EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,623,987
Abstracts:
29,492,080
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Differences in stomatal response within a cotton canopy



Differences in stomatal response within a cotton canopy



Biotronics 19: 39-48



Potted cotton [Gossypium hirsutum] plants were grown in the open to investigate the causes for differences in the dynamic behavior of stomata of top and bottom leaves of cotton plants. Half of the plants were subjected to a six day long drying cycle. The leaf water potential, abaxial (lower leaf surface) and adaxial (upper leaf surface) stomatal resistance, leaf temperature, initial osmotic potential and bulk modulus oif elasticity of top bottom leaves were studied in detail. Our results show that abaxial stomata of bottom leaves have a threshold leaf water potential of -1.3 MPa compared to -2.0 MPa for abaxial stomata of top leaves. The threshold leaf water potential value for adaxial stomata was in the range of -1.0 MPa for both top and bottom leaves. Leaf-air temperature difference was influenced to a large extent by leaf position in the canopy. Initial osmotic potential was similar for top and bottom leaves. Bulk modulus of elasticity was lower in top leaves and decreased with an increase in the level of leaf water deficit. It is postulated that the lower bulk modulus of elastiticity of top leaves is responsible for their lower threshold leaf water potential actuating the stomatal feedback system. The observed differences resulted in a delay of two days in the closure of abaxial stomata of top leaves.

(PDF 0-2 workdays service: $29.90)

Accession: 002072344

Download citation: RISBibTeXText



Related references

Canopy temperature on clear and cloudy days can be used to estimate varietal differences in stomatal conductance in rice. Field Crops Research5: 2, 165-170, 2010

Light response of Juniperus ashei and its role in spatial differences of seedlings beneath the woodland canopy and canopy edge. Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting Abstracts 87: 293, 2002

Species differences in stomatal control of water loss at the canopy scale in a mature bottomland deciduous forest. Advances in water resources 26(12): 1267-1278, 2003

Canopy position and leaf age affect stomatal response and water use of citrus. Journal of Crop Production 2(2): 163-179, 1999

Differences in canopy structure light interception and stomatal conductance patterns for the sympatric understory trees asimina triloba and ilex opaca. American Journal of Botany 72(6): 868, 1985

Transpiration and canopy stomatal conductance of 5-year-old loblolly pine in response to intensive management. Forest Science 52(3): 313-323, 2006

Seasonal changes in leaf area, stomatal and canopy conductances and transpiration from bracken below a forest canopy. Journal of Applied Ecology 17(2): 409-422, 1980

A comparison of models to estimate in-canopy photosynthetically active radiation and their influence on canopy stomatal resistance. Atmospheric Environment 35(26): 4463-4470, 2001

Seasonal changes in leaf area stomatal and canopy conductances and transpiration from bracken pteridium aquilinum below a forest canopy. Journal of Applied Ecology 17(2): 409-422, 1980

Response of total night-time respiration to differences in total daily photosynthesis for leaves in a Quercus rubra L. canopy: implications for modelling canopy CO2 exchange. Global Change Biology 10(6): 925-938, 2004

Response of total night-time respiration to differences in total daily photosynthesis for leaves in a Quercus rubra L. canopy: implications for modelling canopy CO subscript 2 exchange. Global change biology 10(6): 925-938, 2004

Regulation of water loss under moisture stress in sunflower genotypes stomatal sensitivity in relation to stomatal frequency diffusive resistances and transpiration rate at different canopy positions. Journal of Agricultural Science 105(3): 673-678, 1985

Evaluating plant and canopy resistances of field-grown wheat from concurrent diurnal observations of leaf water potential, stomatal resistance, canopy temperature, and evapotranspiration flux. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 34(1): 67-76, 1985

Response of cotton canopy to different irrigation regimes. Cotton Science 16(1): 21-2, 2004