This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Web of Science (188) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Morison, J. I. L. Articles by Gifford, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Morison, J. I. L. Articles by Gifford, R. M. Agricola Articles by Morison, J. I. L. Articles by Gifford, R. M.

Articles

Stomatal Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide and Humidity

A Comparison of Two C₃ and Two C₄ Grass Species

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Division of Plant Industry, P. O. Box 1600, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia

The sensitivity of stomatal conductance to changes of CO₂ concentration and leaf-air vapor pressure difference (VPD) was compared between two C₃ and two C₄ grass species. There was no evidence that stomata of the C₄ species were more sensitive to CO₂ than stomata of the C₃ species. The sensitivity of stomatal conductance to CO₂ change was linearly proportional to the magnitude of stomatal conductance, as determined by the VPD, the same slope fitting the data for all four species. Similarly, the sensitivity of stomatal conductance to VPD was linearly proportional to the magnitude of stomatal conductance. At small VPD, the ratio of intercellular to ambient CO₂ concentration, C_i/C_a, was similar in all species (0.8-0.9) but declined with increasing VPD, so that, at large VPD, C_i/C_a was 0.7 and 0.5 (approximately) in C₃ and C₄ species, respectively. Transpiration efficiency (net CO₂ assimilation rate/transpiration rate) was larger in the C₄ species than in the C₃ species at current atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, but the relative increase due to high CO₂ was larger in the C₃ than in the C₄ species.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Sadok and T. R. Sinclair Genetic Variability of Transpiration Response to Vapor Pressure Deficit among Soybean Cultivars Crop Sci., May 11, 2009; 49(3): 955 - 960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.I.L Morison, N.R Baker, P.M Mullineaux, and W.J Davies Improving water use in crop production Phil Trans R Soc B, February 12, 2008; 363(1491): 639 - 658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L.-K. Xu and T. C. Hsiao Predicted versus measured photosynthetic water-use efficiency of crop stands under dynamically changing field environments J. Exp. Bot., November 1, 2004; 55(407): 2395 - 2411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. R. Kemanian, C. O. Stockle, and D. R. Huggins Variability of Barley Radiation-Use Efficiency Crop Sci., September 1, 2004; 44(5): 1662 - 1672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. W. Polley Implications of Atmospheric and Climatic Change for Crop Yield and Water Use Efficiency Crop Sci., January 1, 2002; 42(1): 131 - 140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]