Plant and Soil

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 17–33 | Cite as

Leaf water potential and stomatal conductance of field-grown faba beans (Vicia faba L.) and oats (Avena sativa L.)

  • U. Müller
  • K. Grimme
  • C. Meyer
  • W. Ehlers
Article
Received:
Revised:

Summary

Faba beans are known to be susceptible to water stress. The aim of the present research was to find out, if this sensitivity is related to an incapability of the plants to close the stomata effectively during times of water stress. For reasons of comparison oats were included in the investigation, as oat plants are known to respond less sensitively to water shortage than faba beans. The experiment was conducted on a loess-derived soil during a relatively dry vegetative season. Leaf area development and soil water use of beans was later in the season as compared to oats. Maximum leaf area and water extraction rates were attained end of June to beginning of July during pod development. Total leaf water potential ι of beans was always higher than in oats. At a given ι the osmotic potential π was less and the pressure (turgor) potential P was higher as compared to the cereal crop. To changing ι beans responded much more pronounced than oats in reducing adaxial and abaxial leaf conductance. The sensitivity in stomata regulation of faba beans became also apparent by a distinct oscillation of ι and conductance during the course of a day. It is concluded that the water-stress susceptibility of faba beans is brought about by a reduced CO2 diffusion into the leaves, thus lowering net assimilation rates.

Key words

Available water in rooting zone Faba bean Leaf area Leaf conductance Leaf water potential Oats Osmotic potential Pressure potential Rooting zone Water stress 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baldocchi D D, Verma S B, Rosenberg N J, Blad B L, Garay A and Specht J E 1983 Influence of water stress on the diurnal exchange of mass and energy between the atmosphere and a soybean canopy. Agron. J. 75, 543–48.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biscoe P V, Cohen Y and Wallace J S 1976 Community water relations. Daily and seasonal changes of water potential in cereals. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 273, 565–80.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dantuma G and Grashoff C 1980 Vegetative and reproductive growth of faba beans (Vicia faba L.) as influenced by water supply.In Vicia faba: Agronomy, Physiology and Breeding. Eds. P D Hebblethwaite, T C K Dawkins, M C Heath and G Lockwood. pp 61–69. Martinus Nijhoff, Dr W Junk The Hague.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Day W, Lawlor D W and Legg B J 1981 The effects of drought on barley: soil and plant water relations. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 96, 61–77.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denmead O T and Millar B D 1976 Field studies of the conductance of wheat leaves and transpiration. Agron. J. 68, 307–11.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eastham J, Oosterhuis D M and Walker S 1984 Leaf water and turgor potential threshold values for leaf growth of wheat. Agron. J. 76, 841–47.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehlers W, Grimme K, Baeumer K, Stülpnagel R, Köpke U and Böhm W 1981 Flow resistance in soil and plant during field growth of oats. Geoderma 25, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Nadi A H 1969 Water relations of beans. I. Effects of water stress on growth and flowering. Expl. Agric. 5, 195–207.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elston J, Karamanos A J, Kassam A H and Wadsworth R M 1976 The water relations of the field bean crop. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 273, 581–91.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fereres E, Acevedo E, Henderson D W and Hsiao T C 1978 Seasonal changes in water potential and turgor maintenance in sorghum and maize under water stress. Physiol. Plant. 44, 261–67.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freye E 1981 Photosyntheseleistung und Assimilatverteilung bei Ackerbohnen (Vicia faba L. var.minor) als Grundlage zur Erklärung von Samenertragsschwankungen. Ph. D. thesis. Univ. Halle-Wittenberg.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freye E and Schilling G 1983 Untersuchungen über die Abhängigkeit der Fruchtbildung bei Ackerbohnen (Vicia faba L. var.minor) von Assimilatbildung und-transport. Arch. Acker- und Pflanzenbau u. Bodenkd. 27, 185–90.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gliemeroth G 1952 Wasserhaushalt des Bodens in Abhängigkeit von der Wurzelausbildung einiger Kulturpflanzen. Z. Acker- u. Pflanzenbau 95, 21–46.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grimme K 1986 Methodische Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung der osmotischen Komponente. Verh. Ges. Ökol. 14 (In press).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall A E, Schulze E D and Lange O L 1976 Current perspectives of steady-state stomatal responses to environment.In Water and Plant Life. Eds. O L Lange, L Kappen and E D Schulze. pp. 169–88. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson R D, Kimball B A, Reginato R J and Nakayama F S 1973 Diurnal soil-water evaporation: Time-depth-flux patterns, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37, 505–09.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacquiery R and Keller E R 1980 Beeinflussung des Fruchtansatzes bei der Ackerbohn (Vicia faba L.) durch die Verteilung der Assimilate (Teil II). Angew. Bot. 54, 29–39.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jordan W R and Ritchie J T 1971 Influence of soil water stress on evaporation, root absorption, and internal water status of cotton. Plant Physiol. 48, 783–88.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanemasu E T and Tanner C B 1969 Stomatal diffusion resistance of snap beans. I. Influence of leaf-water potential. Plant Physiol. 44, 1547–52.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karamanos A J 1984 Effects of water stress on some growth parameters and yields of field bean crops.In Vicia faba: Agronomy, Physiology and Breeding. Eds. P D Hebblethwaite, T C K Dawkins, M C Heath and G Lockwood, pp 47–59. Martinus Nijhoff, Dr W Junk The Hague.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karamanos A J, Elston J and Wadsworth R M 1982 Water stress and leaf growth of field beans (Vicia faba L.) in the field: Water potentials and laminar expansion. Ann. Bot. 49, 815–26.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kassam A H 1973 The infuence of light and water deficit upon diffusive resistance of leaves ofVicia faba L. New Phytol. 72, 557–70.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lawn R J 1982 Responses of four grown legumes to water stress in South Eastern Queensland. I. Physiological response mechanisms. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 33, 481–96.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mason W K, Rowse H R, Bennie A T P, Kaspar T C and Taylor H M 1982 Responses of soybeans to two row spacings and two soil water levels. II. Water use, root growth and plant water status. Field Crops Res. 5, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer C 1984 Zum Einfluß des Wasserhaushaltes auf die Ertragsbildung bei Ackerbohne und Hafer. Ph. D. thesis. Univ. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Müller U 1984 Wasserhaushalt von Ackerbohne und Hafer auf Löß-Parabraunerde. Ph. D. thesis. Univ. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Müller U, Meyer C, Ehlers W and Böhm W 1985 Wasseraufnahme und Wasserverbrauch von Ackerbohne und Hafer auf einer Löß-Parabraunerde. Z. Pflanzenernaehr. Bodenkde. 148, 389–404.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nerkar Y S, Wilson D and Lawes D A 1981 Genetic variation in stomatal characteristics and behaviour, water use and growth of fiveVicia faba L. genotypes under contrasting soil moisture regimes. Euphytica 30, 335–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Quarrie S A 1983 Characterization of spring wheat genotypes differing in drought-induced abscisic acid accumulation. II. Leaf water relations. J. Exp. Bot. 34, 1528–40.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raschke K 1975 Stomatal action. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 26, 309–40.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reicosky D C and Deaton D E 1979 Soybean water extraction, leaf water potential, and evapotranspiration during drought. Agron. J. 71, 45–50.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scholander P F, Hammel H T, Bradstreet E D and Hemmingsen E A 1965 Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148, 339–46.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shackel K A and Hall A E 1983 Comparison of water relations and osmotic adjustment in sorghum and cowpea under field conditions. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 10, 423–35.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shouse P, Dasberg S, Jury W A and Stolzy L H 1981 Water deficit effects on water potential, yield, and water use of cowpeas. Agron. J. 73, 333–36.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tenhunen J D, Lange O L and Jahner D 1982 The control by atmospheric factors and water stress of midday stomata closure inArbutus unedo growing in a natural macchia. Oecologia 55, 165–69.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thomas J C, Brown K W and Jordan W R 1976 Stomatal response to leaf water potential as affected by pre-conditioning water stress in the field. Agron. J. 68, 706–08.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tornau O and Stölting H 1944 Untersuchungen über die Bewurzelung der Ackerbohne. J. f. Landw. 90, 1–32.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Turner N C 1981 Techniques and experimental approaches for the measurement of plant water status. Plant and Soil 58, 339–66.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tyree M T 1976 Negative turgor pressure in plant cells: fact or fallacy? Can. J. Bot. 54, 2738–46.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tyree M T, MacGregor M E, Petrov A and Upenieks M I 1978 A comparison of systematic errors between the Richards and Hammel methods of measuring tissue-water relations parameters. Can. J. Bot. 56, 2153–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Müller
    • 1
  • K. Grimme
    • 1
  • C. Meyer
    • 1
  • W. Ehlers
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Agronomy and Plant Breeding and Department of EcologyUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenFRG

Personalised recommendations