Skip to main content
PMC home page
Plant Physiology logoLink to Plant Physiology
. 1973 Jan;51(1):31–36. doi: 10.1104/pp.51.1.31

Stomatal Behavior and Water Status of Maize, Sorghum, and Tobacco under Field Conditions

I. At High Soil Water Potential

Neil C Turner a, John E Begg a,1
PMCID: PMC367352  PMID: 16658292

Abstract

Diurnal changes in the vertical profiles of irradiance incident upon the adaxial leaf surface (I), stomatal resistance (rs), leaf water potential (ψ), osmotic potential (π), and turgor potential (P) were followed concurrently in crops of maize (Zea mays L. var. Pa 602A), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor [L.] Moench var. RS610), and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L. var. Havanna Seed 211) on several days in 1968 to 1970 when soil water potentials were high. In all three crops the rs, measured with a ventilated diffusion porometer, the ψ, measured with the pressure chamber, the π, measured with a vapor pressure osmometer, and the calculated P, decreased from sunrise to reach minimum values near midday and then increased again in the afternoon. The diurnal range of all the variables was greater for leaves in the upper canopy than for those in the lower canopy. P was observed to decrease with decreasing ψ, but never became zero. Sorghum had a higher P at a ψ of, say −10 bars, than did maize, and maize had a higher P than tobacco at the same ψ. Moreover, at the same ψ the upper leaves in all canopies had a higher P than the lower leaves. When compared at high irradiances, rs did not increase as ψ declined to −13, −15, and −10 bars or as P declined to 0.3, 3.5, and 1.2 bars in maize, sorghum, and tobacco, respectively. The relation between rs and I in the upper, nonsenescent leaves of all three crops fits a hyperbolic curve, but the response varied with species and leaf senescence. The adaxial and abaxial epidermises had the same response of rs to I in maize and sorghum, whereas in tobacco the adaxial epidermis had a higher rs than the abaxial epidermis at all values of I. At equal values of I, tobacco had the lowest leaf resistance (rl) and maize had the highest rl. Senescent maize leaves had nonfunctional stomata, whereas the lowermost sorghum leaves had higher stomatal resistances on average than the other leaves.

Full text

PDF
31

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Begg J. E., Turner N. C. Water potential gradients in field tobacco. Plant Physiol. 1970 Aug;46(2):343–346. doi: 10.1104/pp.46.2.343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyer J. S. Differing sensitivity of photosynthesis to low leaf water potentials in corn and soybean. Plant Physiol. 1970 Aug;46(2):236–239. doi: 10.1104/pp.46.2.236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyer J. S. Matric potentials of leaves. Plant Physiol. 1967 Feb;42(2):213–217. doi: 10.1104/pp.42.2.213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fischer R. A. Stomatal opening: role of potassium uptake by guard cells. Science. 1968 May 17;160(3829):784–785. doi: 10.1126/science.160.3829.784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kanemasu E. T., Tanner C. B. Stomatal diffusion resistance of snap beans. I. Influence of leaf-water potential. Plant Physiol. 1969 Nov;44(11):1547–1552. doi: 10.1104/pp.44.11.1547. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rich S., Waggoner P. E., Tomlinson H. Ozone uptake by bean leaves. Science. 1970 Jul 3;169(3940):79–80. doi: 10.1126/science.169.3940.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Sanchez-Diaz M. F., Kramer P. J. Behavior of Corn and Sorghum under Water Stress and during Recovery. Plant Physiol. 1971 Nov;48(5):613–616. doi: 10.1104/pp.48.5.613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Sawhney B. L., Zelitch I. Direct determination of potassium ion accumulation in guard cells in relation to stomatal opening in light. Plant Physiol. 1969 Sep;44(9):1350–1354. doi: 10.1104/pp.44.9.1350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Scholander P. F., Hammel H. T., Hemmingsen E. A., Bradstreet E. D. HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE AND OSMOTIC POTENTIAL IN LEAVES OF MANGROVES AND SOME OTHER PLANTS. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1964 Jul;52(1):119–125. doi: 10.1073/pnas.52.1.119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Turner N. C., Parlange J. Y. Analysis of operation and calibration of a ventilated diffusion porometer. Plant Physiol. 1970 Jul;46(1):175–177. doi: 10.1104/pp.46.1.175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Wiebe H. H. Matric potential of several plant tissues and biocolloids. Plant Physiol. 1966 Nov;41(9):1439–1442. doi: 10.1104/pp.41.9.1439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Plant Physiology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES