Skip to main content
Log in

The effect of vapor pressure deficit on maize transpiration response to a drying soil

  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A decline in plant transpiration has been widely observed to occur within a fairly stable range of threshold values of fraction transpirable soil water (FTSW), usually 0.3–0.4. However, the stability of this function has not been compared at various levels of atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD). Soil hydraulic conductivity is likely to be involved in determining the threshold where water supply is limiting. Thus, it was hypothesized that at a high VPD resulting in increased transpiration rates, the FTSW threshold for the decline of transpiration rates as a result of drying soil would be increased. This study was undertaken in controlled environment chambers with two maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids (Pioneer Brand Hybrids `3165' and `3737') so as to subject plants to four VPD levels (1.1, 2.0, 2.9 and 3.6 kPa) during a soil drying experiment. In contrast to the original hypothesis, there was little (≤ 0.05 FTSW) change in the threshold FTSW in response to increased VPD for either hybrid. In fact, over the narrow 0.31–0.38 FTSW range observed, the two hybrids showed opposite trends in FTSW threshold as VPD increased. These results supported the view that the FTSW threshold for the decline in transpiration with drying soil is stable, showing little sensitivity to changes in VPD.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arya L M, Leij F J, Shouse P J and Van Genuchten M T 1999 Relationship between the hydraulic conductivity function and the particle-size distribution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 1063–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker J T, Allen Jr L H, Boote K J and Pickering N B 1997 Rice responses to drought under carbon dioxide enrichment. 1. Growth and yield. Global Change Biol. 3, 119–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan I R 1965 Transport of water in the soil-plant-atmosphere system. J. Appl. Ecol. 2, 221–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai Z, Edwards G E and Ku M S B 1992 Control of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance in Ricinus communis L. (castor bean) by leaf to air vapor pressure deficit. Plant Physiol. 99, 1426–1434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denmead O T and Shaw R H 1962 Availability of soil water to plants as affected by soil moisture content and meteorological conditions. Agron. J. 54: 385–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Sharkawy M A, Cock J H and Held A A 1984 Water use ef-ficiency of cassava. II. Differing sensitivity of stomata to air humidity in cassava and other warm-climate species. Crop Sci. 2, 503–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar G D, Schulze E-D and Küppers M 1980 Responses to humidity by stomata of Nicotiana glauca (L.) and Corylus avellana (L.) are consistent with the optimization of CO2 uptake with respect to H2O loss. Aus. J. Plant Physiol. 7, 315–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollan T, Turner N C and Schulze E-D 1985 The responses of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapor pressure deficits and soil water content III. In the sclerophyllous woody species Nerium oleander. Oecologia 65, 356–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirasawa T and Hsiao T C 1999 Some characteristics of reduced leaf photosynthesis at midday in maize growing in the field. Field Crops Res. 62, 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirasawa T and Ishihara K 1991 On resistance to water transport in crop plants for estimating water uptake ability under intense transpiration. Jap. J. Crop Sci. 60, 174–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg E H and Hurdle P A 1997 Sap flow in trembling aspen: implications for stomatal responses to vapor pressure deficit. Tree Physiol. 17, 501–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao T C 1990 Plant-atmosphere interactions, evapotranspiration, and irrigation scheduling. Acta Hort. 278, 55–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones P, Jones J W, Allen Jr L H and Mishoe J W 1984 Dynamic computer control of closed environment plant growth chambers. Design and Verification. Trans. Am. Soc. Agricul. Eng. 27, 879–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawamitsu Y, Yoda S and Agata W 1993 Humidity pretreatment affects the response of stomata and CO2 assimilation to vapor pressure deficit difference in C3 and C4 plants. Plant Cell Physiol. 34, 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange O L, Losch R, Schulze E-D and Kappen L 1971 Responses of stomata to changes in humidity. Planta 100, 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maroco J P, Pereira J S and Chaves M M 1997 Stomatal responses to leaf-to-air vapour pressure deficit in sahelian species. Aus. J. Plant Physiol. 24, 381–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinzer F C and Grantz D A 1990 Stomatal and hydraulic conductance in growing sugarcane: Stomatal adjustment to water transport capacity. Plant Cell Environ. 13, 383–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinzer F C, Andrade J L, Goldstein G, Holbrook N M, Cavelair J and Jackson P 1997 Control of transpiration from the upper canopy of a tropical forest: the role of stomatal, boundary layer and hydraulic architecture components. Plant Cell and Environ. 20, 1242–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering N B, Allen Jr L H, Albrecht S L, Jones P, Jones J W and Baker J T 1994 Environmental plant chambers: Control and measurement using CR-10T dataloggers. In Computers in Agriculture. Eds. Watson D G, Zazueta F S and Harrison T V. pp 29–35. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, Orlando, FL, Feb 5-9. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. St. Joseph, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray J D and Sinclair T R 1997 Stomatal closure of maize hybrids in response to drying soil. Crop Sci. 37, 803–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray J D and Sinclair T R 1998 The effect of pot size on growth and transpiration of maize and soybean during water deficit stress. J. Exp. Bot. 49, 1381–1386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero C, De Pascale S and Fagnano M 1999 Plant and soil resistance to water flow in faba bean (Vicia faba L. major Harz.). Plant Soil 210, 219–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadras V O and Milroy S P 1996 Soil-water thresholds for the responses of leaf expansion and gas exchange: A review. Field Crops Res. 47, 253–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair T R, Hammond L C and Harrison J 1998 Extractable soil water and transpiration rate of soybean on sandy soils. Agron. J. 90, 363–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair T R and Ludlow M M 1986 Influence of soil water supply on the plant water balance of four tropical grain legumes. Aus. J. Plant Physiol. 13, 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tardieu F, Bruckler L and Lafolie F 1992 Root clumping may affect the root water potential and the resistance to soil-root water transport. Plant Soil 140, 291–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner N C, Schulze E-D and Gollan T 1984 The response of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapor pressure deficits and soil-water content. I. Species comparison at high soil water contents. Oecologia 63, 338–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner N C, Schulze E-D and Gollan T 1985 The response of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapor pressure deficits and soil water content. II. In the mesophytic herbaceous species Helianthus annus. Oecologia 65, 348–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisz R, Kaminski J and Smilowitz Z 1994 Water deficit effects on potato leaf growth and transpiration: Utilizing fraction extractable soil water for comparison with other crops. Am. Potato J. 71, 829–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou D S and Kahnt G 1988 Effect of air humidity on photosynthesis and transpiration of soybean leaves. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 161, 190–194.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ray, J.D., Gesch, R.W., Sinclair, T.R. et al. The effect of vapor pressure deficit on maize transpiration response to a drying soil. Plant and Soil 239, 113–121 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014947422468

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014947422468

Navigation