A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity

The stomatal conductance (g) for single leaves and the equivalent canopy conductance for stands of vegetation are often represented in models as empirical functions of saturation vapour pressure deficit or relative humidity. The mechanistic basis of this dependence is very weak. A reanalysis of 52 sets of measurements on 16 species supports the conclusion of Mott & Parkhurst (1991, Plant, Cell and Environment 14, 509–515) that stomata respond to the rate of transpiration (E) rather than to humidity per se. In general, ∂g/∂E is negative and constant so that the relation between g and E can be defined by two parameters: a maximum conductance gm obtained by extrapolation to zero transpiration, and a maximum rate of transpiration Em obtained by extrapolation to zero conductance. Both parameters are shown to be functions of temperature, CO2 concentration, and soil water content. Exceptionally, transpiration rate and conductance may decrease together in very dry air, possibly because of patchy closure of stomata.

[1]  M. Kaufmann,et al.  Stomatal Response to Environment with Sesamum indicum. L. , 1975, Plant physiology.

[2]  D. Krieg,et al.  Stomatal and nonstomatal regulation of water use in cotton, corn, and sorghum. , 1977, Plant physiology.

[3]  G. Farquhar.  Feedforward Responses of Stomata to Humidity , 1978 .

[4]  A. E. Hall,et al.  Stomatal Responses, Water Loss and CO2 Assimilation Rates of Plants in Contrasting Environments , 1982 .

[5]  R M Gifford,et al.  Stomatal sensitivity to carbon dioxide and humidity: a comparison of two c(3) and two c(4) grass species. , 1983, Plant physiology.

[6]  N. Turner,et al.  II. In the mesophytic herbaceous species Helianthus annuus , 1985 .

[7]  J. Bunce.  Effect of boundary layer conductance on the response of stomata to humidity , 1985 .

[8]  J. L. Monteith,et al.  Implications of stomatal response to saturation deficit for the heat balance of vegetation , 1986 .

[9]  A. Lindroth,et al.  Numerical analysis of pine forest evaporation and surface resistance , 1986 .

[10]  I. E. Woodrow,et al.  A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions , 1987 .

[11]  J. T. Ball,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF STOMATAL CONDUCTANCE , 1988 .

[12]  J. Stewart.  Modelling surface conductance of pine forest , 1988 .

[13]  W. J. Shuttleworth,et al.  Micrometeorology of Temperate and Tropical Forest , 1989 .

[14]  D. Grantz.  Plant response to atmospheric humidity , 1990 .

[15]  A. Friend.  Use of a model of photosynthesis and leaf microenvironment to predict optimal stomatal conductance and leaf nitrogen partitioning , 1991 .

[16]  G. Collatz,et al.  Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer , 1991 .

[17]  P. Jarvis,et al.  Do stomata respond to relative humidity , 1991 .

[18]  D. F. Parkhurst,et al.  Stomatal responses to humidity in air and helox , 1991 .

[19]  G. Edwards,et al.  Control of Photosynthesis and Stomatal Conductance in Ricinus communis L. (Castor Bean) by Leaf to Air Vapor Pressure Deficit. , 1992, Plant physiology.

[20]  Pedro J. Aphalo,et al.  An Analysis of Ball's Empirical Model of Stomatal Conductance , 1993 .

[21]  R. Dewar.  Interpretation of an empirical model for stomatal conductance in terms of guard cell function , 1995 .

[22]  John L. Monteith,et al.  Accommodation between transpiring vegetation and the convective boundary layer , 1995 .

[23]  R. Leuning.  A critical appraisal of a combined stomatal‐photosynthesis model for C3 plants , 1995 .