Photosynthesis Research

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 137–149 | Cite as

Stomatal response to air humidity and its relation to stomatal density in a wide range of warm climate species

  • Mabrouk A. El-Sharkawy
  • James H. Cock
  • Ana Del Pilar Hernandez
Regular Paper


The gas exchange of 19 widely different warm climate species was observed at different leaf to air vapour pressure deficits (VPD). In all species stomata tended to close as VPD increased resulting in a decrease in net photosynthesis. The absolute reduction in leaf conductance per unit increase in VPD was greatest in those species which had a large leaf conductance at low VPDs. This would be expected even if stomata of all species were equally sensitive. However the percentage reduction in net photosynthesis (used as a measure of the relative sensitivity of stomata of the different species) was also closely related to the maximal conductance at low VPD. Similarily the relative sensitivity of stomata to changes in VPD was closely related to the weighted stomatal density or ‘crowding index’.

The hypothesis is presented that stomatal closure at different VPDs is related to peristomatal evaporation coupled with a high resistance between the epidermis and the mesophyll and low resistance between the stomatal apparatus and the epidermal cells. This hypothesis is consistent with the greater relative sensitivity of stomata on leaves with a high crowding index.

The results and the hypothesis are discussed in the light of selection, for optimal productivity under differing conditions of relative humidity and soil water availablility, by observation of stomatal density and distribution on the two sides of the leaf.

Key words

amphistomatal leaf crowding index hydraulic resistance hypostomatal leaf stomatal conductance transpiration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ackerson RC, Krieg DR (1977). Stomatal and nonstomatal regulation of water use in cotton, corn, and sorghum. Plant Physiol. 60:850–853Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Appleby RF, Davies WJ (1983). The structure and orientation of guard cells in plants showing stomatal responses to changing vapour pressure differences. Ann Bot 52:459–468Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aston MJ (1976). Variation of stomatal diffusive resistance with ambient humidity in sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Aust J Plant Physiol 3:489–501Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bunce JA (1982). Photosynthesis at ambient and elevated humidity over a growing season in soybean. Photosynthesis Research 3:307–311Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coyne PI, Bradford JA (1984). Leaf gas exchange in ‘Caucasian’ bluestem in relation to light, temperature, humidity, and CO2. Agron J 76:107–113Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drake BG, Raschke K, Salisbury FB (1970). Temperature and transpiration resistance of xanthium leaves as affected by air temperature, humidity, and wind speed. Plant Physiol 46:324–330Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Sharkawy MA, Cock JH (1984) Water use efficiency of cassava. I. Effects of air humidity and water stress on stomatal conductance and gas exchange. Crop Sci 24:497–502Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Sharkawy MA, Cock JH, Held AA (1984). Water use efficiency of cassava II. Differing sensitivity of stomata to air humidity in cassava and other warm-climate species. Crop Sci 24:503–507Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    El-Sharkawy MA, Cock JH, Cadena Gde (1984). Stomatal characteristics among cassava cultivars and their relation to gas exchange. Expl Agric 20:67–76Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Sharkawy MA, Cock JH, Held AA (1984). Photosynthetic responses to cassava cultivars (Manihot esculenta Crantz) from different habitats to temperature. Photosynthesis Research. 5:243–250Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farquhar GD, Sharkey TD (1982). Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 33:317–345Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaastra P (1959). Photosynthesis of crop plants as influenced by light, CO2, temperature and stomatal diffusion resistance. Meded Landbouwhogesch Wageningen 59:1–68Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haberlandt G (1914). Physiological plant anatomy. Macmillan and Co. LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall AE, Schluze E-D (1980). Stomatal response to environment and a possible interrelation between stomatal effects on transpiration and CO2 assimilation. Plant Cell Environ 3:467–474Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsiao TC (1973). Plant response to water stress. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol 24:519–570Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ICRISAT (1983). International crops research institute for the semo-arid tropics. Annual Report 1982. Patanchera. Andhra Pradesh, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jarvis PG (1980). Stomatal response to water stress in conifers. In: Adaptation of plants to water and high temperature stress pp. 105–122 (Eds. NC Turner and PJ Kramer). John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson JD, Ferrell WK (1983). Stomatal response to vapour pressure deficit and the effect of plant water stress. Plant Cell Environ 6:451–456Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin TS, Crane JC, Ryugo K, Polito VS and DeJong TM (1984). Comparative study of leaf morphology, photosynthesis, and leaf conductance in selected Pistacia species. J Amer Soc Hort Sci. 109(3):325–330Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ludlow MM (1980). Adaptive significance of stomatal responses to water stress. In: Adaptation of plants to water and high temperature stress pp. 123–138 (Eds. NC Turner and PJ Kramer). John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ludlow MM, Ibaraki K (1979). Stomatal Control of water loss in Siratro (Macroptilium atropurpureum (DC) Urb) a tropical pasture legume. Ann Bot 43:639–647Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maier-Maercker U (1983). The role of peristomatal transpiration in the mechanism of stomatal movement. Plant Cell Environ 6:369–380Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meidner H (1976). Water vapour loss from a physical model of a substomatal cavity. J Exp Bot 27:691–694Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meinzer F, Goldstein G, James M (1984). The effect of atmospheric humidity on stomatal control of gas exchange in two tropical coniferous species. Can J Bot 62:591–595Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morison JIL, Gifford RM (1983). Stomatal Sensitivity to carbon dioxide and humidity. Plant Physiol 71:789–796Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mott KA, O'Leary JW (1984). Stomatal behavior and CO2 exchange characteristics in amphisotmatous leaves. Plant Physiol. 74:47–51Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mott KA, Gibson AC, O'Leary JW (1982). The adaptive significance of amphistomatic leaves. Plant Cell Environ 5:455–460Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oznubi O, Davies WJ (1980). The influence of plant water stress on stomatal control of gas exchange at different levels of atmospheric humidity. Oecologia, 46:1–6Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parkhurst DF (1978). The adaptive signficance of stomatal occurence on one or both surfaces of leaves. J Ecol 66: 367–383Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raschke K (1975). Stomatal action. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 26:309–340Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rawson HM, Begg JE, Woodward RG (1977). The effect of atmospheric humidity on photosynthesis, transpiration and water use efficiency of leaves of several plant species. Planta 134:5–10Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saxe H (1979). A structural and functional study of the coordinated reactions of individual Commelina communis L. Stomata (Commelinaceae). Amer J Bot 66:1044–1052Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scholander PF, Hammel HT, Bradstreet ED, Hemmingsen EA (1965). Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schulze E-D, Lange OL, Buschbom U, Kappen L, Evenari M (1972). Stomatal response to changes in humidity in plants growing in the desert. Planta 108:259–270Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schluze E-D, Hall AE (1982). Stomatal responses, water loss and CO2 assimilation rates of plants in contrasting environments In: Encyclopedia of plant physiology. Vol 12B. Physiological Plant Ecology II. pp. 181–230 (Eds OL Lange, PS Nobel, CB Osmond and H Ziegler). Springer-Verlag BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sheriff DW (1979). Stomatal aperture and the sensing of the environment by guard cells. Plant Cell Environ 2:15–22Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Slavik B (1974). Methods of studying plant water relations. Ecological Studies. Volume 9. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tyree MT, Yianoulis P (1980). The site of water evaporation from sub-stomatal cavities, liquid path resistances and hydroactive stomatal closure. Ann Bot 46:175–193Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Walton DC (1980). Biochemistry and physiology of abscisic acid. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 31:453–489Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Woolley JT (1983). Direct microscopic observation of stomata in the field-quick and easy. Crop Sci 23:589–590Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zeiger E (1983). The biology of stomatal guard cells. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 34:441–475Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mabrouk A. El-Sharkawy
    • 1
  • James H. Cock
    • 1
  • Ana Del Pilar Hernandez
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro Internactional De Agricultura TropicalCALIColombia

Personalised recommendations