» Articles » PMID: 16657285

Effect of Carbon Dioxide, Osmotic Potential of Nutrient Solution, and Light Intensity on Transpiration and Resistance to Flow of Water in Pepper Plants

Overview
Journal Plant Physiol
Specialty Physiology
Date 1970 Jan 1
PMID 16657285
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The rate of transpiration, temperature of the leaves, and relative water content of leaves of pepper plants were measured in a small chamber in which the temperature, relative humidity, and carbon dioxide concentration of recirculated air were controlled and measured. The data reported were obtained by noting the response of pepper plants to all combinations of the following treatments: high light, 1.5 x 10(6) ergs per square centimeter per second; low light, 3.0 x 10(4) ergs per square centimeter per second; three levels of CO(2): 50, 268, and 730 parts per million; nutrient solution osmotic potentials of -0.5, -5.0, -7.5, and -9.5 bars.The rate of transpiration of pepper plants was reduced by a decrease in osmotic potential of the nutrient solution, an increase in CO(2) concentration in the ambient air, and a decrease in light intensity. The response, as measured by transpiration, to the three variables, light, CO(2), and osmotic potential indicated that each variable influenced a different and independent mechanism. A change in a single variable produced essentially the same percentage change at all levels of the other variables. The rate of movement of water from roots to leaves was in response to water potential gradient and not the actual potential in the leaves.The resistance to flow of water through the plants (R) was estimated by dividing the difference between the water potentials of the solution and the leaves by the rate of transpiration. The data indicated an increase in R as the rate of transpiration decreased. The type and size of errors encountered in the estimation of R and location of R within the plant are discussed.

Citing Articles

Physiological adaptation and plasticity to water stress of coastal and desert populations of Heliotropium curassavicum L.

Roy J, Mooney H Oecologia. 2017; 52(3):370-375.

PMID: 28310397 DOI: 10.1007/BF00367961.


Application of circuit simulation method for differential modeling of TIM-2 iron uptake and metabolism in mouse kidney cells.

Xie Z, Harrison S, Torti S, Torti F, Han J Front Physiol. 2013; 4:136.

PMID: 23761763 PMC: 3675319. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2013.00136.


Leaf water stress in engelmann spruce: influence of the root and shoot environments.

Kaufmann M Plant Physiol. 1975; 56(6):841-4.

PMID: 16659406 PMC: 541936. DOI: 10.1104/pp.56.6.841.


A chamber for applying pressure to roots of intact plants.

Gee G Plant Physiol. 1973; 52(5):472-4.

PMID: 16658586 PMC: 366526. DOI: 10.1104/pp.52.5.472.


Nonsynchronized Oscillations in Stomatal Resistance among Sclerophylls of Eucalyptus umbra.

Teoh C, Palmer J Plant Physiol. 1971; 47(3):409-11.

PMID: 16657632 PMC: 365879. DOI: 10.1104/pp.47.3.409.


References
1.
Clarke D . Production of pectic enzymes by Phytophthora infestans. Nature. 1966; 211(5049):649. DOI: 10.1038/211649a0. View

2.
Gardner W, Ehlig C . Physical Aspects of the Internal Water Relations of Plant Leaves. Plant Physiol. 1965; 40(4):705-10. PMC: 550365. DOI: 10.1104/pp.40.4.705. View

3.
Weatherley P . The state and movement of water in the leaf. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1965; 19:157-84. View

4.
MEES G, Weatherley P . The mechanism of water absorption by roots. II. The role of hydrostatic pressure gradients across the cortex. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1957; 147(928):381-91. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1957.0057. View

5.
Brouwer R . Water movement across the root. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1965; 19:131-49. View