The peaked response of transpiration rate to vapour pressure deficit in field conditions can be explained by the temperature optimum of photosynthesis

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

Volumn 189-190, Issue , 2014, Pages 2-10

  Duursma, Remko A ^a   Barton, Craig V M ^a   Lin, Yan Shih ^b   Medlyn, Belinda E ^b   Eamus, Derek ^c   Tissue, David T ^a   Ellsworth, David S ^a   McMurtrie, Ross E ^d  

^a WESTERN SYDNEY UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Plant water use; Stomatal control; Temperature response

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON FLUX; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; GAS EXCHANGE; HYDRAULICS; LEAF; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; PLANT WATER RELATIONS; STOMATA; TEMPERATURE EFFECT; TRANSPIRATION; VAPOR PRESSURE; WATER EXCHANGE;

EID: 84893143247     PISSN: 01681923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Barnes J., Eamus D., Brown K. The influence of ozone, acid mist and soil nutrient status on Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.]. New Phytol. 1990, 114:713-720.
2. 2] on instantaneous transpiration efficiency at leaf and canopy scales in Eucalyptus saligna. Global Change Biol. 2012, 18:585-595.
3. 2 experimentation and tree scale flux measurements in south-eastern Australia: the Hawkesbury forest experiment. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2010, 150:941-951.
4. Berry J., Björkman O. Photosynthetic response and adaptation to temperature in higher plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1980, 31:491-543.
5. Buckley T.N. The control of stomata by water balance. New Phytol. 2005, 168:275-291.
6. Buckley T.N., Mott K.A. Modelling stomatal conductance in response to environmental factors. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36:1691-1699.
7. Bunce J.A. Does transpiration control stomatal responses to water vapour pressure deficit?. Plant Cell Environ. 1997, 20:131-135.
8. Busch F.A. Opinion: the red-light response of stomatal movement is sensed by the redox state of the photosynthetic electron transport chain. Photosynth. Res. 2013, 10.1007/s11120-013-9805-6.
9. Collatz G., Ball J., Grivet C., Berry J. Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1991, 54:107-136.
10. 2 and summer drought. Global Change Biol. 2011, 17:1560-1576.
11. Dewar R. Interpretation of an empirical model for stomatal conductance in terms of guard cell function. Plant Cell Environ. 1995, 18(4):365-372.
12. Dewar R. The Ball-Berry-Leuning and Tardieu-Davies stomatal models: synthesis and extension within a spatially aggregated picture of guard cell function. Plant Cell Environ. 2002, 25:1383-1398.
13. 2]×drought interactions. Geosci. Model Dev. 2012, 5:919-940.
14. 2] in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Agric. For. Meteorol. 2013, 168:168-176.
15. 2 enrichment. Environ. Pollut. 1995, 90:41-49.
16. Eamus D., Taylor D.T., Macinnis-Ng C.M.O., Shanahan S., De Silva L. Comparing model predictions and experimental data for the response of stomatal conductance and guard cell turgor to manipulations of cuticular conductance, leaf-to-air vapour pressure difference and temperature: feedback mechanisms are able to account for all observations. Plant Cell Environ. 2008, 31:269-277.
17. 2 affects photosynthetic responses in canopy pine and subcanopy deciduous trees over 10 years: a synthesis from Duke FACE. Global Change Biol. 2012, 18:223-242.
18. Farquhar G. Feedforward responses of stomata to humidity. Funct. Plant Biol. 1978, 5:787-800.
19. 2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 1980, 149:78-90.
20. Farquhar G., Wong S. An Empirical Model of Stomatal Conductance. Funct. Plant Biol. 1984, 11:191-210.
21. Fox J., Weisberg S. An R Companion to Applied Regression 2010, 472. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California. 2nd ed.
22. Franks P.J., Cowan I.R., Farquhar G.D. The apparent feedforward response of stomata to air vapour pressure deficit: information revealed by different experimental procedures with two rainforest trees. Plant Cell Environ. 1997, 20:142-145.
23. Fredeen A.L., Sage R.F. Temperature and humidity effects on branchlet gas-exchange in white spruce: an explanation for the increase in transpiration with branchlet temperature. Trees 1999, 14:161-168.
24. 2] and temperature. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33(10):1671-1681.
25. Grantz D.A. Plant response to atmospheric humidity. Plant Cell Environ. 1990, 13:667-679.
26. Guehl J., Aussenac G., Kaushal P. The effects of transplanting stress on photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and leaf water potential in Cedrus atlantica Manetti seedlings: role of root regeneration. Ann. Sci. For. 1989, 46S:464-468.
