The Effect of Leaf Water Potential, Leaf Temperature and Light Intensity on Leaf Diffusion Resistance and the Transpiration of Leaves of Malus sylvestris

Abstract

AbstractThe relationship between leaf resistance to water vapour diffusion and each of the factors leaf water potential, light intensity and leaf temperature was determined for leaves on seedling apple trees (Malus sylvestris Mill. cv. Granny Smith) in the laboratory. Leaf cuticular resistance was also determined and transpiration was measured on attached leaves for a range of conditions.Leaf resistance was shown to be independent of water potential until potential fell below — 19 bars after which leaf resistance increased rapidly. Exposure of leaves to CO2‐free air extended the range for which resistance was independent of water potential to — 30 bars.The light requirement for minimum leaf resistance was 10 to 20 W m−2 and at light intensities exceeding these, leaf resistance was unaffected by light intensity.Optimum leaf temperature for minimum diffusion resistance was 23 ± 2°C. The rate of change measured in leaf resistance in leaves given a sudden change in leaf temperature increased as the magnitude of the temperature change increased. For a sudden change of 1°C in leaf temperature, diffusion resistance changed at a rate of 0.01 s cm−1 min−1 whilst for a 9°C leaf temperature change, diffusion resistance changed at a rate of 0.1 s cm−1 min−1.Cuticular resistance of these leaves was 125 s cm−1 which is very high compared with resistances for open stomata of 1.5 to 4 s cm−1 and 30 to 35 s cm−1 for stomata closed in the dark.Transpiration was measured in attached apple leaves enclosed in a leaf chamber and exposed to a range of conditions of leaf temperature and ambient water vapour density. Peak transpiration of approximately 5 × 10−6 g cm−2 s−1 occurred at a vapour density gradient from the leaf to the air of 12 to 14 g m−3 after which transpiration declined due presumably to increased stomatal resistance. Leaves in CO2‐free air attained a peak transpiration of 11 × 10−6 g cm−2 s−1 due to lower values of leaf resistance in CO2 free air. Transpiration then declined in these leaves due to development of an internal leaf resistance (of up to 2 s cm−1). The internal resistance was masked in leaves at normal CO2 concentrations by the increase in stomatal resistance.