4.3 Article

Varietal differences in the morphophysiological response to atmospheric humidity in rice

Journal

PLANT PRODUCTION SCIENCE
Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 101-109

Publisher

CROP SCIENCE SOC JAPAN
DOI: 10.1626/pps.5.101

Keywords

atmospheric humidity; rice; stomatal aperture; stomatal density; transpiration rate

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High atmospheric humidity promotes vegetative growth and dry-matter production in japonica rice. In this study, the varietal differences in the response to atmospheric humidity were examined using three japonica varieties (Nipponbare, Kinmaze, Yamadanishiki), one indica variety IR24 and japonica X indica variety (Milyang 23). The indica and japonica X indica varieties are referred to as indica varieties hereafter. The growth of the japonica varieties was greatly promoted by high humidity (90%) and greatly reduced by low humidity (60%), but that of the indica varieties was less sensitive to humidity and the growth was hardly affected by low humidity. We compared the responses of the above varieties to low humidity (water stress) using the plants under high humidity as a control. Under low humidity, as compared to the indica varieties, the japonica varieties had a higher stomatal density, longer stomata and larger stomatal aperture, resulting in a lower water potential in leaf blades and lower water -use efficiency. Under high humidity, the japonica and indica varieties showed a similar transpiration rate (per unit area), stomatal aperture and water-use efficiency, but the japonica varieties had a higher water content than the indica varieties. This may be why the japonica varieties show greatly suppressed growth and dry matter production under low humidity. These differences between the japonica and indica varieties in morphophysiological characters under low humidity might cause the varietal differences in the plant growth and dry matter production in rice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available