, Volume 64, Issue 3, pp 344–354 | Cite as

Carbon relations and competition between woody species in a Central European hedgerow

II. Stomatal responses, water use, and hydraulic conductivity in the root/leaf pathway
  • M. Küppers
Original Papers


Responses of stomata to humidity, light intensity, and leaf water status were investigated throughout a growth season under field conditions for five competing woody species dominating in various stages of a Central European hedgerow. Humidity sensitivity of stomata varied between species. Leaf conductance to H2O, g, as measured in steady-state humidity response curves under constant climatic conditions, remained on high summer levels in Prunus and Crataegus, and on a lower level in Acer, but fell from a high spring level to a low summer level in Ribes and Rubus. The effect of partial stomatal closure in dry air on CO2 uptake, A, varied seasonally and between species. Responses of stomata to light, measured by tracking gas exchange in the field but for controlled climatic conditions, were hyperbolic, similar to CO2 assimilation. The relationship between g and A at variable irradiance was always linear and depended on the species investigated and on the leaf age. In no case did stomata respond to short-term (hourly) changes in leaf water potential (up to 13.5 bar).

A low leaf conductance level appeared to be correlated with low hydraulic conductivity in the plant, G, whereas high G in most cases coincided with high stomatal conductances. In Ribes and Rubus G and stomatal opening at maximum CO2 uptake varied in parallel during the season at high soil water content, suggesting a root/stomata interaction independent of plant water status. Water use efficiency (WUE, at certain leaf/air water vapour concentration differences), as determined from light and humidity responses of stomata and CO2 assimilation, was high in species of low G (Ribes, Rubus), and low in species of high G (Prunus, Crataegus). Surprisingly, species of low WUE optimized gas exchange in the sense of Cowan and Farquhar's (1977) theory, where stomata maximized CO2 uptake at a certain water loss within a certain period, while species of high WUE did not optimize in this sense. Other control mechanisms at the leaf level independent from optimization may be involved.

It appeared that low G and loss of humidity sensitivity of stomata in Ribes limited distribution of this species outside the half shade of the hedgerow, as exposed plant parts desiccated on dry days. However, water use efficiency per se did not determine species-specific competitive ability, as it was highest in species of low competitive strength.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benecke U, Schulze E-D, Matyssek R, Havranek M (1981) Environmental control of CO2 assimilation and leaf conductance in Larix decidua Mill. I. A comparison of contrasting natural environments. Oecologia 50:54–61Google Scholar
  2. Bradford KJ, Hsiao TC (1982) Physiological responses to moderate water stress. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Physiological plant ecology II. Encyclopedia of plant physiology, new series Springer, Berlin vol 12B. pp 263–324Google Scholar
  3. Cowan IR (1977) Stomatal behaviour and environment. Adv Bot Res 4:117–228Google Scholar
  4. Cowan IR, Farquhar GD (1977) Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment. In: Integration of activity in the higher plant. Soc Exp Biol Symp 31. Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 471–505Google Scholar
  5. Farquhar GD (1978) Feedforward responses of stomata to humidity. Aust J Plant Physiol 5:787–800Google Scholar
  6. Farquhar GD, Dubbe DR, Raschke K (1978) Gain of the feedback loop involving carbon dioxide and stomata. Plant Physiol 62:406–412Google Scholar
  7. Farquhar GD, Schulze E-D, Küppers M (1980) Responses to humidity by stomata of Nicotiana glauca L. and Corylus avellana L. are consistent with the optimization of carbon dioxide uptake with respect to water loss. Aust J Plant Physiol 7:315–327Google Scholar
  8. Hall AE, Schulze E-D (1980) Stomatal responses to environment and a possible interrelation between stomatal effects on transpiration and CO2 assimilation. Plant Cell Environ 3:467–474Google Scholar
  9. Hinckley TM, Lassoie JP, Running SW (1978) Temporal and spatial variations in water status of forest trees. Forest Sci Monographs 20:1–72Google Scholar
  10. Koch W, Lange OL, Schulze E-D (1971) Ecophysiological investigations on wild and cultivated plants in the Negev desert. I. Methods: A mobile laboratory for measuring carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange. Oecologia 8:296–309Google Scholar
  11. Küppers M (1982) Kohlenstoffhaushalt, Wasserhaushalt, Wachstum und Wuchsform von Holzgewächsen im Konkurrenzgefüge eines Heckenstandortes. Dr thesis BayreuthGoogle Scholar
  12. Küppers M (1984) Carbon relations and competition between woody species in a hedgerow. I. Photosynthetic characteristics. Oecologia (Berlin) 64:332–343Google Scholar
  13. Küppers M (in press) Carbon relations and competition between woody species in a hedgerow. III. Carbon and water balance on the leaf level. Oecologia (Berlin)Google Scholar
  14. Küppers M, Zech W, Schulze E-D, Beck E (in press) CO2 assimilation, transpiration and growth of Pinus silvestris L. at different Magnesium-nutrition. Forstwiss. CentralblattGoogle Scholar
  15. Lange OL, Lösch R, Schulze E-D, Kappen L (1971) Responses of stomata to changes in humidity. Planta 100:76–86Google Scholar
  16. Passioura JB (1982) Water in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Physiological plant ecology II. Encyclopedia of plant physiology, new series Springer, Berlin, vol 12B. pp 5–33Google Scholar
  17. Rauh W (1938) Über die Verzweigung ausläuferbildender Sträucher. Hercynia, 187–231. Halle/SaaleGoogle Scholar
  18. Schulze E-D (1970) Der CO2-Gaswechsel der Buche (Fagus silvatica L.) in Abhängigkeit von den Klimafaktoren im Freiland. Flora 159, 177–232Google Scholar
  19. Schulze E-D, Hall E (1982) Stomatal resonses, water loss and CO2 assimilation rates of plants in contrasting environments. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Physiological plant ecology II. Encyclopedia of plant physiology, new series Springer, Berlin, vol 12B. pp 181–230Google Scholar
  20. Schulze E-D, Küppers M (1979) Short-term and long-term effect of plant water deficits on stomatal response to humidity in Corylus avellana L. Planta 146:319–326Google Scholar
  21. Schulze E-D, Reif A, Küppers M (1982) Ökologische Funktions-analyse von Hecken und Flurgehölzen-ökologische Untersuchungen über Strukturen und Funktionen der Pflanzen in Feldhecken und deren Beziehung zu angrenzenden Biotopen. Schlußbericht des Lehrstuhls für Pflanzenökologie der Universität Bayreuth an das Bayerische Landesamt für Umweltschutz in München. Bayreuth. p 450Google Scholar
  22. Turner NC, Long MJ (1980) Errors arising from rapid water loss in the measurement of leaf water potential by the pressure chamber technique. Aust J Plant Physiol 7:527–537Google Scholar
  23. Turner NC, Schulze E-D, Gollan T (1984) The responses of stomata to vapour pressure deficits and soil water content. II. In the mesophytic herbaceous species Helianthus annuus (in prep)Google Scholar
  24. Waring RH, Running SW (1978) Sapwood water storage: its contribution to transpiration and effect upon water conductance through the stems of old-growth Douglas-fir. Plant Cell Environ 1:131–140Google Scholar
  25. Wong SC (1979) Stomatal behaviour in relation to photosynthesis. Ph D Thesis, Aust Nat Univ, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  26. Wong SC, Cowan IR, Farquhar GD (1978) Leaf conductance in relation to assimilation in Eucalyptus pauciflora Sieb. ex Spreng: Influence of irradiance and partial pressure of carbon dioxide. Plant Physiol 62:670–764Google Scholar
  27. Zwölfer H, Bauer G, Heusinger G (1981) Ökologische Funktions-analyse von Hecken und Flurgehölzen-Tierökologische Untersuchungen über Struktur und Funktion biozönotischer Komplexe. Schlußbericht des Lehrstuhl Tierökologe an das Bayerische Landesamt für Umweltschutz, München, Bayreuth p 422Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Küppers
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für PflanzenökologieUniversität BayreuthBayreuthFederal Republic of Germany
  2. 2.Division of Forest ResearchCSIROYarralumlaAustralia

Personalised recommendations