, Volume 117, Issue 3, pp 187–207 | Cite as

Water transport in plants: Mechanism of apparent changes in resistance during absorption

  • J. S. Boyer


Leaf water potentials were measured at various rates of water absorption in whole plants and detached leaves of well-watered Helianthus annuus L. The experiments were conducted in the steady state, where changes in leaf hydration did not affect the measurements but both the transpiration and growth components of absorption could be observed. Calculations of the total plant resistance to water transport showed that the resistance at low fluxes was about 30 times the resistance at high fluxes. Most of the change took place in the leaves, since similar changes could be demonstrated in detached leaves. The roots accounted for little of the change, since they varied in resistance by a factor of only 2.5 as flow varied.

To ascertain whether the protoplasts of the leaves varied in resistance by an amount which could account for the change in resistance to water transport, measurements of rates of water movement in and out of the protoplasm were made when gradients in water potential between the protoplasts and the water source were varied. These showed that water movement did not occur at rates which could account for high rates of transpiration even when large differences in potential drove flow. The high temperature sensitivity of efflux confirmed that the leaf protoplasts limited flow in these experiments. When the edge of the leaf was excised and flow occurred primarily through the vascular system of the leaf, the resistance was much lower than in the protoplasts. It is therefore concluded that the leaf protoplasts represent a high resistance to water transport and that a considerable portion of the water involved in transpiration must bypass them.

Calculations based on a model of water transport showed that the protoplast resistance was almost 30 times larger than the resistance of the path leading from the soil to the leaf protoplasts. The decrease in resistance of the leaves with increasing rates of absorption was therefore attributed to a decrease in water movement in and out of leaf cells, which involved a high resistance, and an increase in movement around the leaf protoplasts, which involved a low resistance. Since the experiments were conducted at the steady state, the high resistances were apparent at low rates of flow where only growth occurred, whereas the low resistances could be observed at high rates of flow because growth did not occur and flow consisted solely of transpiration. Because of the high resistance of the protoplast pathway, leaf water potentials were governed more by protoplast water movement than by transpiration over a considerable range of rates of water absorption. This may explain some of the differences in earlier work on leaf water potentials and water transport.


Water Absorption Water Potential High Resistance Water Transport Water Movement 
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. Acevedo, E., Hsiao, T. C., Henderson, D. W.: Immediate and subsequent growth responses of maize leaves to changes in water status. Plant Physiol. 48, 631–636 (1971)Google Scholar
  2. Altman, P. L., Dittmer, D. S.: Biology data book. Washington, D. C.: Fed. Amer. Soc. Exp. Biol. 1964Google Scholar
  3. Barrs, H. D.: Comparison of water potentials in leaves as measured by two types of thermocouple psychrometer. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 18, 36–52 (1965)Google Scholar
  4. Boyer, J. S.: Isopiestic technique: measurement of accurate leaf water potentials. Science 154, 1459–1460 (1966)Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, J. S.: Leaf water potentials measured with a pressure chamber. Plant Physiol. 42, 133–137 (1967a)Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, J. S.: Matric potentials of leaves. Plant Physiol. 42, 213–217 (1967b)Google Scholar
  7. Boyer, J. S.: Relationship of water potential to growth of leaves. Plant Physiol. 43, 1056–1062 (1968)Google Scholar
  8. Boyer, J. S.: Free energy transfer in plants. Science 163, 1219–1220 (1969a)Google Scholar
  9. Boyer, J. S.: Measurement of the water status of plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 20, 351–364 (1969b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyer, J. S.: Leaf enlargement and metabolic rates in corn, soybean, and sunflower at various leaf water potentials. Plant Physiol. 46, 233–235 (1970)Google Scholar
  11. Boyer, J. S.: Recovery of photosynthesis in sunflower after a period of low water potential. Plant Physiol. 47, 816–820 (1971a)Google Scholar
  12. Boyer, J. S.: Resistances to water transport in soybean, bean, and sunflower. Crop Sci. 11, 403–407 (1971b)Google Scholar
  13. Boyer, J. S., Knipling, E. B.: Isopiestic technique for measuring leaf water potentials with a thermocouple psychrometer. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.) 54, 1044–1051 (1965)Google Scholar
  14. Boyer, J. S., Potter, J. R.: Chloroplast response to low leaf water potentials. I. Role of turgor. Plant Physiol. 51, 989–992 (1973)Google Scholar
  15. Brouwer, R.: Water absorption by the roots of Vicia faba at various transpiration strengths. III. Changes in water conductivity artificially obtained. Proc. kon. ned. Akad, Wet. C 57, 68–80 (1954)Google Scholar
  16. Cleland, R.: Cell wall extension. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 22, 197–222 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cowan, I. R.: Oscillations in stomatal conductance and plant functioning associated with stomatal conductance: observations and a model. Planta (Berl.) 106, 185–219 (1972)Google Scholar
  18. Dainty, J.: Water relations of plant cells. Adv. Bot. Res. 1, 279–326 (1963)Google Scholar
  19. Dixon, H. H.: Transpiration and the ascent of sap in plants. London: Macmillan 1914Google Scholar
  20. Gradmann, H.: Untersuchungen über die Wasserverhältnisse des Bodens als Grundlage des Pflanzenwachstums. Jb. wiss. Bot. 69, 1–100 (1928)Google Scholar
  21. Graziani, Y., Livne, A.: Dehydration, water fluxes, and permeability of tobacco leaf tissue. Plant Physiol. 48, 575–579 (1971)Google Scholar
  22. Hailey, J. L., Hiler, E. A., Jordan, W. R., Van Bavel, C. H. M.: Resistance to water flow in Vigna sinensis L. (Endl.) at high rates of transpiration. Crop Sci. 13, 264–267 (1973)Google Scholar
  23. Honert, T. H. van den: Water transport in plants as a catenary process. Disc. Faraday Soc. 3, 146–153 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsiao, T. C., Acevedo, E., Henderson, D. W.: Maize leaf elongation: continuous measurement and close dependence on plant water status. Science 168, 590–591 (1970)Google Scholar
  25. Jensen, R. D., Taylor, S. A., Wiebe, H. H.: Negative transport and resistance to water flow through plants. Plant Physiol. 36, 633–638 (1961)Google Scholar
  26. Kohn, P. G., Dainty, J.: The measurement of permeability to water in disks of storage tissues. J. exp. Bot. 17, 809–821 (1966)Google Scholar
  27. Kramer, P. J.: Plant and soil water relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill 1969Google Scholar
  28. Macklon, A. E. S., Weatherley, P. E.: Controlled environment studies of the nature and origins of water deficits in plants. New Phytol. 64, 414–427 (1965)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mees, G. C., Weatherley, P. E.: The mechanism of water absorption by roots. I. Preliminary studies on the effects of hydrostatic pressure gradients. Proc. roy. Soc. B 147, 367–380 (1957a)Google Scholar
  30. Mees, G. C., Weatherley, P. E.: The mechanism of water absorption by roots. II. The role of hydrostatic pressure gradients across the cortex. Proc. roy. Soc. B 147, 381–391 (1957b)Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, R. F., Boyer, J. S.: Sensitivity of cell division and cell elongation to low water potentials in soybean hypocotyls. Planta (Berl.) 108, 77–87 (1972)Google Scholar
  32. Myers, G. M. P.: The water permeability of unplasmolyzed tissues. J. exp. Bot. 2, 129–144 (1951)Google Scholar
  33. Safir, G. R., Boyer, J. S., Gerdemann, J. W.: Mycorrhizal enhancement of water transport in soybean. Science 172, 581–583 (1971)Google Scholar
  34. Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Bradstreet, E. D., Hemmingsen, E. A.: Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148, 339–346 (1965)Google Scholar
  35. Stoker, R., Weatherley, P. E.: The influence of the root system on the relationship between the rate of transpiration and depression of leaf water potential. New Phytol. 70, 547–554 (1971)Google Scholar
  36. Tinklin, R.: Note on the determination of leaf water potential. New Phytol. 66, 85–88 (1967)Google Scholar
  37. Tinklin, R., Weatherley, P. E.: On the relationship between transpiration rate and leaf water potential. New Phytol. 65, 509–517 (1966)Google Scholar
  38. Weatherley, P. E.: The pathway of water movement across the root cortex and leaf mesophyll of transpiring plants. In: The water relations of plants, p. 85–100 (Rutter, A. J., Whitehead, F. H., eds.). London: Blackwell 1963Google Scholar
  39. Weatherley, P. E.: Some aspects of water relations. Adv. Bot. Res. 3, 171–206 (1970)Google Scholar
  40. Wiebe, H. H.: Matric potential of several plant tissues and biocolloids. Plant Physiol. 41, 1439–1442 (1966)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Boyer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of AgronomyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.Plant Physiology DivisionDSIRPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations