Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 95, Issue 1, pp 69–76 | Cite as

Water stress preconditioning and cotton root pressure-flux relationships

  • D. M. Oosterhuis
  • H. H. Wiebe
Article

Summary

Because little is known about the effects of water stress preconditioning on the pressure-flux relationships of cotton roots, we investigated some of these relationships using detopped root systems of potted cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants. Water stress preconditioning decreased root pressure flux by 51% compared to the well-watered control. Preconditioning had no effect on the exponential nature of the increasing pressure-flux relationship, but did displace the curve such that the flux was lessened at all increasing and decreasing pressures applied. We suggest that the exponential flux response to increasing pressure was by infiltration of intercellular air spaces in the root cortex at higher pressures. With inverted water potential gradients, preconditioning resulted in significantly less water flowing from the roots to the soil. These effects of previous water stress history on the various flux relationships might be associated with an increased root resistance following the stress, and it is suggested that the controlling mechanism is located in the endodermis.

Key words

Gossypium hirsutum Hydraulic conductivity Preconditioning Root pressure Water stress 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barrs H D 1966 Root pressure and leaf water potential. Science 152, 1266–1268.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cutler J M and Rains D W 1978 Effects of water stress and hardening on the internal water relations and osmotic constituents of cotton leaves. Physiol. Plant. 42, 201–268.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalton F N, Raats P A C and Gardner W R 1975 Simultaneous uptake of water and solutes by plants. Agron. J. 67, 334–339.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kramer P J 1950 Effects of wilting on the subsequent intake of water by plants. Am. J. Bot. 37, 280–284.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuiper P J C 1963 Some considerations on water transport across living cell membranes.In Stomata and Water Relations in Plants. Ed. I Zelitch Connecticut Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 664, 59–68.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levitt J 1980 Response of Plants to Environmental Stresses, Vol. II, Water, Radiation, Salt and other Stresses. 2nd Ed, Academic Press, New York 609 pp.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lopushinsky W and Kramer P J 1961 Effect of water movement on salt movement through tomato roots. Nature 192, 994–995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maximov N A 1929 The Plant in Relation to Water: A Study of the Physiological Basis of Drought Resistance. G Allen and Unwind Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mees G C and Weatherley P E 1957 The mechanism of water absorption by roots. II. The role of hydrostatic pressure gradients across the cortex. Proc. Royal Soc. London B 147, 381–391.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller D M 1981 Pressure-flow characteristic of the root ofZea mays. Plant and Soil 63, 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molz F J and Peterson C M 1976 Water transport from roots to soil. Agron. J. 68, 901–904.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newman E I 1966 Method of estimating the total length of root in a sample. J. Appl. Ecol. 3, 139–145.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nimah M and Hanks R J 1973 Model for estimating soil water, plant and atmospheric interrelations: I. Description and sensitivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37, 522–527.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oosterhuis D M 1983 Resistances to water flow through the soil-plant system. South African J. Sci. 79, 459–465.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oosterhuis D M 1981 Hydrualic conductivity and drought acclimation of cotton root systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan. Diss. Abs. Int. 42(6). 128 p.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parsons L R and Kramer P J 1974 Diurnal cycling in root resistance to water movement. Physiol. Plant. 30, 19–23.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Passioura J B 1972 The effect of root geometry on the yield of wheat growing on stored water. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 23 745–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Priestley J H 1920 The mechanism of root pressure. New Phytol. 19, 189–200.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Radin J W and Eidenbock M P 1984 Hydraulic conductance as a factor in limiting leaf expansion of phosphorus-deficient cotton plants. Plant Physiol. 75, 372–377.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ramos C and Kaufmann M R 1979 Hydraulic resistance of rough lemon roots. Physiol. Plant. 45, 311–314.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shirazi G A, Stone J F, Croy L I and Tood G W 1975 Changes in root resistance as a function of applied suction, time of day and root temperature. Physiol. Plant. 33, 214–218.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steudle E and Jeschke W D 1983 Water transport in barley roots. Measurements of root pressure and hydraulic conductivity of roots in parallel with turgor and hydraulic conductivity of root cells. Planta 158, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stocker R and Weatherley P E 1971 The influence of the root system and the relationship between the rate of transpiration and depression of leaf water potential. New Phytol. 70, 540–554.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taerum R 1973 Occurrence of inverted water potential gradients between soil and bean roots. Physiol. Plant. 28, 471–475.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tinklin R and Weatherley P E 1968 The effect of transpiration rate on leaf water potential of sand and soil rooted plants. New Phytol. 67, 605–615.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weatherley P E 1982 Water uptake and flow in roots.In Water Relations and Carbon Assimilation. Eds. O L Lange, P S Nobel, C B Osmond and H Ziegler. pp 70–109. Physiological Plant Ecology II. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Oosterhuis
    • 1
  • H. H. Wiebe
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations