Advertisement

Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 483–492 | Cite as

Contrasting leaf porometer and infra-red gas analyser methodologies: an old paradigm about the stomatal conductance measurement

  • Guillermo ToroEmail author
  • Jaume Flexas
  • José Mariano Escalona
Article
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

Here we compare the stomatal conductance (gs) values obtained with leaf porometer and infra-red gas analyzer (IRGA) in different species subjected to different water availability and evaluated in two different environmental conditions. Sunflower, maize, bean, and grapevine were subjected to two treatments of water availability: well-watered and progressive water stress for 3 days and evaluated in two different times with contrasting environmental conditions. The gs was determined both on the abaxial and adaxial side of leaves using a leaf porometer and an IRGA. The measured gs strongly differed between IRGA and porometer, in a way that depended on the species, as well as water availability and environmental conditions. Under maximum water stress, gs measured with leaf porometer was higher than those measured with IRGA in the four species studied. The present results question the use of usual methodologies for the estimation of gs, suggesting that gs would not only depend on the environmental conditions and the water status of the plants, but also on the method used to measure it.

Keywords

Gas exchange Water stress Stomatal conductance Hypostomatic Amphistomatic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the Comisión Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONICYT) Regional/CEAF/R08I1001 and the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (FONDECYT) Postdoctoral project Nº 3160558 for funds to visit the University of Balearic Islands (UBI), where the experiments were conducted. We are especially grateful to Mr. Miquel Truyol for his assistance during experiments in UBI experimental field. We would like to express our appreciation to Miss Paula Sancho for her assistance during the entire experimental period.

Author contributions

GT and JE designed the experiment. GT performed the measurements. GT, JE and JF analyzed and discussed the data. All authors approved the final manuscript.

References

  1. Aliniaeifard S, van Meeteren U (2013) Can prolonged exposure to low VPD disturb the ABA signalling in stomatal guard cells? J Exp Bot 64:3551–3566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arve L, Torre S, Olsen J, Tanino K (2011) Stomatal responses to drought stress and air humidity. In: Shanker A (ed) Abiotic stress in plants-Mechanisms and adaptations. InTech, RijekaGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball JT, Woodrow IE, Berry JA (1987) A model predicting stomatal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. In: J Biggins (ed) Progress in photosynthesis research: volume 4 proceedings of the VIIth international congress on photosynthesis providence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10–15, 1986. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell CJ, Squire GR (1981) Comparative measurements with two water vapour diffusion porometers (dynamic and steady-state). J Exp Bot 32:1143–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray S, Reid DM (2002) The effect of salinity and CO2 enrichment on the growth and anatomy of the second trifoliate leaf of Phaseolus vulgaris. Can J Bot 80:349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley TN (2017) Modeling stomatal conductance. Plant Physiol 174:572–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunce JA (2000) Responses of stomatal conductance to light, humidity and temperature in winter wheat and barley grown at three concentrations of carbon dioxide in the field. Global Change Biol 6:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busch FA (2018) Photosynthetic gas exchange in land plants at the leaf level. In: Covshoff S (ed) Photosynthesis: methods and protocols. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Damour G, Simonneau T, Cochard H, Urban L (2010) An overview of models of stomatal conductance at the leaf level. Plant Cell Environ 33:1419–1438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dumont J, Cohen D, Gérard J, Jolivet Y, Dizengremel P, Le Thiec D (2014) Distinct responses to ozone of abaxial and adaxial stomata in three Euramerican poplar genotypes. Plant Cell Environ 37:2064–2076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehlers W, Goss M (2003) Water dynamics in plant production. CABI, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fanourakis D, Bouranis D, Giday H, Carvalho DRA, Rezaei Nejad A, Ottosen C-O (2016) Improving stomatal functioning at elevated growth air humidity: a review. J Plant Physiol 207:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farquhar GD, Sharkey TD (1982) Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 33:317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Figueiredo MVB, Burity HA, Martínez CR, Chanway CP (2008) Alleviation of drought stress in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by co-inoculation with Paenibacillus polymyxa and Rhizobium tropici. Appl Soil Ecol 40:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher DG (1985) Morphology and anatomy of the leaf of Coleus blumei (Lamiaceae). Am J Bot 72:392–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaastra P (1959) Photosynthesis of crop plants as influenced by light, carbon dioxide, temperature, and stomatal diffusion resistance. Wageningen, VeenmanGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunes A, Pilbeam DJ, Inal A, Coban S (2008) Influence of silicon on sunflower cultivars under drought stress, I: growth, antioxidant mechanisms, and lipid peroxidation. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 39:1885–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Idso SB, Allen SG, Choudhury BJ (1988) Problems with porometry: measuring stomatal conductances of potentially transpiring plants. Agric For Meteorol 43:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jayasekara C, Jayasekara K, Nainanayake N (1996) Photosynthetic characristics and productivity of the coconut palm. COCOS 11:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavoie-Lamoureux A, Sacco D, Risse P-A, Lovisolo C (2017) Factors influencing stomatal conductance in response to water availability in grapevine: a meta-analysis. Physiol Plant 159:468–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McDermitt D (1990) Sources of error in the estimation of stomatal conductance and transpiration from porometer data. HortScience 25:1538–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Medrano H, Escalona JM, Bota J, Gulías J, Flexas J (2002) Regulation of photosynthesis of C3 plants in response to progressive drought: stomatal conductance as a reference parameter. Ann Bot 89:895–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Medrano H, Escalona JM, Cifre J, Bota J, Flexas J (2003) A ten-year study on the physiology of two Spanish grapevine cultivars under field conditions: effects of water availability from leaf photosynthesis to grape yield and quality. Funct Plant Biol 30:607–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miner GL, Bauerle WL (2017) Seasonal variability of the parameters of the Ball-Berry model of stomatal conductance in maize (Zea mays L.) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) under well-watered and water-stressed conditions. Plant Cell Environ 40:1874–1886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monteith JL (1990) Porometry and baseline analysis: the case for compatibility. Agric For Meteorol 49:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monteith JL, Campbell GS, Potter EA (1988) Theory and performance of a dynamic diffusion porometer. Agric For Meteorol 44:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muir CD (2015) Making pore choices: repeated regime shifts in stomatal ratio. Proc R Soc B 282:20151498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pearcy RW, Schulze ED, Zimmermann R (1989) Measurement of transpiration and leaf conductance. In: Pearcy RW, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Rundel PW (eds) Plant physiological ecology: field methods and instrumentation. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poormohammad Kiani S, Grieu P, Maury P, Hewezi T, Gentzbittel L, Sarrafi A (2007) Genetic variability for physiological traits under drought conditions and differential expression of water stress-associated genes in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Theor Appl Genet 114:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rauf S, Sadaqat HA (2008) Identification of physiological traits and genotypes combined to high achene yield in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) under contrasting water regimes. Aust J Crop Sci 1:23–30Google Scholar
  31. Rebetzke G, Read J, Barbour M, Condon A, Rawson H (2000) A hand-held porometer for rapid assessment of leaf conductance in wheat. Crop Sci 40:277–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richardson F, Brodribb TJ, Jordan GJ (2017) Amphistomatic leaf surfaces independently regulate gas exchange in response to variations in evaporative demand. Tree Physiol 37:869–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosales MA, Ocampo E, Rodríguez-Valentín R, Olvera-Carrillo Y, Acosta-Gallegos J, Covarrubias AA (2012) Physiological analysis of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars uncovers characteristics related to terminal drought resistance. Plant Physiol Biochem 56:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Speirs J, Binney A, Collins M, Edwards E, Loveys B (2013) Expression of ABA synthesis and metabolism genes under different irrigation strategies and atmospheric VPDs is associated with stomatal conductance in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv Cabernet Sauvignon). J Exp Bot 64:1907–1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Team RDC (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.4.1). R Fundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. Turnbull TL, Buckley TN, Barlow AM, Adams MA (2014) Anatomical and physiological regulation of post-fire carbon and water exchange in canopies of two resprouting Eucalyptus species. Oecologia 176:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turner NC (1991) Measurement and influence of environmental and plant factors on stomatal conductance in the field. Agric For Meteorol 54:137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tyree MT, Wilmot TR (1990) Errors in the calculation of evaporation and leaf conductance in steady-state porometry: the importance of accurate measurement of leaf temperature. Can J Forest Res 20:1031–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Brazilian Society of Plant Physiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Fruticultura (CEAF)RengoChile
  2. 2.Research Group on Plant Biology Under Mediterranean Conditions, Department of BiologyUniversitat de les Illes BalearsPalma de MallorcaSpain

Personalised recommendations