rapid growth of SCS plants [80]. The mechanisms regulating root growth under a specific temperature remain unclear [81]. However, in addition to changes in assimilate partitioning between roots and shoots [82], cold temperatures affect the growth rate of single root tips and the total root system architecture, especially the formation and orientation of LRs [83].
The root system comprises embryonic roots (radicles) and post-embryonic roots formed from the existing roots LRs or ARs. LRs affect the root system architecture [84]. Lateral root primordia development (LRP), LR emergence, organ growth, and the periodic branching of higher-order LRs are the main processes that increase the size of the root system [85]. Although the times and places of LRP morphogenesis are genetically controlled [86], plants can have very different root system architectures when grown in varying environmental conditions [2]. The exposure of plant roots to temperatures below or above their optimum temperature generally decreases (i) primary root length, (ii) LR density, and (iii) the angle under which LRs emerge from the primary root, whereas the average LR length is unaffected [79].
Roots growing in containers are more exposed to extreme ambient temperatures than soil-grown roots [12]. As a rule, the smaller the medium/nutrient solution volume is, the larger the temperature fluctuations are expected. In a study by Xu et al. [30], rootzone temperature (RZT) in a small container (9 L) varied between 14.1 and 26.9 °C. It was close to the variation of air temperature in small containers. In contrast, in large- and middle-sized containers, a narrower temperature variation was maintained during the daily cycle, and a higher temperature was recorded at night. Usually, an increased root:shoot ratio was recorded under unfavourable, low RZTs. This adaptation may overcome water and nutrient uptake restrictions due to increased water viscosity or decreased root hydraulic conductance [79].
Table 4. Plant responses to rootzone temperature.
Table 4. Plant responses to rootzone temperature.
Plant ResponseCropProduction SystemAdditional InformationReference
Increased root lengthCucumberPlastic pots filled with sand12 °C vs. 20 °C[87]
Garden peaFoam trays filled with peat12 °C vs. 20 °C[88]
Increased root branchingOilseed rapePetri dishes filled with agar10, 15 and 20 °C[83]
Several speciesTransparent cylinders, filled with a growth medium made from half-strength Hoagland solution and 0.2% Phytagel18–34 °C[88]
Increased root densityOilseed rapePetri dishes filled with agar10, 15 and 20 °C[83]
Garden peaFoam trays filled with peat12 °C vs. 20 °C[89]
Reduced yieldLettuceDFT hydroponic system with25 °C and 30 °C vs. 10 °C[90]
TomatoRockwool, cubs and slabs16–27 °C vs. 10 °C[91]
TomatoNFT hydroponic system20.3 vs. 16.6 °C and14.2 vs. 5.8 °C[92]
Baby leaves of lettuce and rocketFloating system30 vs. 21.9 °C[93]
The increase of RZT to an optimum level significantly increases RL [87], primarily due to the increased density of LR [89]. At temperatures of 10–15 °C, the emerged LRs were densest near the basal part of the tap root and declined acropetally along with it in garden pea grown in a soilless culture system. Root branching is also affected by temperature. According to Nagel et al. [83], lateral root formation in oilseed rape at 10 °C started later, and the branching rate was reduced by 60% compared with the treatment of 20 °C. The same effect was reported by Luo et al. [88] in the seedlings of different subtropical species. On the other side, increased average root diameter [94] and the initiation of second and third-order laterals [95] were reported in roots suffering from supra optimal temperature stress. Changes in root system morphology are adaptive plant responses to temperature stress, providing greater surface area for absorption per unit root weight or length [96].
In addition to root system architecture, especially the formation, density, and orientation of LRs [83,89], rootzone temperature affects the functionality of the root system [92,97]. Root water uptake decreases drastically when the temperature goes down because of the decrease in the vapour pressure deficit (VPD) and the increase in the viscosity of water [98]. Also, root hydraulic conductance decreases faster than stomatal conductance when only the roots were subjected to low-temperature stress [98,99]. Hence, although the transpiration rate decreases under low-temperature conditions because of a decrease in VPD between the leaf surface and the atmosphere, the stomata of the sensitive plants remain open. In contrast, those of the tolerant plants close more rapidly. Under such conditions, sensitive plants, such as cucumber and melon, start losing water from their leaves at dawn, while the roots are still cold [99]. The decreased root-sourced water supply negatively affects leaf growth [100] and stomatal conductance [101], and consequently, the overall assimilation capability of a plant [97].
The rate of nutrient uptake in a plant might also be disturbed by low rootzone temperature. The magnitude of these effects depends on the crop’s physiological stage [99] and growing season and cultivar [91]. According to Xu et al. [30], increasing root medium temperatures can increase N, P, and K uptake in pepper plants and enhance branch growth and total fruit yield, despite delayed flowering and fruit set. Similar results were reported by Tachibana [102] and Kawasaki et al. [103]. Increased rootzone temperature advanced the internal xylem’s structure near the root tip [92,103]. This increases both xylem exudation and root respiration, which improves nutrient transport to the shoot and increases shoot growth [92,103]. The enhancement of nutrient uptake and the improvement in nutrient transportation from roots to the aerial part of plants in optimum root temperature have different reasons. Apart from changes in root structure, a higher transpiration rate of the root system was recorded [104].
High rootzone temperature can also affect the functionality of the root system. The adverse effects of high root temperature result from a significant increase in root respiration rate [99], reduced oxygen solubility in the nutrient solution, and decreased oxygen consumption and cell viability [105]. The increased enzymatic oxidization of phenolic compounds in root epidermal and cortex tissues could be a reason as well [106]. The effects of high temperature have to be counted in both the short and long term. In the short term, a high solution temperature activates water and nutrient uptake through decreased water viscosity and affects membranes transport. In contrast, in the long-term, high temperature cause growth depression and browning in roots, accompanied by depressed water and nutrient uptake rates [106]. Often, heat affects roots’ incomplete recovery even after several days of post-heat recapture [107].
The adverse effects of high rootzone temperature on the root system and whole plant growth and development might further worsen when ammonium is applied as the source of N [12]. At rootzone temperatures as high as 25 °C, plant tolerance to high NH4 concentrations is often reduced due to low carbohydrate concentration in the cytoplasm available to detoxify cytoplasmic ammonia (NH3) [99].
The growth and yield of many plants are influenced by rootzone temperature [92,97]. A 7-day low temperature (10 °C) exposure reduced leaf area, stem size, fresh weight, and the water content of lettuce, compared with ambient rootzone temperature (20 °C) exposure [90]. Similarly, a reduction of marketable yield per plant was observed in two different cocktail tomato cultivars in response to root cooling in winter, but not in summer [91]. On the other side, the increment of rootzone temperature from 13–19 °C had a significant positive effect on the growth of cucumber seedlings [97]. This preserved the photosynthetic capability of the already existing leaves and promoted the expansion rate of the newly developed leaves [97].
In the same way, in tomatoes grown in a NFT system, the fruit yield was higher in the heating treatment than the control; the increased individual fruit dry weight was responsible for this difference [92]. During extreme weather conditions, the yield of baby lettuce and rocket was 31.4% and 18.9% higher with controlled RZT than the control, respectively, whilst quality parameters and chemical composition were not affected significantly [93]. Contrary to that, high rootzone temperatures have reduced shoot and root growth and water content in carrots grown in a DFT hydroponic system. In contrast, total phenolic compounds and soluble-solid content were increased [108].
In most cases, root cooling had a positive effect on the functional quality of tomatoes [91]. Sakamoto and Suzuki [90] have also reported that lettuce leaves under low rootzone temperature contained higher anthocyanin, phenols, sugar, and nitrate concentrations than leaves under optimum temperatures. Similarly, according to Kawasaki et al. [92], the soluble solid content of tomato fruits decreased in a rootzone heating treatment. Slightly different from above, the contents of ascorbic acid and sugar in strawberry fruits were not significantly influenced by the rootzone cooling [105].

6. Oxygenation

Plants adapt to low soil oxygen availability through root morphology, anatomy, and architecture to maintain root system functioning [109]. A summary of plant reactions under O2 deficiency is presented in Table 5. Total root length, surface area, and the volume and number of forks are significantly reduced under O2 deficiency conditions [110]. In addition, the formation, elongation, and growth angle of roots change under flooding conditions, resulting in an overall altered root architecture [109]. Therefore, the flooding-induced inhibition of root growth ultimately would lead to nutrient limitation and negatively impact the survival of the whole plant [79]. The phenomenon of hypoxiais particularly acute in hot periods when water temperatures increase, because the quantity of dissolved oxygen in water decreases and the rate of root respiration increases [111].
There are differences in sensitivity to oxygen deficiency in the rooting medium among plant species [112]. Under O2 deficiency stress, tolerant plants develop several below-ground adaptations, including adventitious root, aerenchyma, radial oxygen-loss barrier development, and a change in root hydraulic conductance [109,113]. The formation of aerenchyma in the root is one of the best-studied adaptations of plants to oxygen depletion, providing an alternative pathway for oxygen supply to the root tissue [114]. This requires that new, well-adapted, adventitious roots be formed. Thus, axial oxygen loss can be kept to a minimum so that the root tip becomes a well-oxygenated micro-climate [79]. In addition, a greater cortex-to-stele ratio and a smaller surface area to the volume also encourage the diffusion of O2 along roots. In contrast, barriers within the outer cell layers to prevent radial O2 loss from the cortex to the rhizosphere further improves O2 movement to the growing apex of roots in waterlogged growing media [109].
Lack of oxygen in the rootzone induces developmental responses in the shoot, such as epinastic leaf curvature, stomatal closure, and the slowing of leaf expansion—all reactions to compensate for the diminished input of resources from the roots [115]. Leaf yellowing, wilting, roots rotting, and root blackening are also common symptoms of waterlogged plants [113]. The appearance of wilting in waterlogged plants has generally been attributed to the effects of ethylene production by roots rather than to a shortage of water to maintain leaf turgor. In addition, the observation of altered aquaporin activity and lower hydraulic conductance in response to hypoxia stress suggests that the leaves of waterlogged plants are water deficit stressed. However, this hypothesis needs testing [113].
Table 5. Plant responses to rootzone oxygen.
Table 5. Plant responses to rootzone oxygen.
Plant ResponseCropProduction SystemAdditional InformationReference
Alterations in formation, elongation, and growth angle of roots.Various cropsVarious systemsO2 deficiency[109]
Adventitious root formation, aerenchyma, and radial oxygen-loss barrier developmentCucumberFloating systemO2 deficiency[20]
TomatoFlow-through hydroponic culture system (FTS)O2 deficiency[21]
Various cropsVarious systemsO2 deficiency[113]
Increased yieldMelonRockwool, cubs, and slabsOxygen enrichment[116]
MelonRockwool, cubs, and slabsOxygen enrichment[117]
LettuceNutrient solutionOxygen enrichment[118]
Available oxygen is mainly determined by the layout of the hydroponic system and the substrate’s physical properties. In contrast, oxygen diffusion rates into the water depend directly on volumetric air content, partial oxygen pressure, and temperature [119]. Morard and Silvestre [111] reported that the rate of root respiration depends on plant species and can differ from 1.44 to 7.8 μmol O2 h−1 g−1 root FW. Considering that oxygen concentration in the rootzone of plants in soilless systems is quite variable and rapidly changes [12], attention should be paid not to let it fall below a plant-specific critical value [120].
High root respiration rate, high medium temperature, and high crop water demand are factors that may provoke oxygen deficiency, even in well-aerated substrate crops [116]. In container-grown plants, an accumulation of roots at the bottom of the container is usually observed. This results in intense root-to-root competition for oxygen and nutrients, leading to more rapid decreases in the concentration of dissolved oxygen due to the respiration of an extensive mass of dense roots and as a consequence of the existence of a perched water layer on the bottom of the container [12]. This situation may be aggravated by the consumption of oxygen from microorganisms under warm condition, which can complete O2 depletion in less than 24 h. Consequently, roots will quickly be exposed to a transition from a fully aerobic to an anaerobic environment [121].
Hydroponically grown plants may also suffer from oxygen deficiency. Especially in NFT, the oxygen concentration can heavily deplete during the daytime [120]. Furthermore, when roots start to intertwine and shield each other, the flow rate of the nearby root nutrient solution is reduced. This means the transport rate of oxygen to dense root layers, even in deep flow systems, can be limited, despite large flows in the adjacent nutrient solution [122].
Under root asphyxia conditions, plants might use the oxygen from the reduction reactions of nitrates to nitrites to ensure water and nitrate uptake processes, relying on the metabolism of the “nitrate respiration” type [123]. In these conditions, switching from aerobic respiration to the glycolytic generation of ATP results in a severe decrease in energy available for maintenance, growth, and ion uptake [79]. Since less ATP is produced, this implies that adaptation has a cost that will probably result in reduced growth and yield [113]. According to Morard et al. [123], oxygen deprivation of the nutrient solution has an immediate effect on the water and nutrient uptake of the whole plant. Thus, root asphyxia of a tomato plant causes a 20 to 30% decrease in water uptake after 48 h, and the active uptake of nutrients, namely nitrate, potassium, and phosphate, is rapidly reduced. In addition, oxygen deficiency inhibits plant gas exchange parameters and net photosynthetic rate [35]. On the contrary, aeration promotes plant growth, leaf K, P, Mg, and water uptake [124], and plant net photosynthetic rate [35].
Oxygenation is a common practice in soilless commercial production, and several oxygenation methods are practised [118,125]. A higher yield of marketable and first category fruits was reported in melon plants grown in rockwool slabs for the oxygen-enriched treatment [116]. Also, increased head size and leaf number were reported by Öztekin and Tüzel [118] in lettuce plants grown with an aerated nutrient solution. Furthermore, Bonachela et al. [117] showed an increase in total and marketable yield for the oxygen-enriched melon grown on rockwool slabs. No significant differences were found for the melons grown on perlite grow bags. Therefore, they concluded that oxygen enrichment should be restricted to rockwool and to crop periods when a high oxygen demand concurs with low oxygen availability. In addition, no effects of oxygen enrichment on yieldwere found in pepper and cucumber plants grown in porous mediasuch as cedar sawdust and perlite [126]. Lee et al. [127] warned that excessive aeration inhibits root respiration, nutrients, bioactivity, and water uptake, resulting in reduced plant growth and fruit yield. Some modern oxygenation technologies can increase the nutrient solution dissolved oxygen (DO) level to a few times higher than the saturation level at ambient conditions. To find out whether too high of a rootzone DO can negatively affect the plant in SCS, Zheng et al. [128] grew young tomato plants in a deep water culture system with DO at 8, 20, 30, or 40 mg L−1. They found that two weeks from the start of the experiment, the roots in the 40 mg L−1 treatment were stunted and thicker, with fewer side and fine roots compared to roots in the other three treatments, and the root respiration rate increased linearly with the increasing DO. Therefore, they recommend, for soilless cultivation, rootzone DO should not go higher than 30 mg L−1.

7. Water Pressure Deficit

Vapour pressure deficit (VPD) is the difference between the saturated vapour pressure and the actual vapour pressure at a given temperature. VPD can affect plant root morphology, architecture, and performance in soilless grown plants. For example, Zhang et al. [129] grew Lycopersicon esculentum seedlings in perlite and vermiculite mix under either high VPD (4–5 kPa at noon) or low VPD (<1.5 kPa) conditions. They found that the seedlings grown under low VPD had longer total root length, larger root diameter, higher total root volume, total root surface area, number of root tips, number of root forks, and biomass. They further divided the roots into three diameter ranges (0–0.5, 0.5–1.0, and >1.0 mm) and found that root lengths for root diameters in the 0–0.5 and 0.5–1.0 mm ranges were greater under the low VPD condition than those under the high VPD condition. VPD did not have any effect on root length of the roots with diameter >1.0 mm. By growing Lycopersicon esculentum plants under either low VPD (0.23 kPa) or moderate VPD (0.7 kPa), Arve and Torre [130] found that plants grown under the low VPD developed adventitious roots at the base of the stem. However, those under the moderate VPD did not. Low VPD increases root biomass for plants in the soilless system reported in other studies [131]. The response of root growth to VPD is species specific, and the VPD is range dependent. Zheng and Shimizu [132] grew four species of conifer tree seedlings in vermiculite under four different VPDs (2.40/1.32, 2.00/1.06, 1.60/0.79, or 1.20/0.53 kPa during light/dark), they found the root biomass of Pinus massoniana increased linearly with the increase of VPD; however, there was no VPD effect on the root biomass of Pinus tabulaeformis; Platycladus orientalis and Cunninghamia lanceolata.
Roots with different diameters can have different abilities in water and nutrient uptake; it is generally believed that finer roots are better in water and nutrient uptake. VPD not only can affect plant morphology and architecture and eventually, affect plant root water and nutrient uptake, but VPD is also a major driving force for plant water and nutrient uptake. When VPD is high, water is readily transpired from the leaf to the air, resulting in high water and nutrient uptake. However, when VPD is too high, water cannot flow up quickly enough, resulting in stomatal closure and reduced water and nutrient uptake. When VPD is low, root uptake of nutrients can also be limited. The leaf Ca content dramatically decreased by growing Lycopersicon esculentum in a low VPD environment [133].
Most of the existing studies were focusing on how rootzone moisture levels affect root morphology and architecture. More research is needed to investigate how different species respond to the realistic VPD ranges in soilless plant production facilities.

8. Lighting

Lighting has three aspects: light intensity, spectral quality, and photoperiod. Lighting can affect root initiation, growth, and ultimately, affect root water and nutrient uptake. The generally accepted view for root initiation and growth is that there is an optimal light intensity for different species, and different species may have different optimal light spectra [134]. Gil et al. [135] rooted Dendranthema × grandiflorum cuttings in the soilless medium under either a blue (peaked at 460 nm) or red (peaked at 625 nm) light-emitting diode (LED) or fluorescent lights, all with photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) at 5, 35, or 65 μmol⋅m−2⋅s−1. Their results showed that the number of adventitious roots and root dry weights were the highest for the cuttings under the 65 μmol⋅m−2⋅s−1, regardless of the light spectrum used; under the same PPFD of 35 μmol⋅m−2⋅s−1, the blue LED treatment had the highest number of adventitious roots, root length, and root dry weight among the three light spectrum treatments, in general. Their finding indicates that blue light can stimulate root initiation and growth. This is also supported by a few other recent studies. For example, Rasool et al. [136] exposed cuttings (inserted in plugs containing soilless medium) of Kalanchoe blossfeldiana under LEDs with different red and blue ratios,90:10, 70:30, and 15:85; results showed that the root-covered plug surfaces were highest under the two higher blue ratios. Navidad et al. [137] grew Abies laciocarpa and Piceaabies seedlings under either highpressure sodium light (HPS) with 5% blue (low blue) or under the same HPS but increased the blue portion to 30% (high blue) using LED. They found that the high blue treatment resulted in a 3.8 times increased root dry weight and a reduced total root length in P. abies but had no effect on the root growth of A. laciocarpa. Olschowski et al. [138], also showed that Calibrachoa cuttings rooted in soilless plugs generally had higher root dry weight and total root length under higher vs. lower light intensity (i.e., PPFD of 80 vs. 40 μmol⋅m−2⋅s−1), regardless of the light spectrum. They also showed that plants had higher root dry weight under HPS light and a combination of white, blue, and red LEDs than those under the red-, blue-, or white-only LEDs.
Light can also affect root water and nutrient uptake performance. For example, by growing Brassica oleracea var. Alboglabra under either fluorescent or LED lights, with different blue and red light ratios of 1:9, 2:8, and 4:6, Barickman et al. [139] found that the shoot tissue concentrations of P, S, K, Ca, and Mg increased under the LEDs, compared to those under the fluorescent light. However, the root tissue concentrations increased for K and decreased for Mg under LEDs vs. fluorescent, and no light-treatment effects were observed on Ca or P uptake. By growing Larix principis-rupprechtii seedlings under different fertilisation levels and two LED spectral combinations, Zhao et al. [140] found light×nutrient interactions on root dry weight, uptake of N and P, and the nutrient utilisation efficiencies. There is no clear cut whether light affects root morphology and architecture, leading it to affect water and nutrient uptake. It mainly affects plant aboveground (e.g., leaf morphology and, size and stomatal conductance) and ultimately leads to affecting on water and nutrient uptake.
Based on the limited available literature, we are not able to generalize which spectrum or spectra combination are the best in promoting root initiation, root growth, and root water and nutrient uptake; however, both light quality and intensity can affect water and nutrient uptake, and the effects are species, lighting, and environment-dependent [141]. Future research needs to investigate how light spectrum, intensity, and photoperiod affect root growth, morphology, architecture, and nutrient and water uptake during the entire plant growth and development period, rather than only during the early propagation stage.

9. CO2

Since roots are one of the major organs for the storage of photosynthates, the growth, architecture, and nutrient contents of roots will be considerably impacted by elevated CO2 [eCO2]. eCO2 increases root to shoot ratio in nutrient-limited conditions because the increased biomass by eCO2 will be preferentially allocated to roots to exploit and acquire more nutrients [142]. By using a meta-analysis, Dong et al. [143] found an 8% increase in the root-to-shoot ratio of vegetables and a 35% increase in yield of root vegetables under [eCO2] conditions compared to ambient [CO2] conditions. The improvement of vegetable root growth by [eCO2] may be attributed to plants’ higher nutrient requirement, leading to more allocation of photosynthates to roots [142]. The biomass and the morphology of vegetable roots could dramatically change under [eCO2] conditions. Li et al. [144] found that the total root length, root surface area, root volume, average diameter, and the number of root tips of cucumber plants were also significantly increased by elevating [CO2] from 400 to 1200 μmol mol−1 with sufficient nitrogen supply [144]. The authors also found that the concentrations of three soluble sugars (glucose, fructose, and sucrose) and three organic acids (citric acid, malic acid, and oxalic acid) were all increased with [eCO2]. Those results indicated that [eCO2] strongly promoted the robust root growth of vegetables and facilitated the transportation of photosynthates from aerial part to roots.

10. Rootzone pH

Rootzone pH can affect nutrient availability and the microorganism community and activities and cause effects on root initiation and growth and ultimately, influence root water and nutrient uptake [141]. For soilless production, it is recommended to keep rootzone pH between 5.5 and 6.5 for most plant species. Lower than pH 5.5, there is a potential for toxicity caused by an excess concentration of Mn levels; higher than 6.5, many elements, such as P, Fe and Mn, can become unavailable to plants. Dysko et al. [145] compared different pH levels (4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 6.5) of nutrient solution of tomato plants grown on mats made of shredded rye straw, peat, or rockwool slabs. The authors found that the concentration of available phosphorus in the root zone was strictly linked with the pH level of the nutrient solution, and the substrate used and available phosphorus was lower in organic substrates (straw, peat) than in rockwool, and, regardless of the substrate type, the best yield performance was obtained at pH 5.5 of the nutrient solution. However, higher nitrogen, calcium, and magnesium concentrations were obtained in organic substrates [146]. In gerbera plants grown in pumice, the high pH level of a nutrient solution (5.0 vs. 5.8) increased the pH of RZ, resulting in significant restrictions in Cu, Mn and Zn uptake [147].
Different plant species can have different sensitivities to rootzone pH, and different plant species can also influence their rootzone pH differently. By growing different species in a soilless cultivation system, Huang et al. [148] found that Viola × wittrockiana, Petunia × hybrida, and Catharanthus roseus seedlings raised rootzone pH. However, Celosia cristata, Lycopersicon esculentum, and Zinnia elegans seedlings lowered rootzone pH. Growing Echinacea purpurea and E. angustifolia in three different soilless cultivation systems with three different growing media and three NO3/NH4 ratios, Zheng et al. [149] found that rootzone pH remained stable in both Echinacea species, regardless of growing media or the ratio of NO3/NH4. Zhang et al. [150] studied the effects of Ca at different pH levels of RZ in jack pine (Pinus banksiana) seedlings and found that high pH and Ca concentrations decreased root dry weight and inhibited root cell elongation
More studies need to be designed to investigate how rootzone pH affects root growth, morphology, and architecture in soilless cultivation.

11. Root Exudates and Allelopathy

Plant root exudates include carbohydrates, organic acids (e.g., aminoacids), nucleosides, flavonoids, phenolics, glucosinolates, salicylic and jasmonic acid catabolites, enzymes, and vitamins [141]. More than 100 compounds were detected in the root exudates from Arabidopsis thaliana grown in a hydroponic system [151]. Plants allocate about 27% of carbon to their roots, and roots release about11% of the net fixed carbon in to the rootzone [1]. The amount and type of exudates depend on plant species, ages, rootzone microorganisms, and the growing environment. Root exudates can improve plant root and shoot growth and improve plant resistance to unfavourable conditions by attracting beneficial microbiota, toxic chelating compounds in the rootzone, changing rootzone pH, and increasing certain nutrient elements [1]. More research is needed to investigate what compounds can be beneficial to root initiation, growth, morphology, and architecture in order to utilize them to promote plant growth in a soilless cultivation system.
Some root exudates can have inhibitory effects on themselves or other species. These chemicals are known as allelochemicals, which can cause a variety of stresses (e.g., oxidative stress) to plants. Allelochemicals can cause injury to roots, reduce root water and nutrient uptake, and ultimately, reduce photosynthesis and plant growth [141]. By growing Dactylis glomerata L., cv. Amba, Lolium perenne L. cv.’Belida’, and Rumex acetosa L. cv. ‘Belleville’, in a soilless medium, Hussain and Reigosa [152], found that the root length of all the three species was reduced when there was a presence of either one of the allelochemicals, benzoxazolin-2(3H)-one or cinnamic acid, at a concentration of 0.1 mM or higher.
In soilless cultivation systems, nutrient solutions are often reused. This practice can lead to the accumulation of certain allelochemicals, which can negatively impact plant roots. For example, by growing Lactuca sativa cv. Southern in solution culture, Talukder et al. [153] demonstrated that the length of the longest root and total root dry weight of plants were reduced when the nutrient solution was continuously used without replacement for six weeks, compared with the control. When the solution was treated by different technologies to degrade the harmful allelochemicals, these root growth attributes were the same as the control. Future research needs to investigate what allelochemicals at what critical level can cause adverse effects on what species in order to provide recommendations for soilless cultivators to decide which species can be grown within the same nutrient solution and when and what technologies to use for extending nutrient solution life for reuse.

12. Root–Microbial Relationships

Plant roots release a vast range of low- and high-molecular weight compounds, including carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids, fatty acids, proteins, enzymes, nucleotides, and vitamins [154,155,156]. The type and amount of root exudates are affected by plant species, growth stage, the physico-chemical properties of the growing medium, and other factors. The latter could be (i) physical, such as light, water status, salinity, and temperature; (ii) chemical, nutrient quantity, toxic ions, and pH; and (iii) biological, such as a microbial community [1]. Among other functions, root exudates have a crucial role in the communication between plants and rhizosphere-inhabiting microorganisms [1,157,158]. The chemical communication and interaction between plant roots and microorganisms may be positive or negative [159]. The ones having positive interactions are called plant-beneficial microorganisms. They include mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPR), which help plants by enhancing nutrient availability, inducing plant defence mechanisms, and improving the effectiveness and interaction of plants in SCS [59,160]. The ones having negative interactions, such as competition, parasitism, and pathogenesis, include pathogenic fungi, viruses, and bacteria [158].
The population of microorganisms is low before planting in a solid growing media or nutrient solution. However, high numbers of aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria are present within twenty hours after transplanting [161], derived from plant material, growing media, water, and insects [162]. The contamination of microorganisms starts immediately after planting and is affected by the growing system and media, e.g., organic vs. inorganic, moisture content; nutrient status (e.g., pH, concentration and sources of organic and inorganic nutrients); species and growth stage of the plant and environmental factors [163].
The number of aerobic bacteria is significantly lower in a deep water culture (DWC) compared with NFT, inorganic (rockwool) and organic (coconut fiber) substrate culture, whereas beneficial fungi are significantly higher in coconut-fiber culture than other SCSs [164]. However, the composition and function of the microbial population on the root and nutrient solution changes during the growing season [165,166].
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) could increase yield and improve the quality of vegetables [167,168] and other horticultural crops [169]. The improved performance of AM-inoculated plants has been attributed to the more efficient uptake of nutrients, increase in photosynthesis efficiency, the facilitation of water uptake, and the mitigation of ionic imbalances [170,171,172]. Root association with AMF enhances nutrient acquisition, particularly for diffusion-limited mineral nutrients, such as P, Zn, and Cu [173]. In the case of P acquisition, it may be attributed to integrative physiological/biochemical events, including the proliferation of mycorrhizal hyphae, improved root morphology, increased soil acid phosphatase activity, and the AMF-up-regulated expression of roots [172]. In accordance, Nurbaity et al. [174] recommended that phosphorus concentration in ebb-flow techniques could be reduced up to 50% when AMF is used.
In addition, AMF may lower the root infections of pathogens in SCSs [175], such as Pythium aphanidermatum in cucumber [176], Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Radicis lycopersici in tomato [177], or Phytophthora cryptogea in gerbera [178]. Furthermore, Song et al. [179] reported that mycorrhizal inoculation with AMF Funneliformis mosseae significantly alleviated tomato early blight (Alternaria solani) in sand culture due to significantly increased activity of β-1,3-glucanase, chitinase, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, and lipoxygenase in leaves.
PGPR typically promote plant growth in two ways: direct stimulation and bio control [180]. Growth promotion is implemented through nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, iron sequestration, synthesis of phytohormones, modulation of plant ethylene levels, and the control of phytopathogenic microorganisms [180,181]. PGPR colonizing the surface of the root system (and sometimes inner tissues) have been used both in soil and soilless culture systems due to their positive effects on nutrient uptake (e.g., nitrogen fixation, solubilization of phosphorus), plant stress control, and competition or antagonism with pathogens, suppression, etc. [182]. Recently, they were successfully used in many crops grown hydroponically, such as tomato [183], cherry tomato [184], and lettuce [181]. In addition, PGPR is able to modify root architecture and root tissue structures through the production of phytohormones, secondary metabolites and enzymes. They reduce the growth rate of the primary root and increase the number and length of LR and root hairs [185]. A comprehensive list of reports regarding PGPR effects on root traits was recently published by Grover et al. [186].
Plant inoculation with AMF or rhizobial bacteria, separately or combined, significantly influences and alters root architecture [187,188]. Two different types of root architecture remodelling associated with AMF or rhizobial associations have been reported. In type I, AMF colonization promotes root growth, with a greater number and length of lateral roots and more fine roots. In contrast, in type II root-rhizobium symbiotic associations, in different crop species such as legume crops infected by AMF, often result in inhibited root growth, probably due to the carbon costs of developing nodules maintaining N2 fixation [41]. Separately, significant increases in root dry weight due to mycorrhizal inoculation were reported in pepper [189] and tomato seedlings [170]. However, since a decrease in root-hair density was reported in specific crops [173,190], the mycorrhizal effects on root hairs seem to be related to plant species [191].
Both AM fungi and PGPB are negatively affected by adverse environmental conditions. Salt stress can affect AM fungi by slowing down root colonization, spore germination, and hyphal growth [192,193]. On the other hand, salinity leads to a failure in the establishment of rhizobia, either by decreasing the survival rate and proliferation of rhizobia or by inhibiting root hair colonization [194]. However, AM fungi have alleviated the salinity stress in transplanted cucumber plants by extending their RL and RSA [195]. In addition, combined applications of AMF and PGPB in garden pea were able to sustain RL, RSA, and root volume (RV) at the level of non-saline plants and provide a significantly higher yield than control plants [187]. Similarly, inoculation with both rhizobia and mycorrhiza fungi provided the best results regarding the length and the weight of faba bean primary roots, suggesting that co-inoculation could be a potential solution to alleviate the harmful effects low rootzone temperatures [196]. More information regarding the response of the root-associated microbiome under different stress conditions can be found in a recent review by Pascale et al. [197].

13. Conclusions, Trends and Outlook

The recent scientific evidence about the effects of several environmental and cultivation factors on the morphology, architecture, and performance of the root system of plants grown in SCS, which have been presented in this review, point to the high degree of research carried out in recent years intending to achieve high efficiency in water and nutrient supply by using proper pH, temperature, and oxygen levels at the rootzone, proper lightening and CO2 concentration, and an effective root–microbial relationship while helping a plant to achieve its target yields.
Using rootzone variables, specific models can be developed and used to efficiently manage the irrigation or fertigation needed for optimizing root behaviour in specific horticultural plants grown in SCS. In addition, by using tools, such as multi-element sensors and interpretation algorithms based on machine learning logic, it is possible to monitor the availability of nutrients in the hydroponic solution and modify its composition in real-time while reducing economic costs and minimizing the environmental impact of SCSs. In this context, computer-controlled nutrient management systems with an array of ion-selective electrodes represent a useful tool for the online and real-time monitoring of nutrient solutions, intending to satisfy the nutritional requirements of plants for optimal growth. However, several disadvantages of ion-selective electrodes, such as signal drift and distortions due to interfering ions, make application in SCS difficult. Therefore, it is essential to develop an effective data-processing method to compensate for signal drift and interference. Similarly, advanced Big Data analytics and simulation techniques might allow forecasting the quality and quantity of greenhouse vegetable and fruit production under various conditions and, in turn, to determine the optimal parameters, such as the composition and concentration of the hydroponic nutrient solution temperature, humidity, CO2 levels, and lighting.
Further investigation of rootzone temperature regulation is required for a deeper understanding of plant root–shoot communication and developing proper environmental control strategies. In addition, the differential thermal regulation of shoots and roots would be an effective strategy to increase plant growth and improve the yield and quality of crops with minimum stress. Notably, the effects of rootzone temperature on crops to increase phytochemical compounds, which are beneficial components for human health, are another important research area with practical interest.
Even hydroponically grown plants, especially in NFT, may suffer from oxygen deficiency, affecting water and nutrient uptake. Despite several techniques already developed to facilitate the oxygen enrichment of growing media or nutrient solution, conflicting results are obtained regarding crop yield and quality. Therefore, comprehensive studies are required to identify the best oxygenation methods depending on different SCSs, growing media, crops, and cultivation cycles.
Lastly, but very importantly, more research is required to study the response of root-associated microorganisms under different stress conditions on root behaviour in different SCSs. Furthermore, further studies are needed to select and detect efficient microorganisms under different SCSs to obtain superior responses on crop productivity.

Author Contributions

A.B., Y.T. and G.S.; writing—original draft preparation (root restriction, nutrient solution, water supply and irrigation, root zone temperature, oxygenation, root–microbial relationships), Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation (vapor pressure deficit, lighting, rootzone pH, root exudates, and allelopathy), N.S.G.; writing—original draft preparation (CO2 and growing media), N.S.G. and J.A.F.; review and editing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vives-Peris, V.; de Ollas, C.; Gómez-Cadenas, A.; Pérez-Clemente, R.M. Root exudates: From plant to rhizosphere and beyond. Plant Cell Rep. 2020, 39, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nibau, C.; Gibbs, D.; Coates, J.C. Branching out in new directions: The control of root architecture by lateral root formation. New Phytol. 2008, 179, 595–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Teixeira, J.S.; Tusscher, K.T. The Systems Biology of Lateral Root Formation: Connecting the Dots. Mol. Plant 2019, 12, 784–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Atkinson, J.A.; Rasmussen, A.; Traini, R.; Voss, U.; Sturrock, C.; Mooney, S.J.; Wells, D.; Bennett, M.J. Branching Out in Roots: Uncovering Form, Function, and Regulation. Plant Physiol. 2014, 166, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Lavenus, J.; Goh, T.; Roberts, I.; Guyomarc’H, S.; Lucas, M.; De Smet, I.; Fukaki, H.; Beeckman, T.; Bennett, M.; Laplaze, L. Lateral root development in Arabidopsis: Fifty shades of auxin. Trends Plant Sci. 2013, 18, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vives-Peris, V.; López-Climent, M.F.; Pérez-Clemente, R.M.; Gómez-Cadenas, A. Root Involvement in Plant Responses to Adverse Environmental Conditions. Agronomy 2020, 10, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dubrovsky, J.G.; Forde, B. Quantitative Analysis of Lateral Root Development: Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them. Plant Cell 2012, 24, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Tüzel, Y.; Balliu, A. Advances in liquid -and solid-medium soilless culture systems. In Advances in Horticultural Soilless Culture; Gruda, N.S., Ed.; Burleigh Dodds Science: Cambridge, UK, 2021; ISBN 978 1 78676 292 4. Available online: www.bdspublishing.com (accessed on 10 July 2021). [CrossRef]
  9. Sabatino, L. Increasing Sustainability of Growing Media Constituents and Stand-Alone Substrates in Soilless Culture Systems—An Editorial. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Savvas, D.; Gruda, N. Application of soilless culture technologies in the modern greenhouse industry—A review. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2018, 83, 280–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gruda, N. Soilless Culture Systems and Growing Media in Horticulture: An Overview. In Advances in Horticultural Soilless Culture; Gruda, N.S., Ed.; Burleigh Dodds Science: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 1–20. ISBN 978 1 78676 292 4. Available online: https://shop.bdspublishing.com/store/bds/detail/workgroup/3-190-89123 (accessed on 10 July 2021). [CrossRef]
  12. Raviv, M.; Lieth, J.H.; Bar-Tal, A.; Silber, A. Growing plants in soilless culture: Operational conclusions. In Soilless Culture; Elsevier BV: Alpharetta, GA, USA, 2008; pp. 545–571. [Google Scholar]
  13. Maclellan, L. Effect of Hydroculture Methods on Tomato Root Morphology and Anatomy. Honor. Coll. 2019, 567. Available online: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/567 (accessed on 11 April 2021).
  14. Shi, K.; Hu, W.-H.; Dong, D.-K.; Zhou, Y.-H.; Yu, J.-Q. Low O2 supply is involved in the poor growth in root-restricted plants of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Environ. Exp. Bot. 2007, 61, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kafkafi, U. Root Temperature, Concentration and the Ratio NO3 / NH4+ Effect on Plant Development. J. Pl. Nutr. 1990, 13, 1291–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jones, J.B. Growing Plants Hydroponically; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bláha, L. Crop Science Institute Importance of Root-Shoot Ratio for Crops Production. Agron. Agric. Sci. 2019, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zakaria, N.I.; Ismail, M.R.; Awang, Y.; Wahab, P.E.M.; Berahim, Z. Effect of Root Restriction on the Growth, Photosynthesis Rate, and Source and Sink Relationship of Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) Grown in Soilless Culture. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Graham, T.; Wheeler, R. Root restriction: A tool for improving volume utilization efficiency in bioregenerative life-support systems. Life Sci. Space Res. 2016, 9, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kharkina, T.G.; Ottosen, C.-O.; Rosenqvist, E. Effects of root restriction on the growth and physiology of cucumber plants. Physiol. Plant. 1999, 105, 434–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Peterson, T.A.; Reinsel, M.D.; Krizek, D.T. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., cv. ‘Better Bush’) Plant Response to Root Restriction. I. Alteration of plant morphology. J. Exp. Bot. 1991, 42, 1233–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sakamoto, M.; Suzuki, T. Effect of pot volume on the growth of sweetpotato cultivated in the new hydroponic system. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2018, 77, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Tuzel, I.; Tüzel, Y.; Gül, A.; Altunlu, H.; Eltez, R. Effect of different irrigation schedules, substrates and substrate volumes on fruit quality and yield of greenhouse tomato. Acta Hortic. 2001, 548, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Saito, T.; Fukuda, N.; Iikubo, T.; Inai, S.; Fujii, T.; Konishi, C.; Ezura, H. Effects of Root-volume Restriction and Salinity on the Fruit Yield and Quality of Processing Tomato. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2008, 77, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Pires, R.C.D.M.; Furlani, P.R.; Ribeiro, R.V.; Junior, D.B.; Sakai, E.; Lourenção, A.L.; Neto, A.T. Irrigation frequency and substrate volume effects in the growth and yield of tomato plants under greenhouse conditions. Sci. Agricola 2011, 68, 400–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pan, J.; Sharif, R.; Xu, X.; Chen, X. Mechanisms of Waterlogging Tolerance in Plants: Research Progress and Prospects. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Steffens, B.; Rasmussen, A. The Physiology of Adventitious Roots. Plant Physiol. 2016, 170, 603–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Ayi, Q.; Zeng, B.; Liu, J.; Qiaoli, A.; van Bodegom, P.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Oxygen absorption by adventitious roots promotes the survival of completely submerged terrestrial plants. Ann. Bot. 2016, 118, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Gonin, M.; Bergougnoux, V.; Nguyen, T.D.; Gantet, P.; Champion, A. What Makes Adventitious Roots? Plants 2019, 8, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Xu, G.; Wolf, S.; Kafkafi, U. Interactive effect of nutrient concentration and container volume on flowering, fruiting, and nutrient uptake of sweet pepper. J. Plant Nutr. 2001, 24, 479–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bar-Tal, A.; Feigin, A.; Sheinfeld, S.; Rosenberg, R.; Sternbaum, B.; Rylski, I.; Pressman, E. Root restriction and N-NO3 solution concentration effects on nutrient uptake, transpiration and dry matter production of tomato. Sci. Hortic. 1995, 63, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Massa, D.; Magán, J.J.; Montesano, F.F.; Tzortzakis, N. Minimizing water and nutrient losses from soilless cropping in southern Europe. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 241, 106395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shi, K.; Ding, X.-T.; Dong, D.-K.; Zhou, Y.-H.; Yu, J.-Q. Root restriction-induced limitation to photosynthesis in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) leaves. Sci. Hortic. 2008, 117, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nishizawa, T.; Saito, K. Effects of Rooting Volume Restriction on the Growth and Carbohydrate Concentration in Tomato Plants. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1998, 123, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Pezeshki, S.; Santos, M. Relationships among Rhizosphere Oxygen Deficiency, Root Restriction, Photosynthesis, and Growth in Baldcypress (Taxodium distichum L.) Seedlings. Photosynthrtica 1998, 35, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Osorio, S.; Ruan, Y.-L.; Fernie, A.R. An update on source-to-sink carbon partitioning in tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Lemoine, R.; La Camera, S.; Atanassova, R.; Dédaldéchamp, F.; Allario, T.; Pourtau, N.; Bonnemain, J.L.; Laloi, M.; Coutos-Thévenot, P.; Maurousset, L.; et al. Source-to-sink transport of sugar and regulation by environmental factors. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Bar-Yosef, B. Fertigation management and crop response to solution recycling in semi-closed greenhouses. In Soilless Culture: Theory and Practice; Raviv, M., Lieth, J.H., Eds.; Elsevier: Alpharetta, GA, USA, 2008; pp. 545–573. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lynch, J. Root Architecture and Plant Productivity. Plant Physiol. 1995, 109, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lynch, J.P. Steep, cheap and deep: An ideotype to optimize water and N acquisition by maize root systems. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Li, X.; Zeng, R.; Liao, H. Improving crop nutrient efficiency through root architecture modifications. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2015, 58, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Forde, B.; Lorenzo, H. The nutritional control of root development. Plant Soil 2001, 232, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shahzad, Z.; Amtmann, A. Food for thought: How nutrients regulate root system architecture. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2017, 39, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Awika, H.O.; Mishra, A.K.; Gill, H.; DiPiazza, J.; Avila, C.A.; Joshi, V. Selection of nitrogen responsive root architectural traits in spinach using machine learning and genetic correlations. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 9536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Marzec, M.; Melzer, M. Regulation of Root Development and Architecture by Strigolactones under Optimal and Nutrient Deficiency Conditions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Niu, Y.F.; Chai, R.S.; Jin, G.L.; Wang, H.; Tang, C.X.; Zhang, Y.S. Responses of root architecture development to low phosphorus availability: A review. Ann. Bot. 2012, 112, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rogers, E.D.; Benfey, P.N. Regulation of plant root system architecture: Implications for crop advancement. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Gruda, N.; Schnitzler, W.H. Transplants Influence of Wood Fiber Substrates and N Application Rates on the Growth of Tomato Transplants. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 1999, 13, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kellermeier, F.; Armengaud, P.; Seditas, T.J.; Danku, J.; Salt, D.E.; Amtmann, A. Analysis of the Root System Architecture of Arabidopsis Provides a Quantitative Readout of Crosstalk between Nutritional Signals. Plant Cell 2014, 26, 1480–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Cardoso, F.L.; Andriolo, J.L.; Picio, M.D.; Piccin, M.; Souza, J.M. Nitrogen on growth and yield of lettuce plants grown under root confinement. Hortic. Bras. 2015, 33, 422–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Öztekin, G.B.; Uludağ, T.; Tüzel, Y. Growing spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) in a floating system with different concentrations of nutrient solution. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 3333–3350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Balanza, V.; Martínez, J.; Conesa, E.; Egea-Gilabert, C.; Niñirola, D.; Marin, J.L.; González, A.; Fernández, J.A. Effect of pgpr application and nitrogen doses on baby leaf lettuce grown in a floating system. Acta Hortic. 2012, 952, 679–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Roberts, B.R.; Wolverton, C.; Janowicz, L. The impact of substrate and irrigation interval on the post-transplant root growth of container-grown zinnia and tomato1. J. Environ. Hortic. 2017, 35, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ismail, S.M.; Ozawa, K. Effect of Irrigation Interval on Growth Characteristics, Plant Water Stress Tolerance and Water Use Efficiency for Chile Pepper. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Water Technology Conference (IWTC 130), Hurghada, Egypt, 12–15 March 2009; pp. 545–556. [Google Scholar]
  55. Silber, A.; Xu, G.; Wallach, R. High irrigation frequency: The effect on plant growth and on uptake of water and nutrients. Acta Hortic. 2003, 627, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Grewal, H.S.; Maheshwari, B.; Parks, S. Water and nutrient use efficiency of a low-cost hydroponic greenhouse for a cucumber crop: An Australian case study. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 841–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yang, T.; Kim, H.-J. Comparisons of nitrogen and phosphorus mass balance for tomato-, basil-, and lettuce-based aquaponic and hydroponic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. LE Bot, J.; Jeannequin, B.; Fabre, R. Growth and Nitrogen Status of Soilless Tomato Plants Following Nitrate Withdrawal from the Nutrient Solution. Ann. Bot. 2001, 88, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Gruda, N.; Savvas, D.; Colla, G.; Rouphael, Y. Impacts of genetic material and current technologies on product quality of selected greenhouse vegetables—A review. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2018, 83, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Conversa, G.; Bonasia, A.; Lazzizera, C.; La Rotonda, P.; Elia, A. Reduction of Nitrate Content in Baby-Leaf Lettuce and Cichorium endivia Through the Soilless Cultivation System, Electrical Conductivity and Management of Nutrient Solution. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 645671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lieth, J.H.; Oki, L.R. Irrigation in soilless production. In Soilless Culture: Theory and Practice Theory and Practice; Elsevier BV: Edinburgh, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nikolaou, G.; Neocleous, D.; Katsoulas, N.; Kittas, C. Irrigation of Greenhouse Crops. Horticulturae 2019, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Silber, A. Fertigation frequency and nutrient uptake by plants: Benefits and constraints. Int. Fertil. Soc. Proc. 2005, 571, 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  64. Taweesak, V.; Abdullah, T.L.; Hassan, S.A.; Kamarulzaman, N.H.; Yusoff, W.A.W. Growth and Flowering Responses of Cut Chrysanthemum Grown under Restricted Root Volume to Irrigation Frequency. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Rodriguez-Ortega, W.; Martinez, V.; Rivero, R.M.; Cámara-Zapata, J.-M.; Mestre, T.; Garcia-Sanchez, F. Use of a smart irrigation system to study the effects of irrigation management on the agronomic and physiological responses of tomato plants grown under different temperatures regimes. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 183, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gruda, N.; Schnitzler, W.H. The effect of water supply on bio-morphological and plant-physiological parameters of tomato transplants cultivated in wood fiber substrate. J. Appl. Bot. 2000, 74, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Leskovar, D.I. Root and Shoot Modification by Irrigation. HortTechnology 1998, 8, 510–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Gruda, N.; Schnitzler, W. Suitability of wood fiber substrates for production of vegetable transplants II: The effect of wood fiber substrates and their volume weights on the growth of tomato transplants. Sci. Hortic. 2004, 100, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gruda, N.; Schnitzler, W. Suitability of wood fiber substrate for production of vegetable transplants: I. Physical properties of wood fiber substrates. Sci. Hortic. 2004, 100, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Machado, R.; Alves-Pereira, I.; Ferreira, R.; Gruda, N. Coir, an Alternative to Peat—Effects on Plant Growth, Phytochemical Accumulation, and Antioxidant Power of Spinach. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wallach, R. Physical Characteristics of Soilless Media. In Soilless Culture: Theory and Practice; Raviv, M., Lieth, J.H., Eds.; Elsevier: Alpharetta, GA, USA, 2008; pp. 41–116. [Google Scholar]
  72. Xu, G.; Levkovitch, I.; Soriano, S.; Wallach, R.; Silber, A. Integrated effect of irrigation frequency and phosphorus level on lettuce: P uptake, root growth and yield. Plant Soil 2004, 263, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Scagel, C.F.; Bi, G.; Fuchigami, L.H.; Regan, R.P. Effects of Irrigation Frequency and Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate on Water Stress, Nitrogen Uptake, and Plant Growth of Container-grown Rhododendron. HortScience 2011, 46, 1598–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Nikolaou, G.; Neocleous, D.; Katsoulas, N.; Kittas, C. Effect of irrigation frequency on growth and production of a cucumber crop under soilless culture. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2017, 29, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Heller, H.; Bar-Tal, A.; Assouline, S.; Narkis, K.; Suryano, S.; De La Forge, A.; Barak, M.; Alon, H.; Bruner, M.; Cohen, S.; et al. The effects of container geometry on water and heat regimes in soilless culture: Lettuce as a case study. Irrig. Sci. 2014, 33, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fields, J.S.; Owen, J.; Scoggins, H.L. The Influence of Substrate Hydraulic Conductivity on Plant Water Status of an Ornamental Container Crop Grown in Suboptimal Substrate Water Potentials. HortScience 2017, 52, 1419–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Gruda, N.; Rau, B.J.; Wright, R.D. Laboratory bioassay and greenhouse evaluation of a pine tree substrate used as a container substrate. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2009, 74, 73–78. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ortega, M.; Moreno, M.T.; Ordovas, J.; Aguado, M. Behaviour of different horticultural species in phytotoxicity bioassays of bark substrates. Sci. Hortic. 1996, 66, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Koevoets, I.T.; Venema, J.H.; Elzenga, J.T.M.; Testerink, C. Roots Withstanding their Environment: Exploiting Root System Architecture Responses to Abiotic Stress to Improve Crop Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Gruda, N. Impact of Environmental Factors on Product Quality of Greenhouse Vegetables for Fresh Consumption. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 227–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhu, J.; Zhang, K.-X.; Wang, W.-S.; Gong, W.; Liu, W.-C.; Chen, H.-G.; Xu, H.-H.; Lu, Y.-T. Low Temperature Inhibits Root Growth by Reducing Auxin Accumulation via ARR1/12. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014, 56, 727–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Chen, X.; Song, F.; Liu, F.; Tian, C.; Liu, S.; Xu, H.; Zhu, X. Effect of Different Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Growth and Physiology of Maize at Ambient and Low Temperature Regimes. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Nagel, K.A.; Kastenholz, B.; Jahnke, S.; van Dusschoten, D.; Aach, T.; Mühlich, M.; Truhn, D.; Scharr, H.; Terjung, S.; Walter, A.; et al. Temperature responses of roots: Impact on growth, root system architecture and implications for phenotyping. Funct. Plant Biol. 2009, 36, 947–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Du, Y.; Scheres, B. Lateral root formation and the multiple roles of auxin. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 69, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Waidmann, S.; Sarkel, E.; Kleine-Vehn, J. Same same, but different: Growth responses of primary and lateral roots. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 2397–2411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Torres-Martínez, H.H.; Rodriguez-Alonso, G.; Shishkova, S.; Dubrovsky, J.G. Lateral Root Primordium Morphogenesis in Angiosperms. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Yan, Q.-Y.; Duan, Z.-Q.; Mao, J.-D.; Li, X.; Dong, F. Low Root Zone Temperature Limits Nutrient Effects on Cucumber Seedling Growth and Induces Adversity Physiological Response. J. Integr. Agric. 2013, 12, 1450–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Luo, H.; Xu, H.; Chu, C.; He, F.; Fang, S. High Temperature can Change Root System Architecture and Intensify Root Interactions of Plant Seedlings. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Balliu, A.; Sallaku, G. The environment temperature affects post-germination growth and root system architecture of pea (Pisum sativum L.) plants. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 278, 109858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sakamoto, M.; Suzuki, T. Effect of Root-Zone Temperature on Growth and Quality of Hydroponically Grown Red Leaf Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. cv. Red Wave). Am. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 2350–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. He, F.; Thiele, B.; Watt, M.; Kraska, T.; Ulbrich, A.; Kuhn, A.J. Effects of Root Cooling on Plant Growth and Fruit Quality of Cocktail Tomato during Two Consecutive Seasons. J. Food Qual. 2019, 2019, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kawasaki, Y.; Matsuo, S.; Kanayama, Y.; Kanahama, K. Effect of Root-zone Heating on Root Growth and Activity, Nutrient Uptake, and Fruit Yield of Tomato at Low Air Temperatures. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2014, 83, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Karnoutsos, P.; Karagiovanidis, M.; Bantis, F.; Chatzistathis, T.; Koukounaras, A.; Ntinas, G.K. Controlled root-zone temperature effect on baby leaf vegetables yield and quality in a floating system under mild and extreme weather conditions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 101, 3933–3941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Qin, L.; He, J.; Lee, S.K.; Dodd, I.C. An assessment of the role of ethylene in mediating lettuce (Lactuca sativa) root growth at high temperatures. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 3017–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Pardales, J.R.J.; Banoc, D.M.; Yamauchi, A.; Iijima, M.; Kono, Y. Root System Development of Cassava and Sweetpotato during Early Growth Stage as Affected by High Root Zone Temperature. Plant Prod. Sci. 1999, 2, 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. MacDuff, J.H.; Wild, A.; Hopper, M.J.; Dhanoa, M.S. Effects of temperature on parameters of root growth relevant to nutrient uptake: Measurements on oilseed rape and barley grown in flowing nutrient solution. Plant Soil 1986, 94, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wang, X.; Zhang, W.; Miao, Y.; Gao, L. Root-Zone Warming Differently Benefits Mature and Newly Unfolded Leaves of Cucumis sativus L. Seedlings under Sub-Optimal Temperature Stress. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Aroca, R.; Porcel, R.; Lozano, J.M.R. Regulation of root water uptake under abiotic stress conditions. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 63, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kafkafi, U. Functions of the Root System. In Soilless Culture: Theory and Practice; Raviv, M., Lieth, J.H., Eds.; Elsevier: Alpharetta, GA, USA, 2008; pp. 13–40. [Google Scholar]
  100. Poiré, R.; Schneider, H.; Thorpe, M.R.; Kuhn, A.J.; Schurr, U.; Walter, A. Root cooling strongly affects diel leaf growth dynamics, water and carbohydrate relations inRicinus communis. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Dodd, I.; He, J.; Turnbull, C.; Lee, S.; Critchley, C. The influence of supra-optimal root-zone temperatures on growth and stomatal conductance in Capsicum annuum L. J. Exp. Bot. 2000, 51, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Tachibana, S. Effect of Root Temperature on the Rate of Water and Nutrient Absorption in Cucumber Cultivars and Figleaf Gourd. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1987, 55, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Kawasaki, Y.; Matsuo, S.; Suzuki, K.; Kanayama, Y.; Kanahama, K. Root-zone Cooling at High Air Temperatures Enhances Physiological Activities and Internal Structures of Roots in Young Tomato Plants. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2013, 82, 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Li, X.; Gruda, N.; Dong, J.; Duan, Z. Greenhouse soil warmed by capillary network and its effect on the growth of cucumber. Acta Hortic. 2020, 1296, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Masaru, S.; Uenishi, M.; Miyamoto, K.; Suzuki, T. Effect of Root-Zone Temperature on the Growth and Fruit Quality of Hydroponically Grown Strawberry Plants. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 8, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Falah, M.A.F.; Wajima, T.; Yasutake, D.; Sago, Y.; Kitano, M. Responses of root uptake to high temperature of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in soil-less culture. J. Agric. Technol. 2010, 6, 543–558. [Google Scholar]
