How do stomata respond to water status?

Abstract

Summary Stomatal responses to humidity, soil moisture and other factors that influence plant water status are critical drivers of photosynthesis, productivity, water yield, ecohydrology and climate forcing, yet we still lack a thorough mechanistic understanding of these responses. Here I review historical and recent advances in stomatal water relations. Clear evidence now implicates a metabolically mediated response to leaf water status (‘hydroactive feedback’) in stomatal responses to evaporative demand and soil drought, possibly involving abscisic acid production in leaves. Other hypothetical mechanisms involving vapor and heat transport within leaves may contribute to humidity, light and temperature responses, but require further theoretical clarification and experimental validation. Variation and dynamics in hydraulic conductance, particularly within leaves, may contribute to water status responses. Continuing research to fully resolve mechanisms of stomatal responses to water status should focus on several areas: validating and quantifying the mechanism of leaf‐based hydroactive feedback, identifying where in leaves water status is actively sensed, clarifying the role of leaf vapor and energy transport in humidity and temperature responses, and verifying foundational but minimally replicated results of stomatal hydromechanics across species. Clarity on these matters promises to deliver modelers with a tractable and reliable mechanistic model of stomatal responses to water status.

Faster Removal of 2-Phosphoglycolate through Photorespiration Improves Abiotic Stress Tolerance of Arabidopsis

“…Similar results were obtained if photosynthesis of wild-type and PGLP overexpressor plants was characterized under water-limiting conditions. Water shortage promotes stomatal closure [36] and eventually increases 2-PG levels due to a higher RuBP fraction being oxidized. Notably, both transgenic lines showed significant improvements in photosynthetic parameters after 13 days of water shortage (Figure 3).…”

Atmospheric CO2 and VPD alter the diel oscillation of leaf elongation in perennial ryegrass: compensation of hydraulic limitation by stored‐growth

“…Passioura, 1988;Passioura, 2002). CO 2 and VPD could also indirectly influence the leaf water status of plants through their effect on stomatal conductance (g s ) (Sionit et al, 1981;Morrison, 1993;Tyree & Alexander, 1993;Ainsworth & Rogers, 2007;Kimball, 2016;Manderscheid et al, 2016;Buckley, 2019). Results from free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE) and chamber experiments under various environmental conditions show a systematic, significant decrease of g s in C 3 plants at elevated CO 2 , producing an equivalent decrease in transpiration (Leakey et al, 2009).…”

An isotopic approach to partition evapotranspiration in a mixed deciduous forest

“…δ T varies with abiotic and biotic conditions including stomatal conductance, temperature, humidity and δ a (Simonin et al, 2013). At the leaf level, δ T is also controlled by the transpiration rate, stomatal density and leaf water content (Buckley, 2019; Dubbert et al, 2017). The Craig and Gordon (1965) model predicts that temperature and humidity are correlated with δ T (Dongmann et al, 1974; Farquhar et al, 1993; Farquhar & Cernusak, 2005; Farquhar & Lloyd, 1993; Farris & Strain, 1978; Flanagan et al, 1991), which Simonin et al (2013) confirmed in a leaf‐cuvette study, and we find to be true in naturally varying conditions (Figure 6).…”