Literature DB >> 32596099

Integral water capacity (IWC) and least limiting water range (LLWR): prediction using plant growth indices and soil properties.

Sana Kazemi1, Mehdi Nasiri2, Behnam Asgari Lajayer1, Mehrnaz Hatami3.   

Abstract

Soil water availability is an important field of study in soil water and plant relationship. Least limiting water range (LLWR) and integral water capacity (IWC) are two important concepts which are used for water availability to plant. LLWR is determined from four moisture coefficients (θ AFP, θ FC, θ SR, θ PWP) that are the soil water contents 10% air-filled porosity (AFP), at field water capacity (FC), 2 MPa penetration resistance (SR), and permanent wilting point (PWP), respectively. The computation is dependent on critical values, so IWC was introduced to avoid using the critical limits that sharply rises in a cut-off from 0 to 1 at the wet end of water release curve or sharply falls from 1 to 0 at the dry side in the previous concepts of water availability for plant. IWC is the integral of differential water capacity function (C(h)) in the amplitude of 0 to infinity soil matric potential (h) multiplied by some weighting functions (ω i (h)) each considering the effect of various soil limitations on water availability to plants. Up to now, the effect of different soil attributes and the tillage treatments have been reviewed on LLWR. The effect of soil various physical and chemical limitations such as soil hydraulic conductivity (K(h)), aeration, SR, and salinity has been considered on IWC computation. LLWR and especially IWC have been seldom studied using plant real response. Results of few studies about LLWR and IWC using stomatal conductance and canopy temperature showed that their values were considerably different with those computed based on previously introduced critical limits for LLWR and weighting functions for IWC. These differences indicate that the critical limits proposed by da Silva et al. (Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:1775-1781, 1994) and weighting functions by Groenevelt et al. (Aust J Soil Res 39:577-598, 2001) may not be applied indiscriminately for all plants and should to be modified according to plant response. Physiological characteristics like transpiration and photosynthesis rate, chlorophyll index, leaf water potential, and relative water content also could be appropriate indices for monitoring plant water status and computation the real value of LLWR and IWC in the field or greenhouse for various types of plants. © King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Moisture coefficients; Physiological characteristics; Weighting functions

Year:  2020        PMID: 32596099      PMCID: PMC7310039          DOI: 10.1007/s13205-020-02283-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  3 Biotech        ISSN: 2190-5738            Impact factor:   2.406


  5 in total

1.  What are the driving forces for water lifting in the xylem conduit?

Authors:  Ulrich Zimmermann; Heike Schneider; Lars H Wegner; Hans-Jürgen Wagner; Michael Szimtenings; Axel Haase; Friedrich-Wilhelm Bentrup
Journal:  Physiol Plant       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.500

2.  Leaf area and photosynthesis of newly emerged trifoliolate leaves are regulated by mature leaves in soybean.

Authors:  Yushan Wu; Wanzhuo Gong; Yangmei Wang; Taiwen Yong; Feng Yang; Weigui Liu; Xiaoling Wu; Junbo Du; Kai Shu; Jiang Liu; Chunyan Liu; Wenyu Yang
Journal:  J Plant Res       Date:  2018-03-29       Impact factor: 2.629

Review 3.  Causes of decreased photosynthetic rate and metabolic capacity in water-deficient leaf cells: a critical evaluation of mechanisms and integration of processes.

Authors:  David W Lawlor; Wilmer Tezara
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2009-01-19       Impact factor: 4.357

4.  Drought Tolerance of Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) by Improved Photosynthetic Characteristics and an Efficient Antioxidant Enzyme Activities Under a Split-Root System.

Authors:  Nasir Iqbal; Sajad Hussain; Muhammad Ali Raza; Cai-Qiong Yang; Muhammad Ehsan Safdar; Marian Brestic; Ahsan Aziz; Muhammad Sikander Hayyat; Muhammad Ahsan Asghar; Xiao Chun Wang; Jing Zhang; Wenyu Yang; Jiang Liu
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 4.566

5.  Accounting for sap flow from different parts of the root system improves the prediction of xylem ABA concentration in plants grown with heterogeneous soil moisture.

Authors:  Ian C Dodd; Gregorio Egea; William J Davies
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2008-10-21       Impact factor: 6.992

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.