, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 348–355 | Cite as

The responses of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapour pressure deficits and soil water content

II. In the mesophytic herbaceous species Helianthus annuus
  • Neil C. Turner
  • E. -D. Schulze
  • T. Gollan
Original Papers


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.


Soil Water Content Transpiration Rate Vapour Pressure Deficit Leaf Water Potential Helianthus Annuus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aspinall D (1980) Role of abscisic acid and other hormones in adaptation to water stress. In: Turner NC, Kramer PJ (eds) Adaptation of plants to water and high temperature stress. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp 155–172Google Scholar
  2. Begg JE, Turner NC (1976) Crop water deficits. Adv Agron 46:343–346Google Scholar
  3. Black CR, Squire GR (1979) Effects of atmospheric saturation deficit on the stomatal conductance of pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoides S. and H.) and groundnut (Arachis hypoguesa L.) J Exp Bot 30:935–945Google Scholar
  4. Boyer JS (1971) Non stomatal inhibition of photosynthesis in sunflower at low leaf water potentials and high light intensities. Plant Physiol 48:532–536Google Scholar
  5. Boyer JS, Knipling EB (1965) Isopiestic technique for measuring leaf water potentials with a thermocouple psychrometer. Proc Nat Acad Sci US 54:1044–1051Google Scholar
  6. Boyer JS, Potter JR (1973) Chloroplast response to low water potential. I. Role of turgor. Plant Physiol 51:989–992Google Scholar
  7. Brown PW, Tanner CB (1981) Alfalfa water potential measurement: a comparison of the pressure chamber and leaf dew-point hygrometers. Crop Sci 21:240–244Google Scholar
  8. Cowan IR (1977) Stomatal behaviour and environment. Adv Bot Res 4:117–228Google Scholar
  9. Gollan T, Turner NC, Schulze E-D (1985) The responses of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapour pressure deficits and soil water content. III. In the sclerophyllous woody shrub Nerium oleander. Oecologia (berlin) (in press)Google Scholar
  10. Hall AE, Schulze 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
  11. Heiser CB (1951) The sunflower among the North American Indians. Proc Am Philos Soc 95:432–448Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Jones MM, Rawson HM (1979) Influence of rate of development of leaf water deficits upon photosynthesis, leaf conductance, water use efficiency, and osmotic potential in sorghum. Physiol Plant 45:103–111Google Scholar
  14. Lösch R (1979) Stomatal responses to changes in air humidity. In: Sen DN, Chawan DD, Bansal RP (eds) Structure, function and ecology of stomata. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, pp 189–216Google Scholar
  15. Ludlow MM (1980) Adaptive significance of stomatal responses to water stress. In: Turner NC, Kramer PJ (eds) Adaptation of plants to water and high temperature stress. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp 123–138Google Scholar
  16. Osonubi O, Davies WJ (1980) The influence of plant water stress on stomatal control of gas exchange at different levels of atmospheric humidity. Oecologia (Berlin) 46:1–6Google Scholar
  17. Pierce M, Raschke K (1980) Correlation between loss of turgor and accumulation of abscisic acid in detached leaves. Planta 148:174–182Google Scholar
  18. Rawson HM, Constable GA, Howe GN (1980) Carbon production of sunflower cultivars in field and controlled environments. II. Leaf growth. Aust J Plant Physiol 7:575–586Google Scholar
  19. Ritchie JT (1974) Atmospheric and soil water influences on the plant water balance. Agric Meteorol 14:183–198Google Scholar
  20. Schulze E-D, Küppers M (1979) Short-term and long-term effects of plant water deficits on stomatal response to humidity in Corylus avellana L. Planta 146:319–326Google Scholar
  21. Sobrado MA (1983) Influence of water deficits on the water relations and growth of wild and cultivated sunflowers. Ph. D. thesis, The Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  22. Sobrado MA, Turner NC (1983) A comparison of the water relations characteristics of Helianthus annuus and Helianthus petiolaris when subjected to water deficits. Oecologia (Berlin) 58:309–313Google Scholar
  23. Turner NC (1974a) Stomatal response to light and water under field conditions. In: Bieleski RL, Ferguson AR, Cresswell MM (eds), Mechanisms of regulation of plant growth. Bull 12, Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington, pp 423–432Google Scholar
  24. Turner NC (1974b) Stomatal behavior and water status of maize, sorghum, and tobacco under field conditions. II. At low soil water potential. Plant Physiol 53:360–365Google Scholar
  25. Turner NC, Begg JE, Tonnet ML (1978) Osmotic adjustment of sorghum and sunflower crops in response to water deficits and its influence on the water potential at which stomata close. Aust J Plant Physiol 5:597–608Google Scholar
  26. Turner NC, Schulze E-D, Gollan T (1984a) The responses of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapour pressure deficits and soil water content. I. Species comparisons at high soil water contents. Oecologia (Berlin) 63:338–342Google Scholar
  27. Turner NC, Spurway RA, Schulze E-D (1984b) Comparison of water potentials measured by in situ psychrometry and pressure chamber in morphologically different species. Plant Physiol 74:316–319Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil C. Turner
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. -D. Schulze
    • 1
  • T. Gollan
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für PflanzenökologieUniversität BayreuthBayreuthFederal Republic of Germany
  2. 2.CSIRO Dryland Crops and Soils Research ProgramWembleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations