Modelling stomatal responses of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Turbo) to ozone and different levels of water supply

Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Turbo) was exposed to different levels of ozone and water supply in open-top chambers in 1991. Air was charcoal filtered (CF), non-filtered (NF) and CF plus proportional addition of ambient or twice ambient ozone (CF1, CF2). Seasonal means of O3, taken over 24 h, were 2•3, 20•6, 17•3, and 34•5 nl litre−1 for CF, NF, CF1 and CF2 treatments, respectively. A split-plot design was used to obtain two levels of water supply: one-half of the pots was irrigated sufficiently not to show any symptoms of drought stress; the others were exposed to low water supply and received 50% of these amounts. Using a steady-state porometer approximately 800 measurements of stomatal conductance (gs) were made on flag leaves from 68 to 106 days after sowing. The measurements yielded only small differences of maximum conductance between the two levels of water supply. Therefore, low water supply did not protect wheat plants against ozone injury via reduced stomatal uptake in this experiment. To describe the effects of environmental variables on the stomatal behaviour, boundary-line analysis and non-linear regression analysis were used. Besides microclimatic parameters, the ozone dose of flag leaves was introduced as an independent variable affecting stomatal aperture. A well-defined boundary line for ozone dose was found, suggesting that increasing ozone dose caused stomatal closure in wheat flag leaves. But at high ozone doses, co-acting senescence seems also responsible for the decrease in stomatal conductance. A multiplicative boundary-line model was used to predict stomatal conductance from combinations of environmental variables. In the test carried out with the measurements of stomatal conductance, the model accounted only for 40% of the variation of gs. Generalized stomatal response patterns of the herbaceous growth form, the dependence of the variablesʹ age and ozone dose and the lack of an important factor influencing stomatal response (water status of the plant) in the model, are suggested as explanations of the poor results of the test.