Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 41–48 | Cite as

Evaluating plant stress conditions in paprika by comparing internal electrical conductivity, photosynthetic response, and sap flow

  • Hyun Jun Park
  • Jin Hee Park
  • Kyoung Sub Park
  • Jung Eek SonEmail author
Research Report


A non-destructive analytical method to measure plant internal electrical conductivity (ECp) was developed to monitor plant responses to changes in environmental conditions. However, the relationship between ECp and plant physiological responses has not yet been established. The objective of the study was to evaluate the relationships among ECp, photosynthetic responses, and sap flow in paprika to monitor ECp in relation to changes in environmental conditions. High ECp levels were related to high photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate. Sap flow in the plant was also associated with ECp with a correlation coefficient of 0.606. However, the sap flow reflected only water flux, while ECp was determined by both water and ion content in stems of paprika. The ECp was predicted using environmental factors including temperature, irradiation, and relative humidity. A comparison of measured and predicted ECps could be used to detect unusual cultivation conditions for paprika such as drought and high temperature. Plant responses to water shortage were reflected by lower ECp compared to the predicted value.


Plant response Stomatal conductance Transpiration rate Water stress 



This research was supported by Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology of Food, Agriculture and Forestry (iPET) (115104033SB010).


  1. Alcázar R, Marco F, Cuevas JC, Patron M, Ferrando A, Carrasco P, Tiburcio AF, Altabella T (2006) Involvement of polyamines in plant response to abiotic stress. Biotechnol Lett 28:1867–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baek S, Jeon E, Park KS, Yeo KH, Lee J (2018) Monitoring of water transportation in plant stem with microneedle sap flow sensor. J Microelectromech Syst 27:440–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey S, Walters RG, Jansson S, Horton P (2001) Acclimation of Arabidopsis thaliana to the light environment: the existence of separate low light and high light responses. Planta 213:794–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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: Biggins J (ed) Progress in photosynthesis research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond BJ (2000) Age-related changes in photosynthesis of woody plants. Trends Plant Sci 5:349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bresson J, Vasseur F, Dauzat M, Koch G, Granier C, Vile D (2015) Quantifying spatial heterogeneity of chlorophyll fluorescence during plant growth and in response to water stress. Plant Methods 11:23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodribb TJ, Feild TS, Jordan GJ (2007) Leaf maximum photosynthetic rate and venation are linked by hydraulics. Plant Physiol 144:1890–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caird MA, Richards JH, Donovan LA (2007) Nighttime stomatal conductance and transpiration in C3 and C4 plants. Plant Physiol 143:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cochard H, Coll L, Le Roux X, Améglio T (2002) Unraveling the effects of plant hydraulics on stomatal closure during water stress in walnut. Plant Physiol 128:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruiziat P, Cochard H, Améglio T (2002) Hydraulic architecture of trees: main concepts and results. Ann For Sci 59:723–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farquhar GV, von Caemmerer SV, Berry JA (1980) A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149:78–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gora EM, Yanoviak SP (2014) Electrical properties of temperate forest trees: a review and quantitative comparison with vines. Can J For Res 45:236–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gurovich LA, Hermosilla P (2009) Electric signalling in fruit trees in response to water applications and light–darkness conditions. J Plant Physiol 166:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hubbard RM, Ryan MG, Stiller V, Sperry JS (2001) Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis vary linearly with plant hydraulic conductance in ponderosa pine. Plant Cell Environ 24:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humplík JF, Lazár D, Husičková A, Spíchal L (2015) Automated phenotyping of plant shoots using imaging methods for analysis of plant stress responses–a review. Plant Methods 11:29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ježík M, Blaženec M, Letts MG, Ditmarová Ľ, Sitková Z, Střelcová K (2015) Assessing seasonal drought stress response in Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) by monitoring stem circumference and sap flow. Ecohydrology 8:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jorge TF, Rodrigues JA, Caldana C, Schmidt R, van Dongen JT, Thomas-Oates J, António C (2016) Mass spectrometry-based plant metabolomics: metabolite responses to abiotic stress. Mass Spectrom Rev 35:620–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalaji HM, Jajoo A, Oukarroum A, Brestic M, Zivcak M, Samborska IA, Cetner MD, Łukasik I, Goltsev V et al (2016) Chlorophyll a fluorescence as a tool to monitor physiological status of plants under abiotic stress conditions. Acta Physiol Plant 38:102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim SH, Lieth JH (2003) A coulpled model of photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration for a rose leaf. Ann Bot 91:771–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koppán A, Fenyvesi A, Szarka L, Wesztergom V (2002) Measurement of electric potential difference on trees. Act Biol Szeg 46:37–38Google Scholar
  21. Lanoue J, Evangelos DL, Grodzinski B (2018) Effects of light quality and intensity on diurnal patterns and rates of photo-assimilate translocation and transpiration in tomato leaves. Front Plant Sci 9:756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. López-Bernal Á, Testi L, Villalobos FJ (2017) A single-probe heat pulse method for estimating sap velocity in trees. New Phytol 216:321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masmoudi CC, Masmoudi M, Abid-Karray J, Mechlia NB (2011) Sap flow measurements in young olive trees (Olea europaea L.) cv. Chetoui under Tunisian conditions. Sci Hortic 129:520–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Medlyn BE, Duursma RA, Eamus D, Ellsworth DS, Prentice IC, Barton CV, Crous KY, De Angelis P, Freeman M et al (2011) Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob Change Biol 17:2134–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nadezhdina N, Čermák J, Ceulemans R (2002) Radial patterns of sap flow in woody stems of dominant and understory species: scaling errors associated with positioning of sensors. Tree Physiol 22:907–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nardini A, Grego F, Trifilò P, Salleo S (2010) Changes of xylem sap ionic content and stem hydraulics in response to irradiance in Laurus nobilis. Tree Physiol 30:628–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Negrão S, Schmöckel SM, Tester M (2017) Evaluating physiological responses of plants to salinity stress. Ann Bot 119:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Niinemets Ü (2002) Stomatal conductance alone does not explain the decline in foliar photosynthetic rates with increasing tree age and size in Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiol 22:515–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ortuno MF, García-Orellana Y, Conejero W, Ruiz-Sánchez MC, Alarcón JJ, Torrecillas A (2006) Stem and leaf water potentials, gas exchange, sap flow, and trunk diameter fluctuations for detecting water stress in lemon trees. Trees 20:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osakabe Y, Osakabe K, Shinozaki K, Tran LSP (2014) Response of plants to water stress. Front Plant Sci 5:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Park HJ, Park JH, Park JS, Son JE (2018) Nondestructive measurement of paprika (Capsicum annuum L.) internal electrical conductivity and its relation to environmental factors. Hortic Sci Technol 36:691–701Google Scholar
  32. Peuke AD, Rokitta M, Zimmermann U, Schreiber L, Haase A (2001) Simultaneous measurement of water flow velocity and solute transport in xylem and phloem of adult plants of Ricinus communis over a daily time course by nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry. Plant Cell Environ 24:491–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Repo T (1988) Physical and physiological aspects of impedance measurements in plants. Silva Fennica 22:3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulze ED, Čermák J, Matyseek R, Penka M, Zimmermann R, Vasicek F (1985) Canopy transpiration and water fluxes in the xylem of the trunk of Larix and Picea trees—a comparison of xylem flow, porometer and cuvette measurements. Oecologia 66:475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinberg S, van Bavel CH, McFarland MJ (1989) A gauge to measure mass flow rate of sap in stems and trunks of woody plants. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 114:466–472Google Scholar
  36. Tuzet A, Perrier A, Leuning R (2003) A coupled model of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Plant Cell Environ 26:1097–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson KB, Hanson PJ, Mulholland PJ, Baldocchi DD, Wullschleger SD (2001) A comparison of methods for determining forest evapotranspiration and its components: sap-flow, soil water budget, eddy covariance and catchment water balance. Agric For Meteorol 106:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wullschleger SD, Hanson PJ, Todd DE (2001) Transpiration from a multi-species deciduous forest as estimated by xylem sap flow techniques. For Ecol Manag 143:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Horticultural Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyun Jun Park
    • 1
  • Jin Hee Park
    • 2
  • Kyoung Sub Park
    • 3
  • Jung Eek Son
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Plant ScienceSoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.School of Crop Science and Agricultural ChemistryChungbuk National UniversityCheongjuKorea
  3. 3.Protected Horticulture Research InstituteNational Institute of Horticultural and Herbal ScienceHamanKorea

Personalised recommendations