27. Hamerlynck E., Knapp A.K. Photosynthetic and stomatal responses to high temperature and light in two oaks at the western limit of their range. Tree Physiol. 1996, 16:557-565.
28. Ku S.B., Edwards G.E., Tanner C.B. Effects of light, carbon dioxide, and temperature on photosynthesis, oxygen inhibition of photosynthesis, and transpiration in Solanum tuberosum. Plant Physiol. 1977, 59:868-872.
29. Leuning R. A critical-appraisal of a combined stomatal-photosynthesis model for C-3 plants. Plant Cell Environ. 1995, 18:339-355.
30. Lin Y.-S., Medlyn B.E., De Kauwe M.G., Ellsworth D.S. Biochemical photosynthetic responses to temperature: how do interspecific differences compare with seasonal shifts?. Tree Physiol. 2013, 10.1093/treephys/tpt047.
31. 2 concentrations: Has its importance been underestimated?. Plant Cell Environ. 1991, 14:729-739.
32. Macfarlane C., White D.A., Adams M.A. The apparent feed-forward response to vapour pressure deficit of stomata in droughted, field-grown Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Plant Cell Environ. 2004, 27:1268-1280.
33. Martin B., Ort D.R., Boyer J.S. Impairment of photosynthesis by chilling-temperatures in tomato. Plant Physiol. 1981, 68:329-334.
34. 2 concentrations and temperatures. Plant Cell Environ. 1993, 16:1-13.
35. 2 concentration: a synthesis. New Phytol. 2001, 149:247-264.
36. Medlyn B.E., Dreyer E., Ellsworth D., Forstreuter M., Harley P.C., Kirschbaum M.U.F., Le Roux X., Montpied P., Strassemeyer J., Walcroft A., Wang K., Loustau D. Temperature response of parameters of a biochemically based model of photosynthesis. II. A review of experimental data. Plant Cell Environ. 2002, 25:1167-1179.
37. Medlyn B.E., Duursma R.A., Eamus D., Ellsworth D.S., Prentice I.C., Barton C.V.M., Crous K.Y., De Angelis P., Freeman M., Wingate L. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Global Change Biol. 2011, 17:2134-2144.
38. Meinzer F.C., Hinckley T.M., Ceulemans R. Apparent responses of stomata to transpiration and humidity in a hybrid poplar canopy. Plant Cell Environ. 1997, 20:1301-1308.
39. 2. Plant Physiol. 2006, 140:771-778.
40. Monteith J.L. A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity. Plant Cell Environ. 1995, 18:357-364.
41. 2 depend on the mesophyll. Plant Cell Environ. 2009, 32(11):1479-1486.
42. Mott K.A., Peak D. Testing a vapour-phase model of stomatal responses to humidity. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36(5):936-944.
43. Mott K.A., Berg D.G., Hunt S.M., Peak D. Is the signal from the mesophyll to the guard cells a vapor phase ion?. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, (in press). 10.1111/pce.12226.
44. Oren R., Sperry J.S., Katul G.G., Pataki D.E., Ewers B.E., Phillips N., Schäfer K.V.R. Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ. 1999, 22:1515-1526.
45. Pataki D.E., Oren R., Smith W.K. Sap flux of co-occurring species in a western subalpine forest during seasonal soil drought. Ecology 2000, 81:2557-2566.
46. Peak D., Mott K.A. A new, vapour-phase mechanism for stomatal responses to humidity and temperature. Plant Cell Environ. 2011, 34:162-178.
47. Pons T.L., Welschen R.A.M. Midday depression of net photosynthesis in the tropical rainforest tree Eperua grandiflora: contributions of stomatal and internal conductances, respiration and Rubisco functioning. Tree Physiol. 2003, 23:937-947.
48. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2013, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/.
49. Seemann J.R., Critchley C. Effects of salt stress on the growth, ion content, stomatal behaviour and photosynthetic capacity of a salt-sensitive species Phaseolus vulgaris L. Planta 1985, 164:151-162.
50. i and on stem hydraulic conductance and foliar ABA concentrations. J. Exp. Bot. 1999, 50:243-251.
51. West D., Gaff D. The effect of leaf water potential, leaf temperature and light intensity on leaf diffusion resistance and the transpiration of leaves of Malus sylvestris. Physiol. Plant 1976, 38:98-104.
52. Whitley R., Medlyn B., Zeppel M., Macinnis-Ng C., Eamus D. Comparing the Penman-Monteith equation and a modified Jarvis-Stewart model with an artificial neural network to estimate stand-scale transpiration and canopy conductance. J. Hydrol. 2009, 373:256-266.
53. Whitley R., Zeppel M., Armstrong N., Macinnis-Ng C., Yunusa I., Eamus D. A modified Jarvis-Stewart model for predicting stand-scale transpiration of an Australian native forest. Plant Soil 2008, 305:35-47.
54. Wong S., Cowan I., Farquhar G. Stomatal conductance correlates with photosynthetic capacity. Nature 1979, 282:424-426.
55. 2 assimilation: III. Influences of water stress and photoinhibition. Plant Physiol. 1985, 78:830.
56. Wood S.N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction 2006, R. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida.