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


     

Plant Physiology 81:45-49 (1986)
© 1986 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 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer, N. L.
Right arrow Articles by Barrs, H. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer, N. L.
Right arrow Articles by Barrs, H. D.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer, N. L.
Right arrow Articles by Barrs, H. D.
Articles

Continuous Monitoring of Plant Water Potential

Nick L. Schaefer, Edward S. Trickett, Anthony Ceresa and Henry D. Barrs

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Centre for Irrigation Research, Private Mail Bag, Griffith, NSW 2680, Australia

Plant water potential was monitored continuously with a Wescor HR-33T dewpoint hygrometer in conjunction with a L51 chamber. This commercial instrument was modified by replacing the AC-DC mains power converter with one stabilized by zener diode controlled transistors. The thermocouple sensor and electrical lead needed to be thermally insulated to prevent spurious signals. For rapid response and faithful tracking a low resistance for water vapor movement between leaf and sensor had to be provided. This could be effected by removing the epidermis either by peeling or abrasion with fine carborundum cloth. A variety of rapid plant water potential responses to external stimuli could be followed in a range of crop plants (sunflower (Helianthus annuus L., var. Hysun 30); safflower (Carthamus tinctorious L., var. Gila); soybean (Glycine max L., var. Clark); wheat (Triticum aestivum L., var. Egret). These included light dark changes, leaf excision, applied pressure to or anaerobiosis of the root system. Water uptake by the plant (safflower, soybean) mirrored that for water potential changes including times when plant water status (soybean) was undergoing cyclical changes.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
C. S. Campbell and K. J. McInnes
Response of In Situ Leaf Psychrometer to Cuticle Removal by Abrasion
Agron. J., September 1, 1999; 91(5): 859 - 862.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1986 by the American Society of Plant Biologists