| Literature DB >> 28220128 |
Timo Vesala1, Sanna Sevanto2, Tiia Grönholm3, Yann Salmon3, Eero Nikinmaa4, Pertti Hari4, Teemu Hölttä4.
Abstract
The pull of water from the soil to the leaves causes water in the transpiration stream to be under negative pressure decreasing the water potential below zero. The osmotic concentration also contributes to the decrease in leaf water potential but with much lesser extent. Thus, the surface tension force is approximately balanced by a force induced by negative water potential resulting in concavely curved water-air interfaces in leaves. The lowered water potential causes a reduction in the equilibrium water vapor pressure in internal (sub-stomatal/intercellular) cavities in relation to that over water with the potential of zero, i.e., over the flat surface. The curved surface causes a reduction also in the equilibrium vapor pressure of dissolved CO2, thus enhancing its physical solubility to water. Although the water vapor reduction is acknowledged by plant physiologists its consequences for water vapor exchange at low water potential values have received very little attention. Consequences of the enhanced CO2 solubility to a leaf water-carbon budget have not been considered at all before this study. We use theoretical calculations and modeling to show how the reduction in the vapor pressures affects transpiration and carbon assimilation rates. Our results indicate that the reduction in vapor pressures of water and CO2 could enhance plant water use efficiency up to about 10% at a leaf water potential of -2 MPa, and much more when water potential decreases further. The low water potential allows for a direct stomatal water vapor uptake from the ambient air even at sub-100% relative humidity values. This alone could explain the observed rates of foliar water uptake by e.g., the coastal redwood in the fog belt region of coastal California provided the stomata are sufficiently open. The omission of the reduction in the water vapor pressure causes a bias in the estimates of the stomatal conductance and leaf internal CO2 concentration based on leaf gas exchange measurements. Manufactures of leaf gas exchange measurement systems should incorporate leaf water potentials in measurement set-ups.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 assimilation; Kelvin effect; carbon uptake; redwood; water potential; water uptake; water use efficiency
Year: 2017 PMID: 28220128 PMCID: PMC5292819 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Symbols and physical constants used in the calculations.
| CO2 assimilation rate | mol m−2s−1 | |
| CO2 assimilation rate in case of water potential 0 | mol m−2s−1 | |
| Concentration of CO2 in aqueous phase | mol m−3 | |
| Concentration of CO2 in aqueous phase in case of water potential 0 | mol m−3 | |
| CO2 concentration in ambient air | mol m−3 | |
| Internal (sub-stomatal/intercellular) CO2 concentration | mol m−3 | |
| Apparent internal (sub-stomatal/intercellular) CO2 concentration | mol m−3 | |
| CO2 concentration at the chloroplast | mol m−3 | |
| Diffusion coefficient of water vapor in air | 2.4·10−9 m2 s−1 | |
| Transpiration rate | mol m−2s−1 | |
| Transpiration rate in case of water potential 0 | mol m−2s−1 | |
| A constant of proportionality between chloroplast CO2 concentration and CO2 assimilation rate | m3 m−2s−1 | |
| Stomatal conductance | ms−1 | |
| Apparent stomatal conductance | ms−1 | |
| Air phase diffusive conductance from ambient air to the sub-stomatal cavity | m s−1 | |
| Aqueous phase diffusive conductance from the sub-stomatal cavity to the chloroplast | m s−1 | |
| Henry's law coefficient for CO2 | Unitless; the ratio of the gas phase CO2 concentration to that in the liquid phase at the equilibrium | |
| Flux rate of CO2 between the ambient air and sub-stomatal cavity | mol m−2 s−1 | |
| Flux rate of CO2 between the sub-stomatal cavity and chloroplast | mol m−2 s−1 | |
| Radius of curvature | m | |
| Universal gas constant | 8.314 J K−1 mol−1, | |
| Saturation ratio (relative humidity / 100%) | – | |
| Temperature | K | |
| Water tension | Pa | |
| Molar volume of water | 18·10−6 m3 mol−1, | |
| Partial molar volume of CO2 in water | 34·10−6 m3 mol−1, | |
| Internal (sub-stomatal/intercellular) water vapor concentration | mol m−3 | |
| Internal (sub-stomatal/intercellular) water vapor concentration in case of water potential 0 | mol m−3 | |
| Water vapor concentration in the ambient air | mol m−3 | |
| γ | Surface tension of water | 0.073 N m−1, |
| ψ | Water potential | Pa |
Positive radius of curvature is concave, negative radius of curvature is convex.
Tension can be expressed in terms of water potential (ψ): For pure water TN = − ψ
Expressed here per leaf area. The aqueous phase diffusive conductance consists also of lipid components.
Reference from CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. 2001. At a temperature of 18°C
Apparent means that it is estimated from leaf gas exchange measurements without taking into account the effect the changes in water pressure due to lowered water potential.
Figure 1Over a curved water/air meniscus at the air-mesophyll interface the equilibrium vapor concentrations for both water vapor and CO. Consequently, the exchange rates of water vapor and CO2 are affected. The radius of curvature r of the meniscus is given by the Young-Laplace equation linking the surface tension γ and water potential ψ.
Figure 2Equilibrium vapor pressure of liquid water (black dashed line) and dissolved carbon dioxide (gray dashed line), normalized to the flat surface value, and the radius of curvature of the water meniscus as a function of the absolute value of the water potential. The radius of concave surface is positive.
Figure 3Transpiration rate as a function of the saturation ratio and the CO2 assimilation rate as a function of the CO2 concentration in the internal (sub-stomatal/intercellular) cavity and the water potential (B), both gas exchange rates normalized to the flat surface value.
Figure 4Water use efficiency, normalized to the flat surface value, as a function of the saturation ratio .
Figure 5The ratio of the actual stomatal conductance to the apparent stomatal conductance (see Equation 14) as a function of the saturation ratio .
Figure 6Reverse transpiration rate (mg m.