Roots

John Ernst Weaver's fantastic drawings of root systems.

I am fascinated by plant root systems. As natural forms, their diversity, complexity, and organic nature also offer so many metaphorical resonances. For example, if we look down at a root system from above, it might remind us of various urban networks, with their main roads, streets and city-hubs that follow the hills and valleys of the topography. Like Craig Taylor’s Coral Cities project.

Most of my readers are probably familiar with the legendary Wurzelatlas by Austrian botanists Lore Kutschera (1907–2008) and Erwin Lichtenegger (1928–2004) (later joined by Monika Sobotik, 1941–), which has seen several editions and expansions since 1960. Fortunately, Wageningen University has digitized nearly 1200 of the atlases’ original illustrations, which are available at this link.

Fewer people are aware, however, that the Wurzelatlas series had an American predecessor: The botanist John Ernst Weaver’s (1884–1966) and his colleagues’ research, which focused primarily on Nebraska, US, and the books that resulted from it. Most of Weaver’s work has also been digitized. The majority of these works, including his journal papers, are available on the University of Nebraska Library’s website, as well as his monographs on Archive.org and the Biodiversity Heritage Library.

Weaver did not merely draw side and top views of roots. His books and articles also contain numerous graphs, diagrams, quadrat drawings of the patterns of plant coexistence, and other illustrations.

Below, I’ll share a few of my favourites, but I hope everyone enjoys browsing—there’s plenty to choose from. I made some graphical adjustments to some of the drawings; for example, I merged the roots that were split in two pages and removed the book’s fold from the view.

In: The Ecological Relations of Roots. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1919. pp. 32, 34, 36. Image courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library.

The Ecological Relations of Roots. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1919. Image courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library.

The Ecological Relations of Roots. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1919. Image courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library.

The Ecological Relations of Roots. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1919. Image courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library.

The Ecological Relations of Roots. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1919, p. 84. Image courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library.

In: Root Development in the Grassland Formation. A Correlation of the Root Systems of Native Vegetation and Crop Plants. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1920. Image courtesy of Archive.org/University of Toronto

In: Root Development in the Grassland Formation. A Correlation of the Root Systems of Native Vegetation and Crop Plants. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1920, pp. 38,39, 43. Image courtesy of Archive.org/University of Toronto

Roots of a mature plant of sweet corn. In: Root Development of Vegetable Crops with William E. Bruner. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1927. p. 30–31. Image courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library.

Surface view of the root system of muskmelon. In: Root Development of Vegetable Crops with William E. Bruner. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1927. p. 30–31. Image courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library.

Excavation 20 feet deep showing root habits of several prairie. Forbs. 1, Amorpha canescens, lead plant; 2, Lygodesmia juncea, rush-like lygodesmia; 3, Liatris squarrosa, scaly blazing star; 4, Liatris punctata, dotted button snakeroot; 5, Rosa sufulta, prairie rose; 6, Echinacea pallida, pale purple coneflower; 7, Silphium laciniatum, compass plant; 8, Aster ericoides, many-flowered aster; 9, Astragalus crassicarpus, ground plum; 10, Glycyrrhiza lepidota, licorice; 11, Pyoralea esculenta, prairie turnip, turning aside into wall. In Weaver, J. E., “The Living Network in Prairie Soils” (1961). Botanical Gazette, Vol. 123, No. 1 (Sep., 1961), pp. 16-28.

It would be absolutely fantastic if the University of Nebraska were to put together a special collection of Weaver’s drawings. But I can also imagine someone—and, of course, Nicholas Rougeux comes to mind again—adapting Weaver’s works in a contemporary way.