Plant Physiol. Drug Metab Dispos
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Plant Physiology 76:898-902 (1984)
© 1984 American Society of Plant Biologists

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (38)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McCree, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Richardson, S. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McCree, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Richardson, S. G.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by McCree, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Richardson, S. G.
Articles

Carbon Balance of Sorghum Plants during Osmotic Adjustment to Water Stress 1

Keith J. McCree, Craig E. Kallsen and Steven G. Richardson

Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

The daily (24-hour) carbon balances of whole sorghum plants (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench cv BTX616) were continuously measured throughout 15 days of water stress, followed by rewatering and 4 more days of measurements. The plants were grown under controlled environment conditions typical of warm, humid, sunny days. During the first 12 days, osmotic potentials decreased in parallel with decreased water potentials to maintain pressure potentials near 0.5 kilojoules per kilogram (5 bars). Immediately before rewatering on day 15, the water potential was –3.0 kilojoules per kilogram. Osmotic adjustment at this point was 1.0 kilojoules per kilogram, as measured by the decrease in the water potential at zero turgor from its initial value of –1.4 kilojoules per kilogram.

Gross input of carbon was less but the fraction retained was greater because a smaller fraction was lost through respiration in stressed plants than in unstressed plants. This was attributed to a lower rate of biomass synthesis, and conversely a higher rate of storage of photosynthate, due to inhibition of leaf expansion. The reduction in the cost associated with biomass synthesis more than balanced any metabolic cost of osmotic adjustment. The net daily gain of carbon was always positive in the stressed plants.

There was a large burst of respiration on rewatering, due to renewed synthesis of biomass from stored photosynthate. Over the next 3 days, osmotic adjustment was lost and the daily carbon balance returned to that typical of nonstressed plants. Thus, osmotic adjustment allowed the stressed plants to accumulate biomass carbon throughout the cycle, with little additional metabolic cost. Carbon stored during stress was immediately available for biomass synthesis on rewatering.


1 Supported by National Science Foundation Grant PCM 82-13089. Technical Article No. 19607 from the Texas Agricultural Experimental Station.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
O. K. Atkin and D. Macherel
The crucial role of plant mitochondria in orchestrating drought tolerance
Ann. Bot., February 1, 2009; 103(4): 581 - 597.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
T. A. LAFARGE, I. J. BROAD, and G. L. HAMMER
Tillering in Grain Sorghum over a Wide Range of Population Densities: Identification of a Common Hierarchy for Tiller Emergence, Leaf Area Development and Fertility
Ann. Bot., July 1, 2002; 90(1): 87 - 98.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1984 by the American Society of Plant Biologists