Abstract
Aims
Although soil water deficit is the primary constraint on transpiration globally, the mechanisms by which soil drying and soil properties impact transpiration and stomatal regulation remain elusive. This work aimed to investigate how soil textures and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) impact the relationship between transpiration rate, canopy conductance, and leaf water potential of maize (Zea mays L.) during soil drying. We hypothesize that the decrease in soil–plant hydraulic conductance (Ksp) triggers stomatal closure and the latter is soil specific.
Methods
Plants were grown in two contrasting soil textures (sand and loam) and exposed to two consecutive VPD levels (1.8 and 2.8 kPa). We measured transpiration rate, canopy conductance, soil and leaf water potentials during soil drying.
Results
Transpiration rate decreased at higher soil matric potential in sand than in loam at both VPD levels. In sand, high VPD generated a steeper drop in canopy conductance with decreasing leaf water potential. The decrease in canopy conductance was well correlated with the drop in Ksp, which was significantly affected by soil texture.
Conclusions
Our results demonstrated that variations in canopy conductance were not simply a function of leaf water potential but largely affected by soil hydraulics. These results reinforce a model of stomatal closure driven by a loss in soil hydraulic conductivity. Further studies will determine if soil-specific stomatal regulation exists among species.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data presented in this study are available from the first and corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
References
Abdalla M, Carminati A, Cai G et al (2021) Stomatal closure of tomato under drought is driven by an increase in soil–root hydraulic resistance. Plant Cell Environ 44:425–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13939
Abdalla M, Ahmed MA, Cai G et al (2022) Stomatal closure during water deficit is controlled by below-ground hydraulics. Ann Bot 129:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcab141
Ahmed MA, Passioura J, Carminati A (2018) Hydraulic processes in roots and the rhizosphere pertinent to increasing yield of water-limited grain crops: a critical review. J Exp Bot 69:3255–3265. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ery183
Albuquerque C, Scoffoni C, Brodersen CR et al (2020) Coordinated decline of leaf hydraulic and stomatal conductances under drought is not linked to leaf xylem embolism for different grapevine cultivars. J Exp Bot 71:7286–7300. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa392
Anderegg WRL, Wolf A, Arango-Velez A et al (2017) Plant water potential improves prediction of empirical stomatal models. PLoS ONE 12:e0185481. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185481
Attia Z, Domec J-C, Oren R et al (2015) Growth and physiological responses of isohydric and anisohydric poplars to drought. J Exp Bot 66:4373–4381. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv195
Ben-Ari T, Boé J, Ciais P et al (2018) Causes and implications of the unforeseen 2016 extreme yield loss in the breadbasket of France. Nat Commun 9:1627. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04087-x
Bourbia I, Pritzkow C, Brodribb TJ (2021) Herb and conifer roots show similar high sensitivity to water deficit. Plant Physiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab207
Bray EA (1997) Plant responses to water deficit. Trends Plant Sci 2:48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(97)82562-9
Brodribb TJ, Holbrook NM (2003) Stomatal Closure during Leaf Dehydration, Correlation with Other Leaf Physiological Traits. Plant Physiol 132:2166–2173. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.023879
Cai G, Carminati A, Abdalla M, Ahmed MA (2021) Soil textures rather than root hairs dominate water uptake and soil–plant hydraulics under drought. Plant Physiol 187:858–872. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab271
Cai G, Ahmed MA, Abdalla M, Carminati A (2022) Root hydraulic phenotypes impacting water uptake in drying soils. Plant, Cell Environ 45:650–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14259
Carminati A, Javaux M (2020) Soil Rather Than Xylem Vulnerability Controls Stomatal Response to Drought. Trends Plant Sci 25:868–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.04.003
Carminati A, Ahmed MA, Zarebanadkouki M et al (2020) Stomatal closure prevents the drop in soil water potential around roots. New Phytol 226:1541–1543. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16451
Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS (2003) Understanding plant responses to drought—from genes to the whole plant. Funct Plant Biol 30:239–264
Corso D, Delzon S, Lamarque LJ et al (2020) Neither xylem collapse, cavitation, or changing leaf conductance drive stomatal closure in wheat. Plant Cell Environ 43:854–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13722
