| Research Articles |
|
|
|
|
| Spatio-temporal variation in transpiration responses of maize plants to vapor pressure deficit under an arid climatic condition |
| ZHAO Wenzhi1,2*, JI Xibin1,2 |
1 Linze Inland River Basin Research Station, Chinese Ecosystem Network Research, Lanzhou 730000, China;
2 Key Laboratory of Ecohydrology of Inland River Basin, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China |
|
|
|
Abstract The transpiration rate of plant is physically controlled by the magnitude of the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and stomatal conductance. A limited-transpiration trait has been reported for many crop species in different environments, including Maize (Zea mays L.). This trait results in restricted transpiration rate under high VPD, and can potentially conserve soil water and thus decrease soil water deficit. However, such a restriction on transpiration rate has never been explored in maize under arid climatic conditions in northwestern China. The objective of this study was to examine the transpiration rate of field-grown maize under well-watered conditions in an arid area at both leaf and whole plant levels, and therefore to investigate how transpiration rate responding to the ambient VPD at different spatial and temporal scales. The transpiration rates of maize at leaf and plant scales were measured independently using a gas exchange system and sapflow instrument, respectively. Results showed significant variations in transpiration responses of maize to VPD among different spatio-temporal scales. A two-phase transpiration response was observed at leaf level with a threshold of 3.5 kPa while at the whole plant level, the daytime transpiration rate was positively associated with VPD across all measurement data, as was nighttime transpiration response to VPD at both leaf and whole plant level, which showed no definable threshold vapor pressure deficit, above which transpiration rate was restricted. With regard to temporal scale, transpiration was most responsive to VPD at a daily scale, moderately responsive at a half-hourly scale, and least responsive at an instantaneous scale. A similar breakpoint (about 3.0 kPa) in response of the instantaneous leaf stomatal conductance and hourly canopy bulk conductance to VPD were also observed. At a daily scale, the maximum canopy bulk conductance occurred at a VPD about 1.7 kPa. Generally, the responsiveness of stomatal conductance to VPD at the canopy scale was lower than that at leaf scale. These results indicate a temporal and spatial heterogeneity in how maize transpiration responses to VPD under arid climatic conditions. This could allow a better assessment of the possible benefits of using the maximum transpiration trait to improve maize drought tolerance in arid environment, and allow a better prediction of plant transpiration which underpin empirical models for stomatal conductance at different spatio-temporal scales in the arid climatic conditions.
|
|
Received: 11 September 2015
Published: 01 June 2016
|
| Fund: The National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (41125002)
The Chinese National Natural Science Foundation (41271036) |
|
Corresponding Authors:
|
|
|
| Baker J M, Van Bavel C H M. 1987. Measurement of mass flow of water in the stems of herbaceous plants. Plant, Cell and Environment, 10(9): 777−782.Barbour M M, Buckley T N. 2007. The stomatal response to evaporative demand persists at night in Ricinus communis plants with high nocturnal conductance. Plant, Cell and Environment, 30(6): 711−721.Belko N, Zaman-Allah M, Diop N N, et al. 2013. Restriction of transpiration rate under high vapour pressure deficit and non-limiting water conditions is important for terminal drought tolerance in cowpea. Plant Biology, 15(2): 304−316.Bucci S J, Scholz F G, Goldstein G, et al. 2004. Processes preventing nocturnal equilibration between leaf and soil water potential in tropical savanna woody species. Tree Physiology, 24(10): 1119−1127.Bunce J A. 1981. Comparative responses of leaf conductance to humidity in single attached leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany, 32(3): 629−634.Bunce J A. 1996. Does transpiration control stomatal responses to water vapour pressure deficit? Plant, Cell and Environment, 19(2): 131−135.Chen X, Li B L, Li Q, et al. 2012. Spatio-temporal pattern and changes of evapotranspiration in arid Central Asia and Xinjiang of China. Journal of Arid Land, 4(1): 105−112.Choudhary S, Sinclair T R, Messina C D, et al. 2015. Inhibitor screen for limited-transpiration trait among maize hybrids. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 109: 161−167.Collatz G J, Ball J T, Grivert C, et al. 1991. Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 54(2−4): 107−136.Devi M J, Sinclair T R, Vadez V. 2010. Genotypic variation in peanut for transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit. Crop Science, 50(1): 191−196.Farquhar G D. 1978. Feedforward responses of stomata to humidity. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 5(8): 787−800.Fletcher A L, Sinclair T R, Allen Jr L H. 2007. Transpiration responses to vapor pressure deficit in well watered ‘slow-wilting’ and commercial soybean. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 61(2): 145−151.Franks P J, Cowan I R, Farquhar G D. 1997. The apparent feedforward response of stomata to air vapour pressure deficit: information revealed by different experimental procedures with two rainforest trees. Plant, Cell and Environment, 20(1): 142−145.Gholipoor M, Choudhary S, Sinclair T R, et al. 2013. Transpiration response of maize hybrids to atmospheric vapour pressure deficit. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 199(3): 155−160.Gholipoor M, Prasad P V V, Mutava R N, et al. 2010. Genetic variability of transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit among sorghum genotypes. Field Crops Research, 119(1): 85−90.Gilbert M E, Holbrook N M, Zwieniecki M A, et al. 2011. Field confirmation of genetic variation in soybean transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit and photosynthetic compensation. Field Crops Research, 124(1): 85−92.Grantz D A. 1990. Plant response to atmospheric humidity. Plant, Cell and Environment, 13(7): 667−679.Hirasawa T, Hsiao T C. 1999. Some characteristics of reduced leaf photosynthesis at midday in maize growing in the field. Field Crops Research, 62(1): 53−62.Jarvis P G, McNaughton K G. 1986. Stomatal control of transpiration: scaling up from leaf to region. Advance in Ecological Research, 15: 1−49.Ji X B, Kang E S, Chen R S, et al. 2006. The impact of the development of water resources on environment in arid inland river basins of Hexi region, Northwestern China. Environmental Geology, 50(6): 793−801.Ji X B, Zhao W Z, Kang E S, et al. 2011a. Carbon dioxide, water vapor, and heat fluxes over agricultural crop field in an arid oasis of Northwest China, as determined by eddy covariance. Environmental Earth Sciences, 64(3): 619−929.Ji X B, Zhao W Z, Kang E S, et al. 2011b. Carbon dioxide exchange in an irrigated agricultural field within an oasis, Northwest China. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 50(11): 2298−2308.Jones H G. 1998. Stomatal control of photosynthesis and transpiration. Journal of Experimental Botany, 49(Suppl.): 387−398.Jones P G, Thornto P K. 2003. The potential impacts of climate change on maize production in Africa and Latin America in 2055. Global Environmental Change, 13(1): 51−59.Kang E, Lu L, Xu Z. 2007. Vegetation and carbon sequestration and their relation to water resources in an inland river basin of Northwest China. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(3): 702−710.Kholová J, Hash C T, Kumar P L, et al. 2010. Terminal drought-tolerant pear millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] have high leaf ABA and limit transpiration at high vapour pressure deficit. Journal of Experimental Botany, 61(5): 1431−1440.McNaughton K G, Jarvis P G. 1991. Effects of spatial scale on stomatal control of transpiration. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 54(2−4): 279−302.Monteith J L. 1995. A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity. Plant, Cell and Environment, 18(4): 357−364.Monteith J L, Unsworth M. 1990. Principles of Environmental Physics (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold, 195−198.Mott K A. 2007. Leaf hydraulic conductivity and stomatal responses to humidity in amphistomatous leaves. Plant, Cell and Environment, 30(11): 1444−1449.Mott K A, Parkhurst D F. 1991. Stomatal response to humidity in air and helox. Plant, Cell and Environment, 14(5): 509−515.Mott K A, Peak D. 2010. Stomatal responses to humidity and temperature in darkness. Plant, Cell and Environment, 30(7): 1084−1090.Oren R, Sperry J S, Katul G G, et al. 1999. Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapor pressure deficit. Plant, Cell and Environment, 22(12): 1515−1526.Passioura J B, Angus J F. 2010. Improving productivity of crops in water-limited environments. Advance in Agronomy, 106: 37−75.Ray J D, Gesch R W, Sinclair T R, et al. 2002. The effect of vapor pressure deficit on maize transpiration response to a drying soil. Plant and Soil, 239(1): 113−121.Rebetzke G J, Condon A G, Richards R A, et al. 2003. Gene action for leaf conductance in three wheat crosses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 54(4): 381−387.Riar M K, Sinclair T R, Vara Prasad P V. 2015. Persistence of limited-transpiration-rate trait in sorghum at high temperature. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 115: 58−62.Sadok W, Sinclair T R. 2009. Genetic variability of transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit among soybean cultivars. Crop Science, 49(3): 955−960.Sakuratani T. 1981. A heat balance method for measuring water flux in the stem of intact plants. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 37(1): 9−17.Seversike T M, Sermons S M, Sinclair T R, et al. 2013. Temperature interactions with transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit among cultivated and wild soybean genotypes. Phsiologia Plantarum, 148(1): 62−73. Shekoofa A, Balota M, Sinclair T R. 2014. Limited-transpiration trait evaluated in growth chamber and field for sorghum genotypes. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 99: 175−179. Shekoofa A, Devi J M, Sinclair T R, et al. 2013. Divergence in drought-resistance traits among parents of recombinant peanut inbred lines. Crop Science, 53(6): 2569−2576.Sinclair T R, Hammer G L, van Oosterom E J. 2005. Potential yield and water-use efficiency benefits in sorghum from limited maximum transpiration rate. Functional Plant Biology, 32(10): 945−952. Sinclair T S, Zwieniecki M A, Holbrook N M. 2008. Low leaf hydraulic conductance associated with drought tolerance in soybean. Physiologia Plantarum, 132(4): 446−451. Taiz L, Zeiger E. 2002. Plant Physiology (3rd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, 57−64.Takagi K, Tsuboya T, Takahashi H. 1998. Diurnal hystereses of stomatal and bulk surface conductances in relation to vapor pressure deficit in a cool-temperate wetland. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 91(3−4): 177−191.Yang Z J, Sinclair T R, Zhu M, et al. 2012. Temperature effect on transpiration response of maize plants to vapour pressure deficit. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 78: 157−162.Zhang X H, Yang D G, Xiang X Y, et al. 2012. Impact of agricultural development on variation in surface runoff in arid regions: a case of the Aksu River Basin. Journal of Arid Land, 4(4): 339−410. |
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
