Revisiting integral water capacity on the basis of stomatal conductance at various soil and root length densities in sunflower plant

Abstract Computation of integral water capacity (IWC), as an alternative criterion for soil water availability to plant, requires developing of weighting function (ω(h)) for each limiting factor may prevail within a particular water or suction range (e. g., hd and hw) in the root medium and diminish water availability to plant. So far defining hd and hw limits for a particular limiting factor has been primarily soil property based. We investigated the possibility of plant response based ω (h) as a proxy. For this purpose, a sandy clay loam soil was evenly compacted to three bulk densities (Db) of 1.35, 1.55 and 1.75 Mg m-3 in large (30 cm diameter and 70 cm depth) PVC tubes (called pots hereafter). Sunflower (Helianthus Annuus L) seedlings were planted in the pots and after their full establishment (at late vegetative growth stage) root pruning was implemented by cutting off approximately 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% of the root branches in the 0-25 cm section along the root crown. Two periods of wetting and drying cycles were subsequently imposed and soil water contents and midday leaf stomatal conductance were routinely measured. At the end of the experiment total root length in the samples separately taken from three sections (5-25, 25-50 and 50-70 cm) of each pot was measured using GSA image analyzer software and converted to root length density (RLD). Relative stomatal conductance (g/gc), presumably varying between 0 to 1 and comprising impact of all water availability limiting factors in the root medium, as function of h were developed and substituted for ω(h) and the plant response based integral water capacity (IWCP) was then computed and compared between various imposed treatments and with least limiting water range (LLWR) and plant available water (PAW). For the treatments without root pruning (L4), increase in soil compaction (from D1 to D2 and from D1 to D3) reduced IWCP by about 17.5% and 20.5%, respectively. The corresponding decreases for LLWR were, 22% and 66%, respectively, and negligible for PAW. These results showed that PAW is almost irresponsive and LLWR is over responsive to soil compaction or bulk density while IWCP seems reflect more realistic influence of soil compaction on soil water availability to plants. Decrease in IWCP from L4 to L1 was by 43%. In contrary to LLWR and PAW, our proposed method showed the effect of root length density on plant available water.

[1]  M. Farooq,et al.  Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management , 2011, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[2]  A. Naor,et al.  Relations between leaf and stem water potentials and stomatal conductance in three field-grown woody species , 1998 .

[3]  I. Rodríguez‐Iturbe,et al.  Coupled Dynamics of Photosynthesis, Transpiration, and Soil Water Balance. Part I: Upscaling from Hourly to Daily Level , 2004 .

[4]  S. Linder,et al.  Mean canopy stomatal conductance responses to water and nutrient availabilities in Picea abies and Pinus taeda. , 2001, Tree physiology.

[5]  R. Sands,et al.  Least limiting water range : a potential indicator of physical quality of forest soils , 2000 .

[6]  P. Dry,et al.  Grapevine shoot growth and stomatal conductance are reduced when part of the root system is dried , 2015 .

[7]  P. Groenevelt,et al.  A new procedure to determine soil water availability , 2001 .

[8]  Christopher K. Parry,et al.  Biophysically-Based Measurement of Plant Water Status Using Canopy Temperature , 2014 .

[9]  John A Kirkegaard,et al.  The distribution and abundance of wheat roots in a dense, structured subsoil--implications for water uptake. , 2010, Plant, cell & environment.

[10]  M. Hatami,et al.  Integral water capacity (IWC) and least limiting water range (LLWR): prediction using plant growth indices and soil properties , 2020, 3 Biotech.

[11]  R. Horn,et al.  EFFECT OF BULK DENSITY ON HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES OF HOMOGENIZED AND STRUCTURED SOILS , 2008 .

[12]  Revisiting the wet and dry ends of soil integral water capacity using soil and plant properties , 2018 .

[13]  O. Bethenod,et al.  Maize stomatal conductance in the field: its relationship with soil and plant water potentials, mechanical constraints and ABA concentration in the xylem sap , 1991 .

[14]  R. Sojka.  STOMATAL CLOSURE IN OXYGEN‐STRESSED PLANTS , 1992 .

[15]  E. Fereres,et al.  Leaf expansion, photosynthesis, and water relations of sunflower plants grown on compacted soil , 1993, Plant and Soil.

[16]  W. Hartung,et al.  Abscisic acid in the xylem: where does it come from, where does it go to? , 2002, Journal of experimental botany.

[17]  E. Perfect,et al.  Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils , 1994 .

[18]  E. A. Hinojosa.  The Growth of Maize (zea mays l.) under Field conditions as affected by its Water Relations. , 1975 .

[19]  T. Keller,et al.  Soil available water and plant growth in relation to K:Na ratio , 2020 .

[20]  B. Lowery,et al.  Physical Tests for Monitoring Soil Quality , 2015 .

[21]  I. R. Cowan.  Stomatal Behaviour and Environment , 1978 .

[22]  A. Nazemi,et al.  Parametric modeling of root length density and root water uptake in unsaturated soil , 2010 .

[23]  D. W. Grimes,et al.  Irrigation effects on plant water relations and productivity of Thompson seedless grapevines , 1990 .

[24]  C. S. Tan,et al.  Soil water content and stomatal conductance in a mature peach orchard as influenced by various irrigation regimes , 1991 .

[25]  A. A. Mahboubi,et al.  Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity , 2010, Plant and Soil.

[26]  J. Masle.  Growth and stomatal responses of wheat seedlings to spatial and temporal variations in soil strength of bi-layered soils , 1998 .

[27]  Kenneth A. Shackel,et al.  A Plant-based Approach to Deficit Irrigation in Trees and Vines , 2011 .

[28]  S. S. Chahal.  Evaluation of Soil Hydraulic Limitations in Determining Plant-Available-Water in Light Textured Soils , 2010 .

[29]  D. W. Nelson,et al.  Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter , 1983, SSSA Book Series.

[30]  N. Willey.  Phosphorus , 2018, Reactions Weekly.

[31]  J. S. S. Lima,et al.  Soil physico-hydraulic properties under organic conilon coffee intercropped with tree and fruit species , 2017 .

[32]  M. Neyshabouri,et al.  PTFs for predicting LLWR from various soil attributes including cementing agents , 2014 .

[33]  A. Page.  Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. , 1982 .

[34]  P. Baeza,et al.  Variation in stomatal behaviour and gas exchange between mid-morning and mid-afternoon of north–south oriented grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo) at different levels of soil water availability , 2006 .

[35]  Vadez,et al.  Exploiting the functionality of root systems for dry, saline, and nutrient deficient environments in a changing climate , 2007 .

[36]  O. Bethenod,et al.  Xylem ABA controls the stomatal conductance of field‐grown maize subjected to soil compaction or soil drying , 1992 .

[37]  Y. Mualem.  A New Model for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity , 1976 .

[38]  Van Genuchten,et al.  A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils , 1980 .

[39]  W. R. Gardner.  DYNAMIC ASPECTS OF WATER AVAILABILITY TO PLANTS , 1960 .