Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T23:36:08.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Modelling Stomatal and Canopy Conductance

from Section Three - Modelling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

Derek Eamus
Affiliation:
University of Technology, Sydney
Alfredo Huete
Affiliation:
University of Technology, Sydney
Qiang Yu
Affiliation:
University of Technology, Sydney
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Stomata are located at the critical interface between a leaf's internal and external environment. Stomata are the point of coupling between the flux of CO2 for photosynthesis and water for transpiration. Modelling stomatal conductance (gs) has a long history but mostly it has been empirical rather than mechanistic. Recently, however, this has changed and more mechanistic models are emerging. In this chapter various models that are currently used to describe stomatal and canopy conductance are discussed. The physiological basis of stomatal movements underpinning these models is discussed extensively in Chapter 2 while examples of stomatal behaviour in the field are presented in Chapters 14–18.

Stomata respond to environmental factors in such a manner that it not only protects the plant from excessive water loss, but also optimises water-use-efficiency (Cowan 1977, Chapter 2). Regulation of gs is a key element in mass flow through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum (SPAC) with respect to water loss and carbon gain. Though much is known about stomatal behaviour in the field, a mechanistic model of field behaviour of stomatal conductance has been elusive. Mathematical simulation models of stomatal conductance are mostly semi-empirical, with a notable recent exception which is described more fully in Section 11.2 (Medlyn et al. 2011). Early work by Upadhyaya et al. (1983), and Fu and Wang (1994) are also noteworthy in their attempts to construct mechanistic models which include leaf water potential, photosynthetic electron transport, and ion fluxes, into or out of the guard cells. These models, though more analytical, are rarely applied today because they contain variables which are either not readily measurable or they are rarely measured by ecophysiologists.

Although many studies simulate stomatal behaviour and there are multiple combined photosynthesis-stomatal conductance models, systematic analysis of physiological responses to environmental variation has rarely been undertaken. This is despite the primary importance in model building of the need to construct a sound mechanistic framework so that observed phenomena can be simulated under widely different environments and circumstances.

During numerical analysis of physiological responses it is important to study the sensitivity of outputs to variation in inputs. Models of physiological responses to environmental factors have a wide range of use in the modelling of crop yield, forest growth, and dynamic global vegetation models and land surface exchange models.

