Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:26:22.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparisons between Press and Pressure Chamber Techniques for Measuring Leaf Water Potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

T. M. Yegappan  and
B. J. Mainstone
T. M. Yegappan
Affiliation:
Dunlop Research Centre, Dunlop Estates Berhad, Batang Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
B. J. Mainstone
Affiliation:
Dunlop Research Centre, Dunlop Estates Berhad, Batang Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A hydraulic press (the J-14) was compared with a Scholander pressure chamber to measure leaf water potential in Theobroma cacao, Gliricidia maculata, Cajanus cajan and Elaeis guineensis. Although the press satisfactorily estimated water status in soft, unhardened leaves of T. cacao, G. maculata and C. cajan at high water potential, it underestimated water status in hardened leaves of T. cacao. Satisfactory estimates were obtained at low water potential for hardened leaves of T. cacao but not for the others. There was a poor relation between readings of the two instruments for E. guineensis over a wide range of water potentials because press readings appeared to be influenced by leaf structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 75 - 84
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

Begg, J. E. & Turner, N. C. (1976). Adv. Agron. 28:161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, T. C. (1973). Ann. Rev. Plant. Physiol. 24:519–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcheon, W. V. (1975). Rep. Cocoa Res. Inst. Ghana 1972–1973, 149–165.Google Scholar
Machida, Y. & Maotani, T. (1974). J. Jap. Soc. Hort. Sci. 43:7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Toole, J. C. & Moya, T. B. (1978). Crop Science 18:873–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renard, C., Flemal, J. & Barampama, D. (1979). Cafe Cacao Thé 23:175–182.Google Scholar
Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Hemmingsen, E. A. & Bradstreet, E. D. (1964). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., US 52:119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivakumar, M. V. K. & Virmani, S. M. (1979). Adv. Agron. 28:161–217.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C., Begg, J. E., Rawson, H. M., English, S. D. & Hearn, A. B. (1978). Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 5:179–194.Google Scholar
Yegappan, T. M., Paton, D. M., Gates, C. T. & Muller, W. (1979). Ann. Bot. In press.Google Scholar