Skip to main content
. 2014 Dec 29;66(5):1303–1315. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru481

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8.

The influence of variation in transpiration rate (E, mmol m–2 s–1) on (A) leaf water potential and (B) the difference between stem and leaf water potential (ΔΨstem–leaf, MPa) for: H. annus plants grown under ~190 (filled circles), 450 (open circles), and 1030 ppm CO2 (grey circles). The crosses in A represent the predicted leaf water potentials for a leaf that possesses the average static leaf hydraulic conductance (i.e. k leaf(0)=9.08 mmol m–2 s–1 MPa–1) across all three CO2 treatments. The solid black line in panel (B) represents the best-fit model describing the coordination between ΔΨstem–leaf and E.