The response of Evapotranspiration to osmotic potential in small-scale lab lysimeters

<p>Drought and climatic change are among the main environmental stressors for the water and soil qualities. Soil water potential is the major soil-related factor controlling water availability to plants and their evapotranspiration. It consists of two main components: matric and osmotic potential. Although the effect of matric potential on plant evapotranspiration has been extensively studied under various conditions, there is still a lack of quantitative studies on the effects of osmotic potential on evapotranspiration.</p><p>In our study, we investigated the influence of soil osmotic potential on the evapotranspiration rate and cumulative evapotranspiration of grass planted in small laboratory lysimeters. A sandy loam soil material was packed in four lysimeters with a volume of 6000 cm<sup>3</sup> and equal bulk density. The soil material was air dried, freed from roots and passed through a 2 mm sieve. Each lysimeter was equipped with soil sensors at two different depths to monitor soil moisture, bulk electrical conductivity, temperature, and matric potential. To obtain continuous mass balance measurements, each lysimeter was placed on a balance connected to the computer. Grass seeds were planted in each lysimeter at the same density and irrigated with distilled water until plant height was 12 cm. Irrigation water of two different qualities (EC= 0 and 4.79 dS/m) was then applied to produce different levels (0 and -0.17 MPa) of osmotic potential. The volumetric water content was adjusted to a value between 15 and 20 % in each lysimeter during the grass growth period. When the volumetric water content reached 15 %, irrigation water was added to the lysimeters to increase it to 20 %. Data were collected to calculate changes in osmotic potential relative to changes in total soil water potential. In addition, the relationship between osmotic potential and evapotranspiration rate during the growing season was determined.</p><p>Our results indicate a controlling role of soil osmotic potential on total soil water potential. This role results a significant reductions in evapotranspiration in response to increases in osmotic potential, in addition to effects on plant health. Osmotic potential has a significant function on total soil water potential when the soil becomes dry and poor water qualities are used in irrigation.</p>

Development of Douglas-fir seedling root architecture in response to localized nutrient supply

Three months following sowing, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) seedlings were transplanted into pots with controlled-release fertilizer (CRF) applied at rates of 0, 8, 16, and 24 g/2200 cm3 soil as a single uniform layer beneath the root system. Seedlings were destructively harvested periodically, and roots were divided into vertical segments above (S1), within (S2), and below (S3) the fertilizer layer. Two months following transplant, the number of active root tips was positively correlated with CRF rate in S1 and negatively correlated with rate in S2 and S3. At 6 months, root penetration into S3 was severely restricted at 16 and 24 g. This was attributed to detrimental changes in soil osmotic potential in S2. Fertilizer improved seedling growth at 8 g after 6 months compared with controls but was inhibitory at 24 g. Photochemical quantum yield was higher in all CRF treatments compared with controls 3 months following transplant, which corresponded with rapid initial CRF nutrient release. Despite improvements in nutrient release technology with CRF, high application rates may result in excessive concentrations of fertilizer nutrients in media, which can restrict root penetration and negatively affect seedling growth. Conservative application rates and improvements in CRF technology will help reduce the potential for adverse effects on seedling development.

The osmotic potential of soil water in plant/soil systems

Various techniques for measuring the osmotic potential of water in sand and loam at a range of soil water contents were examined. Results were inconsistent and variable when osmotic potential was derived by subtracting matric potential from total potential. Osmotic potential measurements on soil solution extruded at pressure through membranes were also unsatisfactory, probably due to salt sieving in the soil and/or at the membrane. Determining osmotic potential by linear dilution of an extract of 0.5 g g-1 soil solution can be criticized on several grounds, though the results presented for these soils seemed reasonable. The measurement of osmotic potential with in situ salinity sensors worked well in the loam but not in the sand. Measurements of the osmotic potential of displaced soil solutions were satisfactory for both soils. We concluded that the displacement technique was the most suitable for calibrating soil osmotic potential against soil water content, because it was simple, inexpensive in materials and time, and probably the least subject to error. The osmotic potential of soil dried by evaporation alone through a range of water contents was the same as that of soil dried by transpiration via lupins at two transpiration rates and via radiata pine. We concluded that the osmotic potential of the bulk soil in closed pots was independent of the activity of plants over the time scale of these experiments.