Type
Chapter
Information
Vegetation Dynamics
A Synthesis of Plant Ecophysiology, Remote Sensing and Modelling
, pp. 281 - 295
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Aphalo, PJ and Jarvis, PG, (1991). Do stomata respond to relative-humidity. Plant, Cell and Environment 14(1), 127–132.Google Scholar
Arora, VK, (2003). Simulating energy and carbon fluxes over winter wheat using coupled land surface and terrestrial ecosystem models. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 118(1–2), 21–47.Google Scholar
Bailey, WG and Davies, JA, (1981). Bulk Stomatal-Resistance Control on Evaporation. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 20(4), 401–415.Google Scholar
Baldocchi, DD, Hicks, BB and Meyers, TP, (1988). Measuring biosphere-atmosphere exchanges of biologically related gases with micrometeorological methods. Ecology 69(5), 1331–1340.Google Scholar
Baldocchi, DD, Luxmoore, RJ and Hatfield, JL, (1991). Discerning the forest from the trees–an essay on scaling canopy stomatal conductance. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 54(2–4), 197–226.Google Scholar
Ball, JT, Woodrow, IE and Berry, JA,(1987). A model predicting stomatal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. In: Biggins, J. (Editor), Progress in Photosynthesis Research. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht–Boston–Lancaster, pp. 221–224.
Bernacchi, CJ, Singsaas, EL, Pimentel, C, Portis, AR and Long, SP, (2001). Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco-limited photosynthesis. Plant, Cell and Environment 24(2), 253–259.Google Scholar
BlonquistJr, JM, Norman, JM and Bugbee, B, (2009). Automated measurement of canopy stomatal conductance based on infrared temperature. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149(12): 2183–2197.Google Scholar
Buckley, TN, Mott, KA and Farquhar, GD, (2003). A hydromechanical and biochemical model of stomatal conductance. Plant, Cell and Environment 26(10), 1767–1785.Google Scholar
Collatz, GJ, Ball, JT, Grivet, C and Berry, JA, (1991). Physiological and environmental-regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration–a model that includes a laminar boundary-layer. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 54(2–4), 107–136.Google Scholar
Cowan, IR, (1977). Stomatal behaviour and environment. Advances in Botanical Research 4, 117–228.Google Scholar
Cowan, IR and Farquhar, GD, (1977). Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment. Symposium of the Society for Experimental Biology 31, 471–505.Google Scholar
Cox, PM, Huntingford, C and Harding, RJ, (1998). A canopy conductance and photosynthesis model for use in a GCM land surface scheme. Journal of Hydrology211–213(79–94).Google Scholar
Dewar, RC, (1995). Interpretation of an empirical-model for stomatal conductance in terms of guard cell function. Plant Cell and Environment 18(4), 365–372.Google Scholar
Dewar, RC, (2002). The Ball-Berry-Leuning and Tardieu-Davies stomatal models: synthesis and extension within a spatially aggregated picture of guard cell function. Plant Cell and Environment 25(11), 1383–1398.Google Scholar
Duncan, WG, Loomis, RS, Williams, WA and Hanau, R, (1967). A model for simulating photosynthesis in plant communities. Hilgardia 38(4), 181–205.Google Scholar
Eamus, D, Taylor, DT, Macinnis-Ng, CMO, Shanahan, S and Silva, L De, (2008). Comparing model predictions and experimental data for the response of stomatal conductance and guard cell turgor to manipulations of cuticular conductance, leaf-to-air vapour pressure difference and temperature: feedback mechanisms are able to account for all observations. Plant, Cell and Environment 31(3), 269–277.Google Scholar
Fu, W and Wang, TD,(1994). A mechanistic model of stomatal responses to environmental factors. Acta Phytophysiol Sin 20, 277–284 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Furon, J, Warland, JS and Wagner-Riddle, W, (2007). Analysis of scaling-up resistances from leaf to canopy using numerical simulations. Agronomy Journal 99, 1483–1491.Google Scholar
Gao, Q, Zhao, P, Zeng, X, Cai, X and Shen, W, (2002). A model of stomatal conductance to quantify the relationship between leaf transpiration, microclimate and soil water stress. Plant, Cell and Environment 25(11), 1373–1381.Google Scholar
Hatton, TJ, Walker, J, Dawes, WR and Dunin, FX, (1992). Simulations of hydroecological responses to elevated CO2 at the catchment scale. Australian Journal of Botany 40(4–5), 679–696.Google Scholar
Irmak, S, Mutiibwa, D, Irmak, A, Arkebauer, TJ, Weiss, A, Martin, DL and Eisenhauer, DE, (2008). On the scaling up leaf stomatal resistance to canopy resistance using photosynthetic photon flux density. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 148(6–7): 1034–1044.Google Scholar
Jarvis, PG, (1976). Interpretation of variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in field. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 273(927), 593–610.Google Scholar
Jarvis, PJ and McNaughton, KG, (1986). Stomatal control of transpiration: scaling up from leaf to region. In: MacJadyen, A. and Ford, R.D. (Editors), Advances in Ecological Research.Academic Press, London, pp. 205–265.
Lagergren, F and Lindroth, A, (2002). Transpiration response to soil moisture in pine and spruce trees in Sweden. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 112(2), 67–85.Google Scholar
Leuning, R, (1990). Modeling stomatal behavior and photosynthesis of Eucalyptus grandis. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 17(2), 159–175.Google Scholar
Leuning, R, (1995). A critical-appraisal of a combined stomatal-photosynthesis model for C-3 plants. Plant, Cell and Environment 18(4), 339–355.Google Scholar
Lhomme, JP, (1991). The concept of canopy resistance: Historical survey and comparison of different approaches. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 54(2–4), 227–240.Google Scholar
McMurtrie, RE, Comins, HN, Kirschbaum, MUF and Wang, YP, (1992). Modifying existing forest growth-models to take account of effects of elevated CO2. Australian Journal of Botany 40, 657–677.Google Scholar
Medlyn, BE, Duursma, RA, Eamus, D, Ellsworth, DS, Prentice, IC, Barton, CVM, Crous, KY, Angelis, P de, Freeman, M and Wingate, L, (2011). Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Global Change Biology 17(6), 2134–2144.Google Scholar
Monteith, JL, (1995). A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity. Plant, Cell and Environment 18(4), 357–364.Google Scholar
Mott, KA and Parkhurst, DF, (1991). Stomatal responses to humidity in air and helox. Plant, Cell and Environment 14(5), 509–515.Google Scholar
Sellers, PJ, Berry, JA, Collatz, GJ, Field, CB and Hall, FG, (1992). Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis, and transpiration. A re-analysis using improved leaf models and a new canopy integration scheme. Remote Sensing of Environment 42(3), 187–216.Google Scholar
Sellers, PJ, Mintz, Y, Sud, YC and Dalcher, A, (1986). A Simple Biosphere Model (Sib) for use within general circulation models. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 43(6), 505–531.Google Scholar
Sellers, PJ, Randall, DA, Collatz, GJ, Berry, JA, Field, CB, Dazlich, DA, Zhang, C, Collelo, GD and Bounoua, L, (1996). A revised land surface parameterization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMs .1. Model formulation. Journal of Climate 9(4), 676–705.Google Scholar
Szeicz, G and Long, IF, (1969). Surface resistance of crop canopies. Water Resources Research 5(3), 622–633.Google Scholar
Tuzet, A, Perrier, A and Leuning, R, (2003). A coupled model of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Plant, Cell and Environment 26(7), 1097–1116.Google Scholar
Upadhyaya, SK, Rand, RH and Cooke, JR, (1983). A mathematical-model of the effects of CO2 on stomatal dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology 101(3), 415–440.Google Scholar
Wang, J, (2006). Study on the experiment and simulation of crop growth and water,heat and CO2 transfer in the agro-ecosystem. PhD Thesis, The Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Wang, YP and Leuning, R, (1998). A two-leaf model for canopy conductance, photosynthesis and partitioning of available energy I: Model description and comparison with a multi-layered model. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 91(1–2), 89–111.Google Scholar
Whitehead, D, Okali, DUU and Fasehun, FE, (1981). Stomatal response to environmental variables in 2 tropical forest species during the dry season in Nigeria. Journal of Applied Ecology 18(2), 571–587.Google Scholar
Whitley, R, Medlyn, B, Zeppel, M, Macinnis-Ng, C and Eamus, D, (2009). Comparing the Penman Monteith equation and a modified Jarvis-Stewart model with an artificial neural network to estimate stand-scale transpiration and canopy conductance. Journal of Hydrology 373, 256–266.Google Scholar
Wong, SC, Cowan, IR and Farquhar, GD, (1979). Stomatal conductance correlates with photosynthetic capacity. Nature 282(5737), 424–426.Google Scholar
Yu, Q, Goudriaan, J and Wang, TD, (2001). Modelling diurnal courses of photosynthesis and transpiration of leaves on the basis of stomatal and non-stomatal responses, including photoinhibition. Photosynthetica 39(1), 43–51.Google Scholar
Yu, Q and Wang, TD, (1998). Simulation of the physiological responses of C-3 plant leaves to environmental factors by a model which combines stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Acta Botanica Sinica 40(8), 740–754.Google Scholar
Yu, Q, Zhang, YG, Liu, YF and Shi, PL, (2004). Simulation of the stomatal conductance of winter wheat in response to light, temperature and CO2 changes. Annals of Botany 93(4), 435–441.Google Scholar
Zhang, B, Liu, Y, Xu, D, Cai, J and Li, F, (2011). Evapotranspiraton estimation based on scaling up from leaf stomatal conductance to canopy conductance. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151(8): 1086–1095.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×