The responses of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapour pressure deficits and soil water content
- 1 February 1985
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Oecologia
- Vol. 65 (3) , 348-355
- https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00378908
Abstract
The responses of leaf water potential, leaf conductance, transpiration rate and net photosynthetic rate to vapour pressure deficits varying from 10 to 30 Pa kPa-1 were followed in Helianthus annuus as the extractable soil water decreased. With a vapour pressure deficit of 25 Pa kPa-1 around the entire plant as the soil water content decreased, the leaf conductance and transpiration rate showed a strong closing response to leaf water potential at a value of-0.65 MPa, whereas with a vapour pressure deficit of 10 Pa kPa-1 around the entire plant, the rate of transpiration and leaf conductance decreased almost linearly as the leaf water potential decreased from-0.4 to-1.0 MPa. Increasing the vapour pressure deficit from 10 to 30 Pa kPa-1 in 5 Pa kPa-1 steps decreased the leaf conductance by a similar proportion at all extractable soil water contents. At high soil water contents, the decrease in conductance with leaf water potential was greater when the vapour pressure deficit was increased than when it was not, indicating a direct influence of vapour pressure deficit on the stomata. The rate of net photosynthesis decreased to a smaller degree than the leaf conductance when the vapour pressure deficit around the leaf was varied. Overall, the net photosynthetic rate decreased almost linearly from 20 to 25 μmol m-2 s-1 at-0.3 MPa to 5 μmol m-2 s-1 at-1.2 MPa. As the soil water decreased, the internal carbon dioxide partial pressure was maintained between 14 and 25 Pa. No unique relationship between leaf conductance, transpiration rate or photosynthetic rate and leaf water potential was observed, but in all experiments leaf conductance and the rate of net photosynthesis decreased when about two-thirds of the extractable water in the solid had been utilized irrespective of the leaf water potential. We conclude that soil water status, not leaf water status, affects the stomatal behaviour and photosynthesis of H. annuus.This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Water Potentials Measured by In Situ Psychrometry and Pressure Chamber in Morphologically Different SpeciesPlant Physiology, 1984
- Stomatal response to vapour pressure deficit and the effect of plant water stressPlant, Cell & Environment, 1983
- Stomatal response to environment and a possible interrelation between stomatal effects on transpiration and CO2 assimilationPlant, Cell & Environment, 1980
- Effects of Atmospheric Saturation Deficit on the Stomatal Conductance of Pearl Millet (Pennisetum typhoidesS. and H.) and Groundnut (Arachis hypogaeaL.)Journal of Experimental Botany, 1979
- Influence of Rate of Development of Leaf Water Deficits upon Photosynthesis, Leaf Conductance, Water Use Efficiency, and Osmotic Potential in SorghumPhysiologia Plantarum, 1979
- Stomatal Behaviour and EnvironmentPublished by Elsevier ,1978
- Stomatal Behavior and Water Status of Maize, Sorghum, and Tobacco under Field ConditionsPlant Physiology, 1974
- Atmospheric and soil water influences on the plant water balanceAgricultural Meteorology, 1974
- Chloroplast Response to Low Leaf Water PotentialsPlant Physiology, 1973
- Nonstomatal Inhibition of Photosynthesis in Sunflower at Low Leaf Water Potentials and High Light IntensitiesPlant Physiology, 1971