Quantifying roots, air-filled pores, and water-associated phases simultaneously in intact plant–substrate systems remains a methodological challenge in X-ray micro-computed tomography (µCT), because the gray-value ranges of these phases partly overlap and automated binary thresholding is often insufficient. This Communication presents a standardized and parameter-documented µCT image analysis workflow for segmenting and quantifying four phases (roots, air-filled pores, solid substrate matrix, and water-associated phase) in intact pot samples containing a homogeneous plant-growth substrate. The workflow combines 3D median filtering (3 × 3 × 3 kernel), average-based interactive thresholding, sequential spatial morphological operations, and watershed-based object separation for root-size distribution analysis. It was applied to 15 intact pot samples from a greenhouse experiment with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) grown under three phosphorus fertilization treatments used as a demonstration system. The use of a standardized substrate enabled the derivation of global gray-value thresholds (Tpore ≤ 90; Tsolid ≥ 130) that were applied consistently across all datasets. A sensitivity analysis showed that these global thresholds overestimated root volume by approximately 10% relative to depth-dependent thresholds. Subsequent morphological dilation and subtraction operations separated the root mask from matrix-adjacent water-associated voxels. The sum of segmented phase volume fractions reached 99.758 ± 0.173% of the total ROI volume, confirming internal consistency of the workflow. Root-specific surface area differed among demonstration groups (1.99–2.23 mm−1), illustrating the workflow’s sensitivity to structural differences between samples. This approach can be transferred to controlled pot experiments with homogeneous substrates, providing a transparent framework for µCT-based analysis of intact root–substrate systems. Its practical interest lies in providing a non-destructive, high-resolution, and well-documented 3D analysis framework for root growth, supporting further research on plant–substrate interactions and treatment effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schmitt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: