Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:29:44.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Thermocouple Psychrometer and Pressure Chamber Measurements of Leaf Water Potential in Peanuts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

G. C. Wright ,
A. Rahmianna  and
P. M. Hatfield
G. C. Wright
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industries, J. Bjelke Petersen Research Station, PO Box 23, Kingaroy Q 4610, Australia
A. Rahmianna
Affiliation:
Malang Research Institute for Food Crops, PO Box 66, Malang, E. Java, Indonesia
P. M. Hatfield
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industries, J. Bjelke Petersen Research Station, PO Box 23, Kingaroy Q 4610, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The pressure chamber method for measuring leaf water potential in peanuts was compared with the thermocouple psychrometer technique. The pressure chamber over-estimated leaf water potential by an average of 0.4 MPa over the range −0.5 to −5.0 MPa. It is suggested that the pressure chamber technique may be appropriate in comparative studies of peanut water stress. However, where absolute measurements are required, as in the calculation of leaf turgor potential, either a correction factor should be applied or, preferably, the thermocouple psychrometer technique used. If no account is taken of the discrepancy between techniques, erroneously large negative turgor potentials will result.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 355 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bennett, J. M., Boote, K. J. & Hammond, L. C. (1981). Alterations in the components of peanut leaf water potential during desiccation. Journal of Experimental Botany 32:1035–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. M., Boote, K. J. & Hammond, L. C. (1984). Relationships among water potential components, relative water content and stomatal resistance of field-grown peanut leaves. Peanut Science 11:31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, C. R., Teng, D. Y., Ong, C. K., Solon, A. & Simmonds, L. P. (1985). Effects of soil moisture stress on the water relations and water use of groundnut stands. New Phytologist 100:313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boote, K. J. (1982). Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Peanut Science 9:35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, J. S. (1967). Leaf water potentials measured with a pressure chamber. Plant Physiology 42:133–137.Google ScholarPubMed
Boyer, J. S. & Ghorashy, S. R. (1971). Rapid field measurement of leaf water potential in soybean. Agronomy Journal 63:344–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roo, H. C. (1969). Leaf water potentials of sorghum and corn, estimated with the pressure bomb. Agronomy Journal 61:969–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepper, B. & Barrs, H. D. (1968). Effects of salt secretion on psychrometer determinations of water potential of cotton leaves. Plant Physiology 43:1138–1140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, W. S. & Reicosky, D. C. (1985). Enclosing leaves for water potential measurements and its effect on interpreting soil-induced water stress. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 36:55–64.Google Scholar
Ong, C. K., Black, C. R., Simmonds, L. P. & Saffell, R. A. (1985). Influence of saturation deficit on leaf production and expansion in stands of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) grown without irrigation. Annals of Botany 56:523–536.Google Scholar
Pallas, J. E. Jr, Stansell, J. R. & Koske, T. J. (1979). Effects of drought on Florunner peanuts. Agronomy Journal 71:853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samui, R. P. & Kar, S. (1981). Soil and plant resistance effects on transpirational and leaf water responses by groundnut to soil water potential. Australian Journal of Soil Research 19:51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, N. C. & Long, M. J. (1980). Errors arising from rapid water loss in the measurement of leaf water potential by the pressure chamber technique. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 7:527–537.Google Scholar