Summary
The influence of soil moisture content and soil water potential on plant water potential, transpiration and net-photosynthesis of potted larch (Larix decidua), spruce (Picea abies) and pine (Pinus cembra) was studied under constant and close to optimum conditions in a laboratory.
The ‘equilibrium’ plant water potential measured under ‘non-transpiring’ conditions came close to soil water potential, but in moist soil the equilibrium potential was slightly lower, particularly in larch where transpiration was not fully arrested. In very dry soil, plants had higher water potential than soil, presumably due to roots exploiting the wettest points within the soil.
Pine, spruce and larch utilised a large part of soil moisture (down to 25wt.% soil water content or −1.5 bars potential) while maintaining plant water potential near −8, −9.5 and −12.5 bars respectively. A similar pattern occurred in dry soil. The differences between species are explained by differing stomatal sensitivity to water potential.
Pine began a gradual reduction in gas-exchange below a soil water potential of −0.4 bars. Larch showed no marked reduction until the soil potential fell to −3.5 bars but below this the shut-down in gas-exchange was rapid. Spruce lay in between.
In spite of the early and sensitive gas-exchange reduction with decreasing soil moisture, pine maintained the highest net photosynthesis/transpiration ratio and thus used limited soil water more slowly and economically than the other species.
Seedlings maintained a higher rate of gas-exchange in strong light than in weak light, especially at low soil water potentials.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Babalola, O., Boersma, L. and Youngberg, C. T., Photosynthesis and transpiration of Monterey Pine seedlings as a function of soil water suction and soil temperature. Plant Physiol.43, 515–521 (1968).
Bassett, J. R., Tree growth as affected by soil moisture availability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.28, 436–438 (1964).
Benecke, U., Physiologische Untersuchungen zur Eignung verschiedener Baumarten bei der Aufforstung in Hochlagen. Forschungsber. Forstl. Forschungsanst. München5, pp 87 (1972).
Boyer, J. S., Leaf water potential measured with a pressure chamber. Plant Physiol.42, 133–137 (1967).
De Roo, H. C., Water stress gradients in plants and soil-root systems. Agron. J.61, 511–515 (1969).
Duniway, J. M., Comparison of pressure chamber and thermocouple psychrometer determinations of leaf water status in tomato. Plant Physiol.48, 106–107 (1971).
Elfving, D. C., Kaufmann, M. R. and Hall, A. E., Interpreting leaf water potential measurements with a model of the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Physiol. Plant.27, 161–168 (1972).
Gaastra, P., Photosynthesis of crop plants as influenced by light, carbon dioxide, temperature and stomatal diffusive resistance. Meded. Landbhogesch. Wageningen.59, 1–68 (1959).
Hinkley, T. M. and Ritchie, G. A., Reaction of mature Abies seedlings to environmental stresses. Trans. Miss. Acad. Sci.6, 24–36 (1972).
Hinkley, T. M. and Ritchie, G. A., A theoretical model for calculation of xylem sap pressure from climatological data. Am. Midl. Nat.90, 56–69 (1973).
Jarvis, P. G. and Jarvis, M. S., The water relations of tree seedlings. I. Growth and water use in relation to soil water potential. II. Transpiration in relation to soil water potential. Physiol. Plant.16, 215–235 and 236–253 (1963).
Kaufmann, M. R., Water relations of pine seedlings in relation to root and shoot growth. Plant Physiol.43, 281–288 (1968).
Kausch, W., Saugkraft und Wassernachleitung im Boden als Physiologische Faktoren. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Tensiometers. Planta45, 217–263 (1955).
Kramer, P. J. and Kozlowski, T. T., Physiology of trees. McGraw-Hill Book Comp. Inc. New York pp 642 (1960).
Klepp, B., Diurnal pattern of water potential in woody plants. Plant Physiol.43, 1931–1934 (1958).
Lange, O. L., Losch, R., Schulze, E. D. and Kappen, L., Responses of stomata to changes in humidity. Planta100, 76–86 (1971).
Larcher, W., The influence of water stress on the relationship between CO2 uptake and transpiration.In Water Stress in Plants, Ed. Slavik, B., Czech Acad. Sci., Prague, pp 184–263 (1965).
Lopushinsky, W., Stomatal closure in conifer seedlings in response to leaf moisture stress. Bot. Gaz.130, 258–263 (1969).
Lopushinsky, W. and Klock, G. O., Transpiration of conifer seedlings in relation to soil water potential. For. Sci.20, 181–186 (1974).
Moehring, D. M. and Ralston, C. W., Diameter growth of Loblolly Pine related to available soil moisture and rate of soil moisture loss. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.31, 560–562 (1967).
Morris, J. Y. and Tranquillini, W., Über den Einfluss des osmotischen Potentiales des Wurzelsubstrates auf die Photosynthese vonPinus contorta — Sämlingen im Wechsel der Jahreszeiten. Flora Abt. B.158, 277–287 (1969).
Müllerstaël, H., Untersuchungen über den Gaswechsel zweijähriger Holzpflanzen bei fortschreitender Bodenaustrocknung. Beitr. Biol. Pflanz.44, 319–341 (1968).
Pallas, J. E., Michel, B. E. and Harris, D. G., Photosynthesis, transpiration, leaf temperature, and stomatal activity of cotton plants under varying water potentials. Plant Physiol.42, 76–88 (1967).
Raschke, K., Stomatal responses to pressure changes and interruptions in water supply of detached leaves ofZea mays L. Plant Physiol.45, 415–423 (1970).
Rawlins, S. L., Gardner, W. R. and Dalton, F. N., In situ measurement of soil and plant leaf water potential. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.32, 468–470 (1968).
Richter, H., Halwachs, G. and Holzner, W., Saugspannungsmessungen in der Krone eines Mammutbaumes (Sequoiadendron giganteum). Flora161, 401–420 (1972).
Rutter, A. J. and Sands, K., The relation of leaf water deficit to soil moisture tension inPinus sylvestris L. I. The effect of soil moisture on diurnal changes in water balance. New Phytol.57, 50–65 (1958).
Slavikova, J., Die maximale Wurzelsaugkraft als Ökologischer Faktor. Preslia37, 419–428 (1965).
Stransky, J. J. and Wilson, D. R., Terminal elongation of Loblolly and Shortleaf pine seedlings under soil moisture stress. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.28, 439–440 (1964).
Tranquillini, W., Das Klimahaus auf dem Patscherkofel und seine Bedeutung für die Aufforstung der subalpinen Entwaldungszone. Allgem. Forstztg.80, 72–74 (1969).
Tranquillini, W. and Rabensteiner, G., Über den Einfluss von Antitranspirantien und Wurzelfrischaltemitteln auf den Gaswechsel junger Fichten, Zirben und Lärchen, sowie über die Bedeutung dieser Preparate für Hochlagenaufforstungen. Mitt. Forstl. Bundes Versuchsanst Wien,96, 75–102 (1972).
Waring, R. H. and Cleary, B. D., Plant moisture stress: Evaluation by pressure bomb. Science155, 1248–1254 (1967).
Zaher, R., Water deficits and growth of trees. In Water deficits and Plant Growth (ed. T. T. Kozlowski), Vol. II, 191–254. Acad. Press New York and London (1968).
Zavitkovski, J. and Ferrell, W. K., Effect of drought upon rates of photosynthesis, respiration, and transpiration of seedlings of two ecotypes of Douglas-fir. Bot. Gaz.129, 346–350 (1968).
Zur, B., Osmotic control of the matric soil-water potential. I. Soil-water system. Soil Sci.102, 394–398 (1966).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Havranek, W.M., Benecke, U. The influence of soil moisture on water potential, transpiration and photosynthesis of conifer seedlings. Plant Soil 49, 91–103 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02149911
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02149911