Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stomatal behavior of potatoes under nonlimiting soil water conditions

  • Published:
American Potato Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to examine the relative effects of net irradiance (Rn), air vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and leaf water potential (Ψ1), on leaf conductance, (C1) of well-watered potatoes. Conductances of sunlit, surface-layer leaves for the cultivars Russet Burbank, Kennebec and Lemhi Russet were positively correlated with Rn (r2=0.79, 0.83 and 0.62, respectively) for Rn between 100 and 650 Wm-2. Leaf conductance (cm s-1) for all three cultivars was described by the linear relation: C1=0.871 +0.0028 Rn (r2=0.73). Mean C1 for a full Russet Burbank canopy, comprised of measurements from both sunlit and shaded leaves, was also linearly related to Rn. Although VPD and Ψ1 were significantly correlated with C1 (r2=0.44 and 0.46, respectively), the results of multiple regression analysis showed that they had no additional effect on C1 beyond that attributed to Rn. These results indicate that potato leaf conductance is primarily related to irradiance under nonlimiting soil water conditions.

Resumen

Se condujeron estudios de campo para determinar los efectos relativos de la irradiación (Rn), del déficit de presión de vapor del aire (VPD) y del potencial de agua en la hoja (I1), sobre la conductancia foliar (C1) de papas debidamente irrigadas. Las conductancias de las capas superficiales de las hojas iluminadas por el sol, para los cultivares Russet Burbank, Kennebec y Lemhi Russet, estuvieron positivamente correlacionadas con Rn (r2=0,79, 0,83 y 0,62 respectivamente) para Rn entre 100 y 650 Wm-2. La conductancia de la hoja (cm s-1) para los tres cultivares estuvo representada por la relación lineal: C1=0,871 + 0,0028 Rn (r2=0,73). La C1 media para el follaje completa de Russet Burbank, comprendió mediciones tanto de hojas iluminadas por sel sol como de hojas en la sombra y estuvo también correlacionada linealmente con Rn. No obstante que el VPD y el I1 estuvieron significativamente correlacionados con C1 (r2=0,44 y 0,46 respectivamente), los resultados del análisis de regresión múltiple mostraron que ellos no tuvieron efecto adicional sobre C1 más allá del atribuído a Rn. Estos resultados indican que, bajo condiciones de humedad ilimitada del suelo, la conductancia de las hojas de papa está principalmente correlacionada con la irradiación.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. Ackerson, R.C., D.R. Krieg, T.D. Miller and R.G. Stevens. 1977. Water relations and physiological activity of potatoes. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 102:572–575.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aston, M.J. 1976. Variations of stomatal diffusion resistance with ambient humidity in sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Aust J Plant Physiol 3:489–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carlson, R.E., N.N. Momen, O. Arjmand and R.H. Shaw. 1979. Leaf conductance and leaf water potential relationships for two soybean cultivars grown under controlled irrigation. Agron J 71:321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Choudhury, B.J. and S.B. Idso. 1985. An empirical model for stomatal resistance of field-grown wheat. Agric For Meteorol 36:65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Denmead, O.T. and B.D. Millar. 1976. Field studies of the conductance of wheat leaves and transpiration. Agron J 68:307–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dwelle, R.B., P.J. Hurley and J.J. Pavek. 1983. Photosynthesis and stomatal conductance of potato clones. Plant Physiol 72:172–176.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dwelle, R.B., G.E. Kleinkopf and J.J. Pavek. 1981. Stomatal conductance and gross photosynthesis of potato (Solatium tuberosum L.) as influenced by irradiance, temperature, and growth stage. Potato Res 24:49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gandar, P.W. and C.B. Tanner. 1976. Leaf growth, tuber growth and water potential in potatoes. Crop Sci 16:534–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hall, A.E. and G.J. Hoffman. 1976. Leaf conductance response to humidity and water transport in plants. Agron J 68:876–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hall, A.E. and M.R. Kaufmann. 1975. Stomatal response to environment withSesamum indicum L. Plant Physiol 55:455–459.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Idso, S.B. 1983. Stomatal regulation for evaporation from well-watered plant canopies: a new synthesis. Agric Meteorol 29:213–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson, J.D. and W.K. Ferrell. 1983. Stomatal response to vapour pressure deficit and effect on plant water stress. Plant, Cell and Environment 6:451–456.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jones, H.G. 1983. Plants and microclimate. Cambridge University Press, The Pitt building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kaufmann, M.R. 1982. Leaf conductance as a function of photosynthetic photon flux density and absolute humidity difference from leaf to air. Plant Physiol 69:1018–1022.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Little, T.M. and F.J. Hills. 1978. Agricultural experimentation. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Morison, J.I.L. and R.M. Gifford. 1983. Stomatal sensitivity to carbon dioxide and humidity. Plant Physiol 71:789–796.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sheriff, D.W. 1977. The effect of humidity on water uptake by, and viscous-flow resistance of, excised leaves of a number of species. Physiological and anatomical observations. J Exp Bot 28:1399–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shimshi, D., J. Shalhevet and T. Meir. 1983. Irrigation regime effects on some physiological responses of potato. Agron J 75:262–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stark, J.C. and J.L. Wright. 1985. Relationship between foliage temperature and water stress in potatoes. Am Potato J 62:57–68.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thomas, J.C., K.W. Brown and W.R. Jordan. 1976. Stomatal response to leaf water potential as affected by preconditioning water stress in the field. Agron J 68:706–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. van Loon, C.D. 1981. The effect of water stress on potato growth, development and yield. Am Potato J 58:51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wolfe, D.W., E. Fereres and R.E. Voss. 1983. Growth and yield responses of two potato cultivars at various levels of applied water. Irrig Sci 3:211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Young, E., J.M. Hand and S.C. Wiest. 1981. Diurnal variation in water potential components and stomatal resistance of irrigated peach seedlings. J Am Hortic Sci 106:337–340.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho Research and Extension Center, 83210, Aberdeen, Idaho

    J. C. Stark (Assistant Research Professor)

Authors
  1. J. C. Stark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Approved for publication by the Director of the Idaho Agric. Expt. Station as research paper No. 86741.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stark, J.C. Stomatal behavior of potatoes under nonlimiting soil water conditions. American Potato Journal 64, 301–309 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853522

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853522

Key Words

Search

Navigation