Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:43:46.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. G. Prasad ,
V. R. Sashidhar ,
Malathi Chari ,
S. Rama Rao ,
R. Devendra  and
M. Udaya Kumar
T. G. Prasad
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology University of Agricultural SciencesGKVK Campus, Bangalore-560065, India
V. R. Sashidhar
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology University of Agricultural SciencesGKVK Campus, Bangalore-560065, India
S. Rama Rao
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology University of Agricultural SciencesGKVK Campus, Bangalore-560065, India
R. Devendra
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology University of Agricultural SciencesGKVK Campus, Bangalore-560065, India
M. Udaya Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology University of Agricultural SciencesGKVK Campus, Bangalore-560065, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Transpiration rate, diffusive resistances, canopy conductances and water potentials were determined at three canopy positions in non·stressed and stressed plants of sunflower hybrid BSH·1 and five other cultivars of sunflower under field conditions. The leaf area (LA) and stomatal frequency (f) was determined at the three canopy positions in field·grown plants and the total number of stomata per plant was calculated as the product of LA and f. These variables were then related to the dry·matter accumulation and seed yield in these cultivars. Cultivars with either a high leaf area or high number of stomata per plant were more productive under non-stress conditions. Under stress conditions, cultivars differed in the extent of change in conductance (g) and transpiration rate at different canopy positions. In the hybrid BSH·1, g was low at all levels in the canopy associated with a higher (less negative) water potential and this hybrid had lower transpiration rates at all canopy levels under stress although the number of stomata per plant was high. Stomatal sensitivity associated with a higher threshold water potential for stomatal closure is discussed as a possible explanation for the higher dry·matter accumulation and productivity of hybrid sunflower BSH·1 under moisture stress conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , December 1985 , pp. 673 - 678
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Begg, J. E. & Turner, N. C. (1976). Crop water deficits. Advances in Agronomy 28, 161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciha, A. J. & Brun, W. A. (1975). Stomatal size and frequency in soybeans. Crop Science 15, 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, R. M. & Musgrave, R. B. (1970). Diffusion and quasi diffusion resistances in relation to the carboxylation kinetics of maize leaves. Physiologia Plantarum 23, 1048–1055.Google Scholar
Henson, I. E., Mahalakshmi, V., Alagraswamy, G. & Bidinger, F. F. (1983). An association between flowering and reduced stomatal sensitivity to water stress in pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L. Leek). Annals of Botany 15, 641–648.Google Scholar
Henzell, R. G., McCree, J., Van Bavel, C. H. & Schertz, K. F. (1975). Method for screening sorghum genotypes for stomatal sensitivity to water deficits. Crop Science 15, 516–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. G. (1977). Transpiration in barley lines with differing stomatal frequencies. Journal of Experimental Botany 28, 162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. G. (1979). Stomatal behaviour and breeding for drought resistance. In Stress Physiology in Crop Plants (ed. Mussell, H. and Staples, R. S.), pp. 407–428. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jones, H. G. (1983). Stomatal response to environment. In Plants and Microclimate (ed. Jones, Hamlyn G.), pp. 116–127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, M. M. & Rawson, H. M. (1979). Influence of rate of development of leaf water deficits upon photosynthesis, leaf conductance, water use efficiency and osmotic potential in sorghum. Physiologia Plantarum 45, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. (1980). Adaptive significance of stomatal responses to water stress. In Adaptation of Plants to Water and High Temperature Stress (ed. Turner, N. C. and Kramer, P. J.), pp. 123–128. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miskin, K. E., Rasmussen, D. C. & Moss, N. D. (1972). Inheritance and physiological effects of stomatal frequency in barley. Crop Science 12, 780–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, C. J. (1980). The effect of moisture stress on tobacco varieties. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Sashidhar, V. R., Prasad, T. G., Patil, S. J., Udaya Kumar, M. & Krishna Sastry, K. S. (1985). Thebalance between leaf area and photosynthetic activity in determining productivity of fox tail millet (Setaria italica) under rainfed conditions. Experimental Agriculture 21 (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silcock, R. G. & Wilson, D. (1982). Effect of ambient humidity and leaf disposition on leaf diffusive conductance of Festuca arundinacea CV 5170. New Phytologist 90, 201–208.Google Scholar
Squire, G. R. & Black, C. R. (1981). Stomatal behaviour in the field. In Stomatal Physiology (ed. Jarvis, P. G. and Mansfield, T. A.), pp. 223–234. Society for Experimental Botany, Seminar Series.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C., Begg, J. E., Rawson, H. M., English, S. D. & Hearn, A. B. (1978). Agronomic and physiological responses of soybean and sorghum crops to water deficits. III. Components of leaf water potential, leaf conductance, 14CO2 photosynthetic and adaptation to water deficits. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 5, 179–194.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Leaf growth, stomatal diffusion resistances and photosynthesis during droughting of L. perenne populations selected for contrasting stomatal length and frequency. Annals of Applied Biology 79, 67–82.Google Scholar
Wong, S. C., Cowan, I. R. & Farquhar, G. C. (1979). Stomatal conductance correlated with photosynthetic capacity. Nature 282, 424–426.Google Scholar
Yoshida, T. (1976). On the stomatal frequency in barley. I. The relationship between stomatal frequency and photosynthesis. Japanese Journal of Breeding 26, 130–136.Google Scholar
Yoshida, T. (1979). Relationship between stomatal frequency and photosynthesis in barley. Japanese Agricultural Research Quarterly 13, 106–107.Google Scholar