Skip to main content
PMC home page
Plant Physiology logoLink to Plant Physiology
. 1980 Nov;66(5):809–814. doi: 10.1104/pp.66.5.809

Comparative Resistance of the Soil and the Plant to Water Transport 1

Wayne E Blizzard 1,2,3,4, John S Boyer 1,2,3,4
PMCID: PMC440731  PMID: 16661531

Abstract

The resistances to liquid water transport in the soil and plant were determined directly and simultaneously from measurements of soil, root, and leaf water potentials and the flux of water through the soil-plant system to the sites of evaporation in the leaf. For soybean (Merr.) transporting water at a steady rate, water potential differences between soil and root were smaller than between root and leaf over the range of soil water potentials from −0.2 to −11 bars. As soil water was depleted, water flow through the soil and plant decreased to one-tenth the maximum rate, but both the soil resistance and plant resistance increased. The plant resistance remained larger than the soil resistance over the entire range of soil water availability. Previous suggestions that the soil is the major resistance have ignored the increase in plant resistance and/or assumed root densities that were too low.

Full text

PDF
811

Selected References

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

  1. Boyer J. S. Free-energy transfer in plants. Science. 1969 Mar 14;163(3872):1219–1220. doi: 10.1126/science.163.3872.1219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyer J. S. Leaf water potentials measured with a pressure chamber. Plant Physiol. 1967 Jan;42(1):133–137. doi: 10.1104/pp.42.1.133. [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. Boyer J. S. Recovery of photosynthesis in sunflower after a period of low leaf water potential. Plant Physiol. 1971 Jun;47(6):816–820. doi: 10.1104/pp.47.6.816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fiscus E. L. In situ measurement of root-water potential. Plant Physiol. 1972 Jul;50(1):191–193. doi: 10.1104/pp.50.1.191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gardner W. R., Ehlig C. F. Impedance to Water Movement in Soil and Plant. Science. 1962 Oct 26;138(3539):522–523. doi: 10.1126/science.138.3539.522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Huck M. G., Klepper B., Taylor H. M. Diurnal variations in root diameter. Plant Physiol. 1970 Apr;45(4):529–530. doi: 10.1104/pp.45.4.529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kaufmann M. R. Water relations of pine seedlings in relation to root and shoot growth. Plant Physiol. 1968 Feb;43(2):281–288. doi: 10.1104/pp.43.2.281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Twente J. W., Twente J. A. Regulation of hibernating periods by temperature. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1965 Oct;54(4):1044–1051. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES