Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:59:39.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of drought on barley: soil and plant water relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Day ,
D. W. Lawlor  and
B. J. Legg
W. Day
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ
D. W. Lawlor
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ
B. J. Legg
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In a field experiment on the effects of drought on spring barley, the crop was protected from rainfall by automatic rain shelters; a range of drought treatments was achieved by irrigating various plots according to a predetermined schedule. There were 12 treatments which ranged from no irrigation to full irrigation from emergence to harvest; results from seven treatments are discussed in this paper.

The rate of water uptake was determined for four soil horizons centred at 0·15, 0·50, 0·80 and 1·10 m. For all treatments, the rate of uptake in each horizon decreased as the soil dried, and although there were large differences in root density between horizons, maximum rates of uptake were similar in all horizons down to 0·80 m. Treatment effects showed that prolonged drought decreased the rate of uptake from the 0·80 and 1·10 m horizons: root density at and below 1·0 m probably differed between treatments.

Differences between treatments in leaf water potential (ψL) and osmotic potential (πL) were small, and there was no evidence that osmotic adjustment contributed to the drought response of this crop. Near anthesis, pre-dawn ψL was near zero for irrigated treatments and between – 3 and – 5 bar for unirrigated. During the day, ψL decreased to a minimum of – 15 to – 18 bar for irrigated plants, and was generally 3 bar lower for unirrigated. For all treatments, ψL was greater than π for the major part of the day, i.e. positive turgor was maintained; however, turgor was usually greater for irrigated than for unirrigated plants. The relationship, for leaf 8, between ψL and transpiration flux density was markedly non-linear, and was of a similar form for irrigated and vinirrigated plants. As the form of this relationship was independent of treatment, the non-linearity could not have been caused by variations in soil water potential through the profile.

Stomatal resistance differed markedly between treatments. A detailed analysis is presented, relating measured resistance for leaf 8 to ψL and to environmental variables: irradiance (I), water vapour pressure deficit (vpd), and temperature (T). The analysis showed no significant dependence of resistance on ψL or T, but marked dependence on I and vpd; a mathematical model combining a hyperbolic response function for I and an exponential function for vpd fitted the data well. The responses of abaxial and adaxial surface resistances to vpd were similar, but their light responses differed because of their different exposures to incident irradiance.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 96 , Issue 1 , February 1981 , pp. 61 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Barrs, H. D. & Weatherley, P. (1962). A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 57, 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biscoe, P. V., Cohen, Y. & Wallace, J. S. (1976). Daily and seasonal changes of water potential in cereals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 273, 565–580.Google Scholar
Biscoe, P. V., Littleton, E. J. & Scott, R. K. (1973). Stomatal control of gas exchange in barley awns. Annals of Applied Biology 75, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, J. S. (1969). Measurement of the water status of plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 19, 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, F. J. & Milthorpe, F. L. (1976). Stomatal conductance in the control of gas exchange. In Water Deficits and Plant Growth. Volume iv, Plant Responses and Breeding for Drought Resistance (ed. Kozlowski, T. T.), pp. 103–152. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Callander, B. A. & Woodhead, T. (1981). Canopy conductance of estate tea in Kenya. Agricultural Meteorology (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, W. (1977). A direct reading continuous flow poromoter. Agricultural Meteorology 18, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, W., Legg, B. J., French, B. K., Johnston, A. E., Lawlor, D. W. & Jeffers, W. de C. (1978). A drought experiment using mobile shelters: the effect of drought on barley yield, water use and nutrient uptake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 599–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denmead, O. T. & Millar, B. D. (1976). Water transport in wheat plants in the field. Agronomy Journal 68, 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, B. K. & Legg, B. J. (1979). Rothamsted irrigation, 1964–76. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, D. R. (1970). Some measurements of evaporation in a field of barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 75, 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, P. J., McGowan, M. & Biscok, P. V. (1978). Wator relations of winter wheat. 2. Soil water relations. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hailey, J. L., Hiler, E. A., Jordan, W. R. & van Bavel, C. H. M. (1973). Resistance to water flow in Vigna sinensis L. (Endl.) at high rates of transpiration. Crop Science 13, 264–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, P. G. (1976). The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B 273, 593–610.Google Scholar
Jones, H. G. (1978). Modelling diurnal trends of leaf water potential in transpiring wheat. Journal of Applied Ecology 15, 613–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsberg, J. J. & Fowkes, N. D. (1978). Water movement through plant roots. Annals of Botany 42, 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, D. W., Day, W., Johnston, A. E., Legg, B. J. & Parkinson, K. J. (1981). Growth of spring barley, under drought: crop development, photosynthesis, dry-matter accumulation and nutrient content. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legg, B. J., Day, W., Brown, N. J. & Smith, G. J. (1978). Small plots and automatic rain shelters: a field appraisal. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legg, B. J., Day, W., Lawlor, D. W. & Parkinson, K. J. (1979). The effects of drought on barley growth: models and measurements showing the relative importance of leaf area and photosynthetic rate. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 703–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, I. F. & French, B. K. (1967). Measurement of soil moisture in the field by neutron moderation. Journal of Soil Science 18, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, A. A., Jensen, R. E., Bauer, A. & Norum, E. B. (1971). Influence of atmospheric and soil environmental parameters on the diurnal fluctuations of leaf water status of barley. Agricultural Meteorology 8, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1973). Principles of Environmental Physics, 241 pp. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Rawson, H. M., Begg, J. E. & Woodward, R. G. (1977). The effect of atmospheric humidity on photosynthesis, transpiration and water use efficiency of leaves of several plant species. Planta 134, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, G. J. S. (1975). Simple non-linear modelling for the general user. Proceedings of the 40th session of the International Statistical Institute, Warsaw 2, 505–593.Google Scholar
Seaton, K. A., Landsberg, J. J. & Sedgley, R. H. (1977). Transpiration and leaf water potentials of wheat in relation to changing soil water potential. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slatyer, R. O. (1967). Plant-Water Relationships, 366 pp. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Szeicz, G. (1974). Solar radiation in crop canopies. Journal of Applied Ecology 11, 1117–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, H. M. & Klepper, B. (1973). Rooting density and water extraction patterns for corn (Zea mays L.). Agronomy Journal 65, 965–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, N. C. (1974). Stomatal behaviour and water status of maize, sorghum and tobacco under field conditions. II. At low soil water potential. Plant Physiology 53, 360–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, N. C. & Begg, J. E. (1973). Stomatal behaviour and water status of maize, sorghum and tobacco under field conditions. I. At high soil water potential. Plant Physiology 51, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, N. C., Begg, J. E. & Tonnet, M. L. (1978). Osmotic adjustment of sorghum and sunflower crops in response to water deficits and its influence on the water potential at which stomata close. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 5, 597–608.Google Scholar
Tyree, M. T. (1976). Negative turgor pressure in plant cells: fact or fallacy? Canadian Journal of Botany 54, 2738–2746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherley, P. E. (1976). Introduction: water movement through plants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B 273, 435–444.Google Scholar
Welbank, P. J., Gibb, M. J., Taylor, P. J. & Williams, E. D. (1974). Root growth of cereal crops. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Report for 1973, Part 2, pp. 26–66.Google Scholar
Welbank, P. J. & Williams, E. D. (1968). Root growth of a barley crop estimated by sampling with portable powered soil-coring equipment. Journal of Applied Ecology 5, 477–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar