F. In addition, the first-order root biomass significantly varied among the Title Loaded From File non-vegetated halves of the FV andStatistical AnalysesThe root response was evaluated for each pot using the ratio between the root variable values in the vegetated and nonvegetated halves (e.g., RTRS ratio = RTRS vegetated half/RTRS nonvegetated half). The values of the root variables were considered to be higher in the non-vegetated half when the ratio was significantly lower than 1, and lower when the ratio is higher than 1 (i.e., the ratio is equal to 1 for symmetrical root growth). This difference was analyzed using a paired-sample t-test. Furthermore, the effects of different treatments on the root architecture and biomass in the vegetated and non-vegetated regions as well as the relative growth rate (RGR) were examined using factorial ANOVA for a randomized block design, with treatments as the fixed factors.Assessing Root Foraging Feature 16574785 by ArchitectureFigure 6. The length percentage of each root order to the total fine root length (root order length percentage, ROLP), root architecture indicator, in the vegetated half and in the non-vegetated half. Letters indicate the same root order difference between treatments (LSD tests, following ANOVA). Error bars represent 1 SE of the mean. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065650.gNF treatments. By contrast, the biomass was not significantly different between the second- and third-order roots from the nonvegetated halves of all four treatments. No significant differences were observed among treatments in the vegetated half (Fig. 3).Root Architecture Indicator: RTRSRTRS of both 0?.2 mm and 0.2?.5 mm fine roots in the non-vegetated half was shown to be significantly higher than that in the vegetated half for FNV Title Loaded From File treatment (i.e. ratio less than 1), and no difference was found in the other treatments (Fig. 2). In the fertilization of the non-vegetated half for FNV treatment, thetarget plants increased spatial nutrient uptake by altering RTRS. In the vegetated half, RTRS of 0?.2 mm fine roots for the FV treatment was significantly higher compared with the other three treatments, reaching a maximum of 247.7 cm22. RTRS of 0.2?0.5 mm fine roots for the FV treatment was also higher than those obtained in the NF and FNV treatments, with values of 20.3, 15.6, and 16.1 cm22, respectively (Fig. 4). Since the RTRS of 0?0.2 mm fine roots was much higher than that of 0.2?.5 mm fine roots in all of the four treatments, RTRS of the latter had little effects on root foraging ability compared with the former. The RTRS of 0?.2 mm fine roots in the vegetated half significantly increased from 182.8 cm22 in the NF treatment to 247.7 cm22 in the FV treatment, and significantly decreased to 182.6 cm22 in the F treatment. In addition, there was no significant difference in the RTRS values of both fine root subclasses among all the four treatments in the vegetated half (Fig. 4).Root Architecture Indicator: SRLPThe 0?.5 mm root systems mainly consisted of the first three orders; the SRLP of which may reflect length proportion of the root systems being able to absorb nutrient and water in the soil to whole fine root. 0?.5 mm fine root in the FNV treatment had significantly higher SRLP ratios (i.e. the ratio was significantly more than 1), 0.5?.0 mm fine roots had lower SRLP ratios (i.e. less than 1), whereas no differences were found between the vegetated and non-vegetated halves in all the other three treatments (Fig. 2). The significantly higher.F. In addition, the first-order root biomass significantly varied among the non-vegetated halves of the FV andStatistical AnalysesThe root response was evaluated for each pot using the ratio between the root variable values in the vegetated and nonvegetated halves (e.g., RTRS ratio = RTRS vegetated half/RTRS nonvegetated half). The values of the root variables were considered to be higher in the non-vegetated half when the ratio was significantly lower than 1, and lower when the ratio is higher than 1 (i.e., the ratio is equal to 1 for symmetrical root growth). This difference was analyzed using a paired-sample t-test. Furthermore, the effects of different treatments on the root architecture and biomass in the vegetated and non-vegetated regions as well as the relative growth rate (RGR) were examined using factorial ANOVA for a randomized block design, with treatments as the fixed factors.Assessing Root Foraging Feature 16574785 by ArchitectureFigure 6. The length percentage of each root order to the total fine root length (root order length percentage, ROLP), root architecture indicator, in the vegetated half and in the non-vegetated half. Letters indicate the same root order difference between treatments (LSD tests, following ANOVA). Error bars represent 1 SE of the mean. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065650.gNF treatments. By contrast, the biomass was not significantly different between the second- and third-order roots from the nonvegetated halves of all four treatments. No significant differences were observed among treatments in the vegetated half (Fig. 3).Root Architecture Indicator: RTRSRTRS of both 0?.2 mm and 0.2?.5 mm fine roots in the non-vegetated half was shown to be significantly higher than that in the vegetated half for FNV treatment (i.e. ratio less than 1), and no difference was found in the other treatments (Fig. 2). In the fertilization of the non-vegetated half for FNV treatment, thetarget plants increased spatial nutrient uptake by altering RTRS. In the vegetated half, RTRS of 0?.2 mm fine roots for the FV treatment was significantly higher compared with the other three treatments, reaching a maximum of 247.7 cm22. RTRS of 0.2?0.5 mm fine roots for the FV treatment was also higher than those obtained in the NF and FNV treatments, with values of 20.3, 15.6, and 16.1 cm22, respectively (Fig. 4). Since the RTRS of 0?0.2 mm fine roots was much higher than that of 0.2?.5 mm fine roots in all of the four treatments, RTRS of the latter had little effects on root foraging ability compared with the former. The RTRS of 0?.2 mm fine roots in the vegetated half significantly increased from 182.8 cm22 in the NF treatment to 247.7 cm22 in the FV treatment, and significantly decreased to 182.6 cm22 in the F treatment. In addition, there was no significant difference in the RTRS values of both fine root subclasses among all the four treatments in the vegetated half (Fig. 4).Root Architecture Indicator: SRLPThe 0?.5 mm root systems mainly consisted of the first three orders; the SRLP of which may reflect length proportion of the root systems being able to absorb nutrient and water in the soil to whole fine root. 0?.5 mm fine root in the FNV treatment had significantly higher SRLP ratios (i.e. the ratio was significantly more than 1), 0.5?.0 mm fine roots had lower SRLP ratios (i.e. less than 1), whereas no differences were found between the vegetated and non-vegetated halves in all the other three treatments (Fig. 2). The significantly higher.
