Spatio-temporal variation in transpiration responses of maize plants to vapor pressure deficit under an arid climatic condition

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Wenzhi Zhao ; Xibin Ji
• 关键词：maize ; limited transpiration trait ; gas exchange ; sap flow ; stomatal conductance ; vapor pressure deficit
• 刊名：Journal of Arid Land
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：June 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：8
• 期：3
• 页码：409-421
• 全文大小：728 KB
• 参考文献：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.CrossRef
  Belko N, Zaman-Allah M, Diop N N, et al. 2013. Restriction of transpiration rate under high vapour pressure deficit and nonlimiting water conditions is important for terminal drought tolerance in cowpea. Plant Biology, 15(2): 304–316.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Bunce J A. 1981. Comparative responses of leaf conductance to humidity in single attached leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany, 32(3): 629–634.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Farquhar G D. 1978. Feedforward responses of stomata to humidity. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 5(8): 787–800.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Grantz D A. 1990. Plant response to atmospheric humidity. Plant, Cell and Environment, 13(7): 667–679.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Jarvis P G, McNaughton K G. 1986. Stomatal control of transpiration: scaling up from leaf to region. Advance in Ecological Research, 15: 1–49.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Jones H G. 1998. Stomatal control of photosynthesis and transpiration. Journal of Experimental Botany, 49(Suppl.): 387–398.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Monteith J L. 1995. A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity. Plant, Cell and Environment, 18(4): 357–364.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Mott K A, Parkhurst D F. 1991. Stomatal response to humidity in air and helox. Plant, Cell and Environment, 14(5): 509–515.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Passioura J B, Angus J F. 2010. Improving productivity of crops in water-limited environments. Advance in Agronomy, 106: 37–75.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  Sadok W, Sinclair T R. 2009. Genetic variability of transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit among soybean cultivars. Crop Science, 49(3): 955–960.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.CrossRef
  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.
  
• 作者单位：Wenzhi Zhao (1) (2)
  Xibin Ji (1) (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
  
• 刊物主题：Physical Geography; Plant Ecology; Sustainable Development;
• 出版者：Springer Berlin Heidelberg

文摘

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.