Responses of Some Photosyntetic Parameters in C3 and C4 Crop Plants Under Water Deficit

  • M. Castrillo
  • D. Fernández
  • A. M. Calcagno
  • I. Trujillo

Abstract

Some authors(1) concluded that photosynthesis at low Ψw was more limited by the loss of chloroplast activity than by increased difussive resistance. RBPC activity decreased in bean and cotton plants at water stress(2)(3)(4). PEPC and RBPC activities decreased at water stress in barley plants(5). In mesophyll cells from bean and tomato plants there was decreased in CO2 fixation at fairly low osmotic potentials which simultaneous with stomatal closure(6). Recently it was reported(7) that in soybean leaves a non stomatal limitations of leaf photosynthesis under drought stress conditions appears to be due in part to a reduction in the in vivo activity of RBPC. On the other hand it has been reported that chlorophyll content (8) (9) (10) shows alterations due to water stress. In the present work we pretend to compare the responses of carboxylase activities and chlorophyl content to water deficit in two maize hybrids (C4)(CPB2 and CPB8), two tomato cultivars (C3)(Pera Quibor, PQ and Río Grande, RG) and two bean cultivars (C3)(Tacarigua,T and VUL-73-401,V).

Keywords

Water Stress Water Deficit Chlorophyll Content Tomato Plant Relative Water Content 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Matheus M.A. and Boyer J.S.(1984) Physiol Plant 57.21–6Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Toole J.C., Ozbun J.L. and Wallace D.H.(1977) Physiol Plant 40,111–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Toole J.C., Crookston R.K., Treharne K.J. and Ozbun J.L.(1976) Plant Physiol.57.465–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones H.G.(1973).New Phytol.72,1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huffaker R.C., Radin T., Kleinkopf G.E. and Cox E.L.(1970).Crop Sci. 10.471–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mawson B.T. and Coleman B.(1983).Physiol Plant. 57,21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vu J.C.V., Allen L.H. Jr. and Bowes G.(1987).Plant Physiol.83,573–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maranville J.W. and Paulsen G.M.(1970) Agron. Jr. 62,605–08CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haspel-Horvatovic E. and Holubkova B.(1981).Phytopath Z. 100,340–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kao C.H.(1981)Plant Cell Physiol. 22,683–88Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner N.C.(1981) Plant Soil 58, 339–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorimer T.J. (1976) Biochemistry 15, 529–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Servaites J.C., Parry M.A.J., Gutteridge S. and Keys A.(1986) Plant Physiol 82,1161–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Doncaster H.D. and Leegood R.C.(1978) Plant Physiol.84,82–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castrillo M.(1978)D.Phil. Thesis. Botany Dept. Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruinsma J.(1983) Photochem. Photobiol. 2,241–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J.(1981).Biometry.V.H.Freeman Co.S.FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaiser W.M., Schroppel Meir G. and Wirth E.(1986) Planta 167,292–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaiser W.M.(1978)Physiol Plant. 71, 142–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Castrillo
    • 1
  • D. Fernández
    • 1
  • A. M. Calcagno
    • 1
  • I. Trujillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Biología de OrganismosUniversidad Simón BolívarCaracasVenezuela

Personalised recommendations