Stomatal closure prevents the drop in soil water potential around roots

Carminati, Andrea; Ahmed, Mutez Ali; Zarebanadkouki, Mohsen; Cai, Gaochao; Lovrić, Goran; Javaux, Mathieu

doi:10.1111/nph.16451

Cited by 34 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 4B shows that stomata operate very close to the SOL, particularly in dry conditions and high vapor pressure deficit. Additional experimental evidence of the shape of the E(ψ leaf ) and its relation to k soil has also been recently reported [31,35,36].…”

Section: Experimental Evidencementioning

confidence: 66%

Soil Rather Than Xylem Vulnerability Controls Stomatal Response to Drought

Carminati

Javaux

2020

Trends in Plant Science

Self Cite

176

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trends in Plant Science θ Volumetric water content m 3 m -3 ψ Water potential per volume (water pressure) MPa ψ gs50 Water potential at which stomata close by 50% MPa ψ H50 Water potential at which soil-plant system loses 50% of its conductivity MPa ψ leaf Leaf water potential MPa ψ leaf,predawn Predawn leaf water potential MPa ψ s50 Water potential at which soil loses 50% of its conductivity MPa ψ soil Bulk soil water potential Mpa ψ x50 Water potential at which xylem loses 50% of its maximal conductivity MPa Trends in Plant Science

show abstract

Section: Experimental Evidencementioning

confidence: 66%

Soil Rather Than Xylem Vulnerability Controls Stomatal Response to Drought

Carminati

Javaux

2020

Trends in Plant Science

Self Cite

176

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was observed specifically in the drought‐resistant rootstock (Figs 6c, S5) and here we offer two hypotheses based on the observations: (1) water depletion that would confirm that the drought‐resistant rootstock quickly resumes water uptake capacity after re‐watering and (2) water repellency surrounding fine roots might help to hydraulically isolate the root tip from the drying soil, avoiding the risk of desiccation during drought. Recent results provide evidence that the formation of large gradients in water potential around the roots is prevented by stomata closure in Olives (Carminati et al , 2020; Rodriguez‐Dominguez & Brodribb, 2020). These results highlight the importance of accuracy when performing hydraulic experiment at the soil–root interface.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in grapevine rootstock sensitivity and recovery from drought are linked to fine root cortical lacunae and root tip function

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural changes during severe drought stress greatly modify the hydraulic properties of fine roots. Yet, the physiological basis behind the restoration of fine root water uptake capacity during water recovery remains unknown. Using neutron radiography (NR), X-ray micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), fluorescence microscopy, and fine root hydraulic conductivity measurements (Lp r), we examined how drought-induced changes in anatomy and hydraulic properties of contrasting grapevine rootstocks are coupled with fine root growth dynamics during drought and return of soil moisture. Lacunae formation in drought-stressed fine roots was associated with a significant decrease in fine root Lp r for both rootstocks. However, lacunae formation occurred under milder stress in the drought-resistant rootstock, 110R. Suberin was deposited at an earlier developmental stage in fine roots of 101-14Mgt (i.e. drought susceptible), probably limiting cortical lacunae formation during mild stress. During recovery, we found that only 110R fine roots showed rapid re-establishment of elongation and water uptake capacity and we found that soil water status surrounding root tips differed between rootstocks as imaged with NR. These data suggest that drought resistance in grapevine rootstocks is associated with rapid re-establishment of growth and Lp r near the root tip upon re-watering by limiting competing sites along the root cylinder.

show abstract

“…These gradients can be important and generate an additional non-linear resistance to radial flow. It is still debated whether root xylem cavitation or rhizosphere resistance triggers the non-linear system behavior but there seems to be more and more evidence that the rhizosphere nonlinearities are crucial (Carminati et al, 2020). Most root water uptake modules that consider root hydraulics in LSMs already 540 include the non-linear rhizosphere resistances.…”

Section: Realistic Root Systems: 395mentioning

confidence: 99%

From hydraulic root architecture models to macroscopic representations of root hydraulics in soil water flow and land surface models

Vanderborght¹,

Couvreur²,

Meunier³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Root water uptake is an important process in the terrestrial water cycle. How this process depends on soil water content, root distributions, and root properties is a soil-root hydraulic problem. We compare different approaches to implement root hydraulics in macroscopic soil water flow and land surface models. By upscaling a three dimensional hydraulic root architecture model, we derived an exact macroscopic root hydraulic model. The macroscopic model uses three characteristics: the root system conductance, Krs, the standard uptake fraction, SUF, that represents the uptake from a soil profile with a uniform hydraulic head, and a compensatory matrix that describes the redistribution of water uptake in a non-uniform hydraulic head profile. Two characteristics, Krs and SUF, are sufficient to describe the total uptake as a function of the collar and soil water potential; and water uptake redistribution does not depend on the total uptake or collar water potential. We compared the exact model with two hydraulic root models that make a-priori simplifications of the hydraulic root architecture: the parallel and big root model. The parallel root model uses only two characteristics, Krs and SUF, that can be calculated directly following a bottom up approach from the 3D hydraulic root architecture. The big root model uses more parameters than the parallel root model but these parameters cannot be obtained straightforwardly with a bottom up approach. The big root model was parameterized using a top down approach, i.e. directly from root segment hydraulic properties assuming a-priori a single big root architecture. This simplification of the hydraulic root architecture led to less accurate descriptions of root water uptake than by the parallel root model. To compute root water uptake in macroscopic soil water flow and land surface models, we recommend the use of the parallel root model with Krs and SUF computed in a bottom up approach from a known 3D root hydraulic architecture.

show abstract

Stomatal closure prevents the drop in soil water potential around roots

Cited by 34 publications

References 12 publications

Soil Rather Than Xylem Vulnerability Controls Stomatal Response to Drought

Soil Rather Than Xylem Vulnerability Controls Stomatal Response to Drought

Differences in grapevine rootstock sensitivity and recovery from drought are linked to fine root cortical lacunae and root tip function

From hydraulic root architecture models to macroscopic representations of root hydraulics in soil water flow and land surface models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About