  107. Giri, A.; Heckathorn, S.; Mishra, S.; Krause, C. Heat Stress Decreases Levels of Nutrient-Uptake and -Assimilation Proteins in Tomato Roots. Plants 2017, 6, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Sakamoto, M.; Suzuki, T. Elevated Root-Zone Temperature Modulates Growth and Quality of Hydroponically Grown Carrots. Agric. Sci. 2015, 06, 749–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Pedersen, O.; Sauter, M.; Colmer, T.D.; Nakazono, M. Regulation of root adaptive anatomical and morphological traits during low soil oxygen. New Phytol. 2021, 229, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Li, Y.; Niu, W.; Cao, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, M.; Duan, X.; Zhang, Z. Effect of soil aeration on root morphology and photosynthetic characteristics of potted tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum) at different NaCl salinity levels. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Morard, P.; Silvestre, J. Plant injury due to oxygen deficiency in the root environment of soilless culture: A review. Plant Soil 1996, 184, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Nicola, S.; Egea-Gilabert, C.; Niñirola, D.; Conesa, E.; Pignata, G.; Fontana, E.; Fernández, J.A. Nitrogen and aeration levels of the nutrient solution in soilless cultivation systems as important growing conditions affecting inherent quality of baby leaf vegetables: A review. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1099, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Shaw, R.E.; Meyer, W.S.; McNeill, A.; Tyerman, S.D. Waterlogging in Australian agricultural landscapes: A review of plant responses and crop models Waterlogging in Australian agricultural landscapes: A review of plant responses and crop models. Crop. Pasture Sci. 2013, 64, 549–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Lara, L.J.; Egea-Gilabert, C.; Niñirola, D.; Conesa, E.; Fernández, J.A. Effect of aeration of the nutrient solution on the growth and quality of purslane (Portulaca oleracea). J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 86, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Jackson, M.B. Long-distance signalling from roots to shoots assessed: The flooding story. J. Exp.Bot. 2002, 53, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Acuña, R.; Gil, I.; Bonachela, S.; Magán, J. Oxyfertigation of a greenhouse melon crop grown in rockwool slabs in a mediterranean area. Acta Hortic. 2008, 779, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Bonachela, S.; Acuña, R.A.; Magan, J.J.; Marfa, O. Oxygen enrichment of nutrient solution of substrate-grown vegetable crops under Mediterranean greenhouse conditions: Oxygen content dynamics and crop response. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 8, 1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Öztekin, G.B.; Tüzel, Y. Effects of oxyfertigation and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on greenhouse lettuce grown in perlite. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum. Cultus 2020, 19, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Schroeder, F.-G.; Lieth, J. Gas composition and oxygen supply in the root environment of substrates in closed hydroponic systems. Acta Hortic. 2004, 644, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Suhl, J.; Oppedijk, B.; Baganz, D.; Kloas, W.; Schmidt, U.; van Duijn, B. Oxygen consumption in recirculating nutrient film technique in aquaponics. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 255, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Drew, M.C. Oxygen deficiency and root metabolism: Injury and acclimation under hypoxia and anoxia. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.Plant Mol. Biol. 1997, 48, 223–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Blok, C.; Jackson, B.E.; Guo, X.; de Visser, P.H.B.; Marcelis, L.F.M. Maximum Plant Uptakes for Water, Nutrients, and Oxygen Are Not Always Met by Irrigation Rate and Distribution in Water-based Cultivation Systems. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Morard, P.; Lacoste, L.; Silvestre, J. Effect of oxygen deficiency on uptake of water and mineral nutrients by tomato plants in soilless culture. J. Plant Nutr. 2000, 23, 1063–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Alvarado-Camarillo, D.; Valdez-Aguilar, L.A.; González-Fuentes, J.A.; Rascón-Alvarado, E.; Peña-Ramos, F.M. Response of hydroponic lettuce to aeration, nitrate and potassium in the nutrient solution. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B—Plant Soil Sci. 2020, 70, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Marfà, O.; Cáceres, R.; Guri, S. Oxyfertigation: A new technique for soilless culture under mediterranean conditions. Acta Hortic. 2005, 697, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ehret, D.L.; Edwards, D.; Helmer, T.; Lin, W.; Jones, G.; Dorais, M.; Papadopoulos, A.P. Effects of oxygen-enriched nutrient solution on greenhouse cucumber and pepper production. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 125, 602–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lee, J.W.; Lee, B.S.; Kang, J.G.; Bae, J.H.; Ku, Y.G.; Gorinstein, S.; Lee, J.H. Effect of root zone aeration on the growth and bioactivity of cucumber plants cultured in perlite substrate. Biologia 2014, 69, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zheng, Y.; Wang, L.; Dixon, M. An upper limit for elevated root zone dissolved oxygen concentration for tomato. Sci. Hortic. 2007, 113, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhang, J.; Jiao, X.; Du, Q.; Song, X.; Ding, J.; Li, J. Effects of Vapor Pressure Deficit and Potassium Supply on Root Morphology, Potassium Uptake, and Biomass Allocation of Tomato Seedlings. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 40, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Arve, L.E.; Torre, S. Ethylene is involved in high air humidity promoted stomatal opening of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) leaves. Funct. Plant Biol. 2015, 42, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Lihavainen, J.; Ahonen, V.; Keski-Saari, S.; Kontunen-Soppela, S.; Oksanen, E.; Keinänen, M. Low vapour pressure deficit affects nitrogen nutrition and foliar metabolites in silver birch. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 4353–4365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Zheng, Y.; Shimizu, H. Plant growth and water use efficiency of four Chinese conifer tree species under different air humidity. Phyton-Horn 2005, 45, 575–582. [Google Scholar]
  133. Adams, P. Crop nutrition in hydroponics. Acta Hortic. 1993, 323, 289–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Christiaens, A.; Gobin, B.; Van Labeke, M. Light quality and adventitious rooting: A mini-review. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1134, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Gil, C.S.; Jung, H.Y.; Lee, C.; Eom, S.H. Blue light and NAA treatment significantly improve rooting on single leaf-bud cutting of Chrysanthemum via upregulated rooting-related genes. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 274, 109650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Rasool, A.; Graham, T.; Dayboll, C.; Stoochnoff, J.; Zheng, Y.; Dixon, M. Improving adventitious rooting in Kalanchoe blossfeldiana cuttings using sole source targeted LED lighting spectra. Acta Hortic. 2020, 1296, 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Navidad, H.; Fløistad, I.S.; Olsen, J.E.; Torre, S. Subalpine Fir (Abies laciocarpa) and Norway Spruce (Piceaabies) Seedlings Show Different Growth Responses to Blue Light. Agronomy 2020, 10, 712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Olschowski, S.; Geiger, E.-M.; Herrmann, J.; Sander, G.; Grüneberg, H. Effects of red, blue, and white LED irradiation on root and shoot development of Calibrachoa cuttings in comparison to high pressure sodium lamps. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1134, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Barickman, T.; Kopsell, D.; Sams, C.; Morrow, R. Sole-Source LED Lighting and Fertility Impact Shoot and Root Tissue Mineral Elements in Chinese Kale (Brassica oleracea var. alboglabra). Horticulturae 2020, 6, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Zhao, J.; Chen, X.; Wei, H.-X.; Lv, J.; Chen, C.; Liu, X.-Y.; Wen, Q.; Jia, L.-M. Nutrient uptake and utilization in Prince Rupprecht’s larch (Larix principis-rupprechtii Mayr.) seedlings exposed to a combination of light-emitting diode spectra and exponential fertilization. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2019, 65, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zheng, Y. Advances in understanding plant root behaviour and rootzone management in soilless culture system. In Advances in Horticultural Soilless Culture; Gruda, N.S., Ed.; Burleigh Dodds Science: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 23–44. [Google Scholar]
  142. Li, X.; Dong, J.; Gruda, N.; Chu, W.; Duan, Z. Does the short-term fluctuation of mineral element concentrations in the closed hydroponic experimental facilities affect the mineral concentrations in cucumber plants exposed to elevated CO2? Plant Soil 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Dong, J.; Gruda, N.; Li, X.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, P.; Duan, Z. Sustainable vegetable production under changing climate: The impact of elevated CO2 on yield of vegetables and the interactions with environments-A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Li, X.; Dong, J.; Chu, W.; Chen, Y.; Duan, Z. The relationship between root exudation properties and root morphological traits of cucumber grown under different nitrogen supplies and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Plant Soil 2018, 425, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Dyśko, J.; Kaniszewski, S.; Kowalczyk, W. The effect of nutrient solution on phosphoros availability in soilless culture of tomato. J. Elementol. 2008, 13, 189–198. [Google Scholar]
  146. Dyśko, J.; Kowalczyk, W.; Kaniszewski, S. The Influence of pH of Nutrient Solution on Yield and Nutritional Status of Tomato Plants Grown in Soilless Culture System. Veg. Crop. Res. Bull. 2009, 70, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Savvas, D.; Karagianni, V.; Kotsiras, A.; Demopoulos, V.; Karkamisi, I.; Pakou, P. Interactions between ammonium and pH of the nutrient solution supplied to gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii) grown in pumice. Plant Soil 2003, 254, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Huang, J.-S.; Nelson, P.V.; Lee, J.-W. Seedling effect on root substrate pH. J. Plant Nutr. 2001, 24, 1133–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Zheng, Y.; Dixon, M.; Saxena, P. Greenhouse production of Echinacea purpurea (L.) and E. angustifolia using different growing media, NO3/NH4+ ratios and watering regimes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2006, 86, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Zhang, W.; Xu, F.; Zwiazek, J.J. Responses of jack pine (Pinus banksiana) seedlings to root zone pH and calcium. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2015, 111, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Strehmel, N.; Böttcher, C.; Schmidt, S.; Scheel, D. Profiling of secondary metabolites in root exudates of Arabidopsis thaliana. Phytochemistry 2014, 108, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Hussain, M.I.; Reigosa, M.J. Allelochemical stress inhibits growth, leaf water relations, PSII photochemistry, non-photochemical fluorescence quenching, and heat energy dissipation in three C3 perennial species. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 4533–4545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Talukder, R.; Asaduzzaman, M.; Ueno, M.; Tanaka, H.; Asao, T. Alleviation of allelochemical stress-induced growth inhibition and oxidative damage in lettuce under closed hydroponics through electro-degradation. Hortic. Sci. 2020, 47, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Badri, D.V.; Vivanco, J.M. Regulation and function of root exudates. Plant Cell Environ. 2009, 32, 666–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Mohanram, S.; Kumar, P. Rhizosphere microbiome: Revisiting the synergy of plant-microbe interactions. Ann. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Nazir, N.; Kamili, A.N.; Zargar, M.Y.; Khan, I.; Shah, D.; Parray, J.A.; Tyub, S. Effect of Root Exudates on Rhizosphere Soil Microbial Communities. J. Res. Dev. 2016, 16, 88–95. [Google Scholar]
  157. Canarini, A.; Kaiser, C.; Merchant, A.; Richter, A.; Wanek, W. Root Exudation of Primary Metabolites: Mechanisms and Their Roles in Plant Responses to Environmental Stimuli. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  158. Olanrewaju, O.S.; Ayangbenro, A.S.; Glick, B.R.; Babalola, O.O.; Ayangbenro, A. Plant health: Feedback effect of root exudates-rhizobiome interactions. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 1155–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Bais, H.P.; Weir, T.L.; Perry, L.; Gilroy, S.; Vivanco, J.M. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2006, 57, 233–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Baum, C.; El-Tohamy, W.; Gruda, N. Increasing the productivity and product quality of vegetable crops using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 187, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Berkelmann, B.; Wohanka, W.; Wolf, G. Characterization of the bacterial flor in circulating nutrient solutions of a hydroponic system with rockwool. Acta Hortic. 1994, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Stanghellini, M.E. Hydroponics: A Solution for Zoosporic Pathogens. Plant Dis. 1994, 78, 1129–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Chave, M.; Dabert, P.; Brun, R.; Godon, J.-J.; Poncet, C. Dynamics of rhizoplane bacterial communities subjected to physicochemical treatments in hydroponic crops. Crop. Prot. 2008, 27, 418–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Koohakan, P.; Ikeda, H.; Jeanaksorn, T.; Tojo, M.; Kusakari, S.-I.; Okada, K.; Sato, S. Evaluation of the indigenous microorganisms in soilless culture: Occurrence and quantitative characteristics in the different growing systems. Sci. Hortic. 2004, 101, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Khalil, S.; Alsanius, B.W. Dynamics of the indigenous microflora inhabiting the root zone and the nutrient solution of tomato in a commercial closed greenhouse system. Gartenbauwissenschaft 2001, 66, 188–198. [Google Scholar]
  166. Waechter-Kristensen, B.; Sundin, P.; Gertsson, U.; Hultberg, M.; Khalil, S.; Jensén, P.; Berkelmann-Loehnertz, B.; Wohanka, W. Management of microbial factors in the rhizosphere and nutrient solution of hydroponically grown tomato. Acta Hortic. 1997, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Babaj, I.; Sallaku, G.; Balliu, A. The effects of endogenous mycorrhiza (Glomus spp.) on plant growth and yield of grafted cucumber (Cucumis sativum L.) under common commercial greenhouse conditions. Albanian J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 13, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  168. Vuksani, A.; Sallaku, G.; Balliu, A. The Effects of Endogenous Mycorrhiza (Glomus spp.) on Stand Establishment Rate and Yield of Open Field Tomato Crop. Albanian J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 14, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  169. Unal, N.; Tuzel, Y.; Tuzel, I.; Oztekin, G. Effects of mycorrhiza and irrigation programs on strawberry production in substrate culture. Acta Hortic. 2020, 1273, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Balliu, A.; Sallaku, G.; Rewald, B. AMF Inoculation Enhances Growth and Improves the Nutrient Uptake Rates of Transplanted, Salt-Stressed Tomato Seedlings. Sustainability 2015, 7, 15967–15981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Meça, E.; Sallaku, G.; Balliu, A. Artificial Inoculation of AM Fungi Improves Nutrient Uptake Efficiency in Salt Stressed Pea (Pissum Sativum L.) Plants. J. Agric. Stud. 2016, 4, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Mishra, V.; Ellouze, W.; Howard, R.J. Utility of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi for Improved Production and Disease Mitigation in Organic and Hydroponic Greenhouse Crops. J. Hortic. 2018, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Shao, Y.-D.; Hu, X.-C.; Wu, Q.-S.; Yang, T.-Y.; Srivastava, A.; Zhang, D.-J.; Gao, X.-B.; Kuča, K. Mycorrhizas promote P acquisition of tea plants through changes in root morphology and P transporter gene expression. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2021, 137, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Nurbaity, A.; Istifadah, N.; A Haryantini, B.; Ilhami, M.F.; I Habibullah, M.; Arifin, M. Optimization of hydroponic technology for production of mycorrhiza biofertilizer. IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 347, 012017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Utkhede, R. Increased Growth and Yield of Hydroponically Grown Greenhouse Tomato Plants Inoculated with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici. BioControl 2006, 51, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Postma, J.; Klein, M.J.E.I.M.W.-D.; Van Elsas, J.D. Effect of the Indigenous Microflora on the Development of Root and Crown Rot Caused by Pythium aphanidermatum in Cucumber Grown on Rockwool. Phytopathology 2000, 90, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Minuto, A.; Clematis, F.; Gullino, M.L.; Garibaldi, A. Induced suppressiveness to Fusarium oxysporumf.sp. radicis lycopersici in rockwool substrate used in closed soilless systems. Phytoparasitica 2007, 35, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Garibaldi, A.; Minuto, A.; Grasso, V.; Gullino, M. Application of selected antagonistic strains against Phytophthora cryptogea on gerbera in closed soilless systems with disinfection by slow sand filtration. Crop. Prot. 2003, 22, 1053–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Song, Y.; Chen, D.; Lu, K.; Sun, Z.; Zeng, R. Enhanced tomato disease resistance primed by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Gamalero, E.; Glick, B.R. Mechanisms used by plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Nutrient Management; Maheshwari, D.K., Ed.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Moncada, A.; Vetrano, F.; Miceli, A. Alleviation of Salt Stress by Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria in Hydroponic Leaf Lettuce. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Lee, S.; Lee, J. Beneficial bacteria and fungi in hydroponic systems: Types and characteristics of hydroponic food production methods. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 195, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Kalozoumis, P.; Savvas, D.; Aliferis, K.; Ntatsi, G.; Marakis, G.; Simou, E.; Tampakaki, A.; Karapanos, I. Impact of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Inoculation and Grafting on Tolerance of Tomato to Combined Water and Nutrient Stress Assessed via Metabolomics Analysis. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Aini, N.; Yamika, W.S.D.; Pahlevi, R.W. The effect of nutrient concentration and inoculation of PGPR and AMF on the yield and fruit quality of hydroponic cherry tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill. var. cerasiforme). J. Appl. Hortic. 2019, 21, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Vacheron, J.; Desbrosses, G.; Bouffaud, M.-L.; Touraine, B.; Moënne-Loccoz, Y.; Muller, D.; Legendre, L.; Wisniewski-Dyé, F.; Prigent-Combaret, C. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and root system functioning. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Grover, M.; Bodhankar, S.; Sharma, A.; Sharma, P.; Singh, J.; Nain, L. PGPR Mediated Alterations in Root Traits: Way toward Sustainable Crop Production. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 4, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Veselaj, E.; Sallaku, G.; Balliu, A. Combined application of arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi and plant growth promoting bacteria improves growth and nutrient uptake efficiency of pea (Pisum sativum L.) plants. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum. Cultus 2018, 17, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Veselaj, E.; Sallaku, G.; Balliu, A. Tripartite Relationships in Legume Crops Are Plant-Microorganism-Specific and Strongly Influenced by Salinity. Agriculture 2018, 8, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Ikiz, O.; Abak, K.; Dasgan, H.; Ortas, I. Effects of mycorrhizal inoculation in soilless culture on pepper plant growth. Acta Hortic. 2009, 807, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Shao, Y.; Zhang, D.; Hu, X.; Wu, Q.; Jiang, K.; Xia, T.; Gao, X.; KUČA, K. Mycorrhiza-induced changes in root growth and nutrient absorption of tea plants. Plant Soil Environ. 2018, 64, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Zou, Y.-N.; Zhang, D.-J.; Liu, C.-Y.; Wu, Q.-S. Relationships between mycorrhizas and root hairs. Pak. J. Bot. 2019, 51, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Abeer, H.; Ef, A.; Alqarawi, A.A.; Mona, A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi mitigates NaCl inducedects on Solanum lycopersicum L. Pak. J. Bot. 2015, 47, 327–340. [Google Scholar]
  193. Jahromi, F.; Aroca, R.; Porcel, R.; Ruiz-Lozano, J.M. Influence of Salinity on the In Vitro Development of Glomus intraradices and on the In Vivo Physiological and Molecular Responses of Mycorrhizal Lettuce Plants. Microb. Ecol. 2007, 55, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Egamberdieva, D.; Jabborova, D.; Wirth, S. Alleviation of Salt Stress in Legumes by Co-inoculation with Pseudomonas and Rhizobium. In Plant Microbe Symbiosis: Fundamentals and Advances; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: New Delhi, India, 2013; pp. 291–303. [Google Scholar]
  195. Sallaku, G.; Sandén, H.; Babaj, I.; Kaciu, S.; Balliu, A.; Rewald, B. Specific nutrient absorption rates of transplanted cucumber seedlings are highly related to RGR and influenced by grafting method, AMF inoculation and salinity. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 243, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Senberga, A.; Dubova, L.; Alsina, I. Germination and growth of primary roots of inoculated bean (Vicia faba) seeds under different temperatures. Agron. Res. 2018, 16, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Pascale, A.; Proietti, S.; Pantelides, I.S.; Stringlis, I.A. Modulation of the Root Microbiome by Plant Molecules: The Basis for Targeted Disease Suppression and Plant Growth Promotion. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 10, 1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Plant responses to root restriction.
Table 1. Plant responses to root restriction.
Plant ResponseCropProduction SystemAdditional InformationReference
Reduced dry matter of rootsChili pepperPolyvinyl-chloride (PVC) columns, filled with a mixture of coconut coir dust and empty fruit bunch compost (70:30, v:v)9570 mL (control) vs. 2392 mL (root-restricted) columns[18]
PepperPlastic pots (three seeds per pot) containing Fafard 2B mix (Sun Gro Horticulture, Agawam, MA)500 mL (control) vs. 60 mL (restricted) containers[19]
CucumberFloating system (F.S.)Control vs. 40 mL (restricted) vessels[20]
AR
formation
CucumberFloating system (F.S.)Control vs. 40 mL (restricted) vessels[20]
TomatoFlow-through hydroponic culture system (FTS)1500 mL (control) vs. 25 mL (restricted) containers[21]
Dense mat of rootsCucumberFloating system (F.S.)Control vs. 40 mL (restricted) vessels[20]
TomatoFlow-through hydroponic culture system (FTS)1500 mL (control) vs. 25 mL (restricted) containers[21]
Yield reductionSweet potatoA mixed system of solid media and nutrient solution4.5 L, 3.0 L, and 1.6 L pots[22]
TomatoDifferent alternatives of solid growing media (perlite, pumice, volcanic ash, perlite + peat, pumice + peat, volcanic ash + peat)8 L and 4 L pots[23]
Processing tomatoSolid growing media (Metro-Mix 350, Sun Gro Horticulture)26 L, 16, 6, and 1 L pots[24]
Non-significant yield reductionPepperGrowth media (Fafard 2B mix; Sun Gro Horticulture, and Turface clay) mixed in a 3:1 ratio1500 mL, 500 mL, and 250 mL plastic pots[19]
TomatoCoconut fiber substrate10, 7.5 and 5 L pots[25]
Increased harvest indexPepperGrowth media (Fafard 2B mix; Sun Gro Horticulture, and Turface clay) mixed in a 3:1 ratio1500 mL, 500 mL, and 250 mL plastic pots[19]
Chili pepperPolyvinyl-chloride (PVC) columns, filled with a mixture of coconut coir dust and empty fruit bunch compost (70:30, v:v)9570 mL (control) vs. 2392 mL (root-restricted) columns[18]
Table 3. Plant responses to irrigation frequency.
Table 3. Plant responses to irrigation frequency.
Plant ResponseCropSCSAdditional InformationReference
Increased irrigation frequency increases plant yieldChrysanthemumSeedling tray contained coconut peatIrrigation frequencies of 4, 6, and 8 times/day[64]
Tomato40-L (15 cm × 18 cm × 120 cm) bags containing expanded perliteIrrigation applied when the plants had consumed 0.4-, 0.8-, or 1.2-L of water[65]
Vertical root-density distribution mimics container moisture content. Denser at the lower part of the container.TomatoWood fiber substrate [66]
Chili pepper31 × 15 × 60 cm container filled with sandy-loamy soil1-, 3-, and 5-day irrigation intervals[54]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Balliu, A.; Zheng, Y.; Sallaku, G.; Fernández, J.A.; Gruda, N.S.; Tuzel, Y. Environmental and Cultivation Factors Affect the Morphology, Architecture and Performance of Root Systems in Soilless Grown Plants. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7080243

AMA Style

Balliu A, Zheng Y, Sallaku G, Fernández JA, Gruda NS, Tuzel Y. Environmental and Cultivation Factors Affect the Morphology, Architecture and Performance of Root Systems in Soilless Grown Plants. Horticulturae. 2021; 7(8):243. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7080243

Chicago/Turabian Style

Balliu, Astrit, Youbin Zheng, Glenda Sallaku, Juan A. Fernández, Nazim S. Gruda, and Yuksel Tuzel. 2021. "Environmental and Cultivation Factors Affect the Morphology, Architecture and Performance of Root Systems in Soilless Grown Plants" Horticulturae 7, no. 8: 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7080243

APA Style

Balliu, A., Zheng, Y., Sallaku, G., Fernández, J. A., Gruda, N. S., & Tuzel, Y. (2021). Environmental and Cultivation Factors Affect the Morphology, Architecture and Performance of Root Systems in Soilless Grown Plants. Horticulturae, 7(8), 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7080243

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