4.7 Article

Transpiration response of Arabidopsis, maize, and soybean to drying of artificial and mineral soil

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 188-192

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.12.004

关键词

water-deficit stress; transpiration; maize; soybean; Arabidopsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water-deficit stress is a major constraint on plant productivity and consequently, is a major focus of much research. Stress is often imposed on plants in these experiments by withholding water from the artificial potting media on which the plants are grown. No attention has been given, however, to the possibility of differences in the dynamics of stress imposition between that resulting from dehydration of the artificial rooting media and that of drying of mineral soil. The objective of this research was to compare transpiration rates during drying of a mineral soil and of an artificial potting mixture for three test species: Arabidopsis thaliana, maize (Zea mays), and soybean (Glycine max). These results showed major differences in transpiration response between the two soil media. Drying of mineral soil confirmed previous observations that no decrease in transpiration rates occurred until 0.27-0.34 of the extractable water remained in the soil. Thereafter, there was essentially a linear decrease in transpiration with further soil drying. In contrast, transpiration rates of plants grown on the potting mixture began to decrease when about 0.6-0.7 of the extractable water still remained in the soil. Consequently, plants grown on the potting mixture as compared to the mineral soil were exposed to stress very early in the drying cycle and the stress was much more prolonged over a wide range of soil moistures. Caution is warranted in extrapolating to natural, mineral soils the results obtained from plants subjected to water-deficits using artificial potting mixtures. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据