Premium
Foliage temperature: Effects of environmental factors with implications for plant water stress assessment and the CO 2 /climate connection
Author(s) -
Idso Sherwood B.,
Clawson Kirk L.,
Anderson Michael G.
Publication year - 1986
Publication title -
water resources research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.863
H-Index - 217
eISSN - 1944-7973
pISSN - 0043-1397
DOI - 10.1029/wr022i012p01702
Subject(s) - environmental science , vapour pressure deficit , atmospheric sciences , vegetation (pathology) , water vapor , photosynthetically active radiation , greenhouse , hyacinth , vapour pressure of water , carbon dioxide , evaporation , atmosphere (unit) , transpiration , hydrology (agriculture) , agronomy , meteorology , chemistry , ecology , botany , photosynthesis , geography , biology , medicine , geotechnical engineering , organic chemistry , pathology , engineering , geology
Throughout the summer and fall of 1985, several day‐long sets of foliage temperature measurements were obtained for healthy and potentially transpiring water hyacinth, cotton, and alfalfa plants growing in a sealed and unventilated greenhouse at Phoenix, Arizona, along with concurrent measurements of air temperature, vapor pressure and net radiation, plus, in the case of the water hyacinths, leaf diffusion resistance measurements. Some data for these plants were additionally obtained out of doors under natural conditions, while dead, nontranspiring stands of alfalfa and water hyacinth were also monitored, both out of doors and within the greenhouse. Analyses of the data revealed that plant nonwater‐stressed baselines, i.e., plots of foliage‐air temperature differential versus air vapor pressure deficit for potentially transpiring vegetation, were (1) curvilinear, as opposed to the straight lines which have so often appeared to be the case with much smaller and restricted data sets, and (2) that these baselines are accurately described by basic theory, utilizing independently measured values of plant foliage and aerodynamic resistances to water vapor transport. These findings lead to some slight adjustments in the procedure for calculating the Idso‐Jackson plant water stress index and they suggest that plants can adequately respond to much greater atmospheric demands for evaporation than what has been believed possible in the past. In addition, they demonstrate that the likely net radiation enhancement due to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will have little direct effect on vegetation temperatures, but that the antitranspirant effect of atmospheric CO 2 enrichment on foliage temperature may be substantial.