↓ Skip to main content

Non-invasive imaging of plant roots in different soils using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-invasive imaging of plant roots in different soils using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Published in
Plant Methods, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13007-017-0252-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Pflugfelder, Ralf Metzner, Dagmar van Dusschoten, Rüdiger Reichel, Siegfried Jahnke, Robert Koller

Abstract

Root systems are highly plastic and adapt according to their soil environment. Studying the particular influence of soils on root development necessitates the adaptation and evaluation of imaging methods for multiple substrates. Non-invasive 3D root images in soil can be obtained using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Not all substrates, however, are suitable for MRI. Using barley as a model plant we investigated the achievable image quality and the suitability for root phenotyping of six commercially available natural soil substrates of commonly occurring soil textures. The results are compared with two artificially composed substrates previously documented for MRI root imaging. In five out of the eight tested substrates, barley lateral roots with diameters below 300 µm could still be resolved. In two other soils, only the thicker barley seminal roots were detectable. For these two substrates the minimal detectable root diameter was between 400 and 500 µm. Only one soil did not allow imaging of the roots with MRI. In the artificially composed substrates, soil moisture above 70% of the maximal water holding capacity (WHCmax) impeded root imaging. For the natural soil substrates, soil moisture had no effect on MRI root image quality in the investigated range of 50-80% WHCmax. Almost all tested natural soil substrates allowed for root imaging using MRI. Half of these substrates resulted in root images comparable to our current lab standard substrate, allowing root detection down to a diameter of 300 µm. These soils were used as supplied by the vendor and, in particular, removal of ferromagnetic particles was not necessary. With the characterization of different soils, investigations such as trait stability across substrates are now possible using noninvasive MRI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Engineering 9 7%
Environmental Science 6 5%
Physics and Astronomy 6 5%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2022.
All research outputs
#3,050,265
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#160
of 1,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,074
of 434,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#5
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 434,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.