Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T19:10:23.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pressure Chamber and Air Flow Porometer for Rapid Field Indication of Water Status and Stomatal Condition in Wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

R. A. Fischer ,
M. Sanchez  and
J.R. Syme
R. A. Fischer
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Londres 40, Mexico, 6, D.F.
M. Sanchez
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Londres 40, Mexico, 6, D.F.
J.R. Syme
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Londres 40, Mexico, 6, D.F.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Plant water potential and leaf diffusive conductance, key features of plant responses to water stress in field experiments, can be estimated, respectively, by xylem pressure potential measured with the pressure chamber apparatus, and leaf permeability measured with the air flow porometer. This paper describes modifications to these two techniques in order to increase the rapidity of measurements in wheat to 60/h with the pressure chamber, and 200/h with the porometer. Rapid measurements are needed because of the large within-and between-plot errors encountered with daytime measurements in typical field experiments, examples of which are presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , October 1977 , pp. 341 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Baughn, J. W. & Tanner, C. B. (1976). Crop Sci. 16, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, L. A., Anlezark, R. N. & Muirhead, W. (1972). J. Appl. Ecol. 9, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, T. C. & Fischer, R. A. (1975). In Measurement of stomatal aperture and diffusive resistance. Bull. 809 Coll. Agric. Res. Centre, Washington State University.Google Scholar
Meidner, H. & Mansfield, T. A. (1968). Physiology of Stomata. Maidenhead, Berks.: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Meiri, A., Plaut, Z. & Shimshi, D. (1975). Physiol. Plantarum 35, 72.Google Scholar
Millar, B. D. & Denmead, O. T. (1976). Agron. J. 68, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, B. D. & Hansen, G. K. (1975). Ann. Bot. 39, 915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, J. (1921). The Wheat Plant. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Rawson, H. M., Gifford, R. M. & Bremner, P. M. (1976). Planta (Berlin) 132, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, G. A. & Hinckley, T. M. (1975). Adv. Ecol. Res. 9, 165.Google Scholar
Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Bradstreet, E. D. & Hemmingsen, E. A. (1965). Science 148, 339.Google Scholar
Shimshi, D. & Ephrat, J. (1975). Agron. J. 67, 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sojka, R. E. (1974). Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. California, Riverside.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C. (1970). New Phytol. 69, 647.Google Scholar