4.4 Article

Sensitivity of infrared water vapor analyzers to oxygen concentration and errors in stomatal conductance

Journal

PHOTOSYNTHESIS RESEARCH
Volume 71, Issue 3, Pages 273-276

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1015529909457

Keywords

carbon dioxide; infrared analyzers; oxygen; photosynthesis; stomatal conductance; transpiration; water vapor

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Use of infrared analyzers to measure water vapor concentrations in photosynthesis systems is becoming common. It is known that sensitivity of infrared carbon dioxide and water vapor analyzers is affected by the oxygen concentration in the background gas, particularly for absolute analyzers, but the potential for large errors in estimates of stomatal conductance due to effects of oxygen concentration on the sensitivity of infrared water vapor analyzers is not widely recognized. This work tested three types of infrared water vapor analyzers for changes in sensitivity of infrared water vapor analyzers depending on the oxygen content of the background gas. It was found that changing from either 0 or 2% to 21% oxygen in nitrogen decreased the sensitivity to water vapor for all three types of infrared water vapor analyzers by about 4%. The change in sensitivity was linear with oxygen mole fraction. The resulting error in calculated stomatal conductance would depend strongly on the leaf to air vapor pressure difference and leaf temperature, and also on whether leaf temperature was directly measured or calculated from energy balance. Examples of measurements of gas exchange on soybean leaves under glasshouse conditions indicated that changing from 21% to 2% oxygen produced an artifactual apparent increase in stomatal conductance which averaged about 30%. Similar errors occurred for `conductances' of wet filter paper. Such errors could affect inferences about the carbon dioxide dependence of the sensitivity of photosynthesis to oxygen.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available