Dai A (2013) Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat Clim Chang 3:52–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633
Devi MJ, Sinclair TR, Taliercio E (2015) Comparisons of the Effects of Elevated Vapor Pressure Deficit on Gene Expression in Leaves among Two Fast-Wilting and a Slow-Wilting Soybean. PLoS ONE 10:e0139134. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139134
Devi MJ, Reddy VR (2018) Transpiration response of cotton to vapor pressure deficit and its relationship with stomatal traits. Front Plant Sci 9:1572. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.0
Dodd IC, Egea G, Watts CW, Whalley WR (2010) Root water potential integrates discrete soil physical properties to influence ABA signalling during partial rootzone drying. J Exp Bot 61:3543–3551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq195
Draye X, Kim Y, Lobet G, Javaux M (2010) Model-assisted integration of physiological and environmental constraints affecting the dynamic and spatial patterns of root water uptake from soils. J Exp Bot 61:2145–2155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq077
Fletcher AL, Sinclair TR, Allen LH (2007) Transpiration responses to vapor pressure deficit in well watered ‘slow-wilting’ and commercial soybean. Environ Exp Bot 61:145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.05.004
Flo V, Martínez-Vilalta J, Mencuccini M et al (2021) Climate and functional traits jointly mediate tree water-use strategies. New Phytol 231:617–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17404
Gardner WR (1960) Dynamic aspects of water availability to plants. Soil Sci 89:63–73
Gholipoor M, Choudhary S, Sinclair TR et al (2013) Transpiration Response of Maize Hybrids to Atmospheric Vapour Pressure Deficit. J Agron Crop Sci 199:155–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12010
Gollan T, Turner NC, Schulze E-D (1985) The responses of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapour pressure deficits and soil water content. Oecologia 65:356–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378909
Gollan T, Davies WJ, Schurr U, Zhang J (1989) Control of gas exchange: evidence for root-shoot communication on drying soil. In: Annales des Sciences Forestières. EDP Sciences, 46:393–400. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19890589
Grossiord C, Buckley TN, Cernusak LA et al (2020a) Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol 226:1550–1566. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16485
Grossiord C, Ulrich DEM, Vilagrosa A (2020b) Controls of the hydraulic safety–efficiency trade-off. Tree Physiol 40:573–576. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpaa013
Hayat F, Ahmed MA, Zarebanadkouki M et al (2020) Transpiration Reduction in Maize (Zea mays L) in Response to Soil Drying. Front Plant Sci 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01695
Henry C, John GP, Pan R et al (2019) A stomatal safety-efficiency trade-off constrains responses to leaf dehydration. Nat Commun 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11006-1
Hochholdinger F, Wen T-J, Zimmermann R et al (2008) The maize (Zea mays L.) roothairless3 gene encodes a putative GPI-anchored, monocot-specific, COBRA-like protein that significantly affects grain yield. Plant J 54:888–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03459.x
Hopmans JW, Bristow KL (2002) Current capabilities and future needs of root water and nutrient uptake modeling. Adv Agron 77:103–183
Hsiao J, Swann ALS, Kim S-H (2019) Maize yield under a changing climate: The hidden role of vapor pressure deficit. Agric for Meteorol 279:107692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107692
IPCC (2021) Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. In: Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2021
Jarvis PG, McNaughton KG (1986) Stomatal Control of Transpiration: Scaling Up from Leaf to Region. In: MacFadyen A, Ford ED (eds) Advances in Ecological Research. Academic Press, pp 1–49
Javaux M, Carminati A (2021) Soil hydraulics affect the degree of isohydricity. Plant Physiol 186:1378–1381. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab154
Kholová J, Hash CT, Kumar PL et al (2010) Terminal drought-tolerant pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] have high leaf ABA and limit transpiration at high vapour pressure deficit. J Exp Bot 61:1431–1440. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq013
Kimm H, Guan K, Gentine P et al (2020) Redefining droughts for the U.S. Corn Belt: The dominant role of atmospheric vapor pressure deficit over soil moisture in regulating stomatal behavior of Maize and Soybean. Agric Forest Meteorol 287:107930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.107930
Koehler T, Moser DS, Botezatu Á et al (2022) Going underground: soil hydraulic properties impacting maize responsiveness to water deficit. Plant Soil 478:43–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05656-2
Lamers J, van der Meer T, Testerink C (2020) How Plants Sense and Respond to Stressful Environments. Plant Physiol 182:1624–1635. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.19.01464
Lendzion J, Leuschner C (2008) Growth of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) saplings is limited by elevated atmospheric vapour pressure deficits. For Ecol Manage 256:648–655
Li S, Liu F (2022) Vapour pressure deficit and endogenous ABA level modulate stomatal responses of tomato plants to soil water deficit. Environ Exp Bot 199:104889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2022.104889
Liu L, Gudmundsson L, Hauser M et al (2020a) Soil moisture dominates dryness stress on ecosystem production globally. Nat Commun 11:1–9
Liu Y, Kumar M, Katul GG et al (2020b) Plant hydraulics accentuates the effect of atmospheric moisture stress on transpiration. Nat Clim Chang 10:691–695. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0781-5
Liu J, Li S, Yang X et al (2022) Effects of soil drought and vapour pressure deficit (VPD) on water use efficiency of tomato plants with contrasting endogenous ABA levels. Sci Hortic 295:110797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110797
Lynch JP (2022) Edaphic stress interactions: Important yet poorly understood drivers of plant production in future climates. Field Crop Res 283:108547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108547
McAdam SAM, Brodribb TJ (2015) The Evolution of Mechanisms Driving the Stomatal Response to Vapor Pressure Deficit. Plant Physiol 167:833–843. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.252940
McKee GW (1964) A Coefficient for Computing Leaf Area in Hybrid Corn1. Agron J 56:240–241. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1964.00021962005600020038x
Medina S, Vicente R, Nieto-Taladriz MT et al (2019) The Plant-Transpiration Response to Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD) in Durum Wheat Is Associated With Differential Yield Performance and Specific Expression of Genes Involved in Primary Metabolism and Water Transport. Front Plant Sci 9:1994. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01994
Muchow RC, Sinclair TR (1991) Water deficit effects on maize yields modeled under current and “greenhouse” climates. Agron J 83:1052–1059
Nardini A, Pedà G, Rocca NL (2012) Trade-offs between leaf hydraulic capacity and drought vulnerability: morpho-anatomical bases, carbon costs and ecological consequences. New Phytol 196:788–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04294.x
Novick KA, Ficklin DL, Stoy PC et al (2016) The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nature Clim Change 6:1023–1027. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3114
Oren R, Sperry JS, Katul GG et al (1999) Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ 22:1515–1526. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.1999.00513.x
Osakabe Y, Osakabe K, Shinozaki K, Tran L-SP (2014) Response of plants to water stress. Front Plant Sci 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00086
Park Williams A, Allen CD, Macalady AK et al (2013) Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nature Clim Change 3:292–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1693
Passioura JB (1980) The Transport of Water from Soil to Shoot in Wheat Seedlings. J Exp Bot 31:333–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/31.1.333
Passioura JB (1988) Water transport in and to roots. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 39:245–265. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.39.060188.001333
Ranawana SRWMCJK, Siddique KHM, Palta JA et al (2021) Stomata coordinate with plant hydraulics to regulate transpiration response to vapour pressure deficit in wheat. Functional Plant Biol 48:839–850. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP20392
Ray JD, Gesch RW, Sinclair TR, Hartwell Allen L (2002) The effect of vapor pressure deficit on maize transpiration response to a drying soil. Plant Soil 239:113–121. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014947422468
Ray JD, Sinclair TR (1997) Stomatal Closure of Maize Hybrids in Response to Drying Soil. Crop Science 37:cropsci1997.0011183X003700030018x. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700030018x
Rodriguez-Dominguez CM, Brodribb TJ (2020) Declining root water transport drives stomatal closure in olive under moderate water stress. New Phytol 225:126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16177
Ryan AC, Dodd IC, Rothwell SA et al (2016) Gravimetric phenoty** of whole plant transpiration responses to atmospheric vapour pressure deficit identifies genotypic variation in water use efficiency. Plant Sci 251:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.05.018
Santini M, Noce S, Antonelli M, Caporaso L (2022) Complex drought patterns robustly explain global yield loss for major crops. Sci Rep 12:5792. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09611-0
Scholander PF, Bradstreet ED, Hemmingsen EA, Hammel HT (1965) Sap Pressure in Vascular Plants: Negative hydrostatic pressure can be measured in plants. Science 148:339–346. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.148.3668.339
Schoppach R, Sadok W (2012) Differential sensitivities of transpiration to evaporative demand and soil water deficit among wheat elite cultivars indicate different strategies for drought tolerance. Environ Exp Bot 84:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.04.016
Scoffoni C, Albuquerque C, Cochard H et al (2018) The Causes of Leaf Hydraulic Vulnerability and Its Influence on Gas Exchange in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol 178:1584–1601. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.18.00743
Sinclair TR (2005) Theoretical Analysis of Soil and Plant Traits Influencing Daily Plant Water Flux on Drying Soils. Agron J 97:1148–1152. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0286
Sinclair TR, Ludlow MM (1986) Influence of Soil Water Supply on the Plant Water Balance of Four Tropical Grain Legumes. Functional Plant Biol 13:329–341. https://doi.org/10.1071/pp9860329
Sinclair TR, Devi J, Shekoofa A et al (2017) Limited-transpiration response to high vapor pressure deficit in crop species. Plant Sci 260:109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.04.007
Sperry JS, Love DM (2015) What plant hydraulics can tell us about responses to climate-change droughts. New Phytol 207:14–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13354
Sperry JS, Hacke UG, Oren R, Comstock JP (2002) Water deficits and hydraulic limits to leaf water supply. Plant, Cell Environ 25:251–263. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00799.x
Sulman BN, Roman DT, Yi K et al (2016) High atmospheric demand for water can limit forest carbon uptake and transpiration as severely as dry soil. Geophys Res Lett 43:9686–9695. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069416
Torres-Ruiz JM, Diaz-Espejo A, Perez-Martin A, Hernandez-Santana V (2015) Role of hydraulic and chemical signals in leaves, stems and roots in the stomatal behaviour of olive trees under water stress and recovery conditions. Tree Physiol 35:415–424. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpu055
Vadez V, Kholova J, Zaman-Allah M, Belko N (2013) Water: the most important ‘molecular’ component of water stress tolerance research. Funct Plant Biol 40:1310. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP13149
van Oosterom EJ, Carberry PS, Hargreaves JNG, O’Leary GJ (2001) Simulating growth, development, and yield of tillering pearl millet: II. Simulation of canopy development. Field Crop Res 72:67–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00165-4
Vetterlein D, Lippold E, Schreiter S et al (2021) Experimental platforms for the investigation of spatiotemporal patterns in the rhizosphere—laboratory and field scale. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 184:35–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202000079
Will RE, Wilson SM, Zou CB, Hennessey TC (2013) Increased vapor pressure deficit due to higher temperature leads to greater transpiration and faster mortality during drought for tree seedlings common to the forest–grassland ecotone. New Phytol 200:366–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12321
Xu Y, Ramanathan V, Victor DG (2018) Global warming will happen faster than we think. Nature 564:30–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07586-5
Zhang P, Yang X, Manevski K et al (2022) Physiological and Growth Responses of Potato (Solanum Tuberosum L.) to Air Temperature and Relative Humidity under Soil Water Deficits. Plants 11:1126. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091126
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) for funding of the priority program 2089, project number 403670197 “Emerging effects of root hairs and mucilage on plant scale soil water relations”, and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Project 02WIL1489 (Deutsch-Israelische Wassertechnologie-Kooperation).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MAA and AC acquired the funding and conceived the study; MK, MAA, FW and MA conducted the measurements; MK and GC did the data analysis; GC wrote the text with inputs from MAA, AC, and MJ. All authors contributed to editing and revising the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Janusz J. Zwiazek.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Appendix
Parameters and units used in the text, figures, and table:
-
E: transpiration rate, g s−1
-
Enorm: transpiration rate normalized by leaf area, g s−1 cm−2
-
gc: canopy conductance, g s−1 cm−2
-
ψsoil: soil matric potential, kPa
-
ψleaf: leaf water potential, kPa
-
ψleaf_PD: predawn leaf water potential, kPa
-
ks, soil hydraulic conductivity, cm s−1
-
Ksp, soil–plant hydraulic conductance, g s−1 kPa−1
-
θ: soil water content, cm3 cm−3
-
VPD: vapor pressure deficit, kPa
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Cai, G., König, M., Carminati, A. et al. Transpiration response to soil drying and vapor pressure deficit is soil texture specific. Plant Soil (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05818-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05818-2