Abstract
Aims
Gradients in water potential of soil and plant system drives the water movement in soil-plant-atmospheric continuum. Here, we demonstrate how root water potential measured directly from the roots upon changes in soil water potential would contribute to the understanding of the drought response in Chrysopogon zizanoides.
Methods
Plants of Chrysopogon zizanoides L. were sampled at different soil water status (inducing drought) and growth periods (3-, 4- and 5- months). The roots and leaves of the plants were dissected to measure the root water potential and specific leaf area, respectively. The root water potential was measured in a WP4C dew-point potentiometer. Root diameter corresponding to the roots measured for root water potential was also measured.
Results
Our findings showed a logarithmic increase in gradient between soil and root water potential under the induced drought stress, similar to the existing findings of root hydraulic conductance. Specific leaf area significantly decreased with root water potential, indicating the hydraulic continuity between roots and leaves. A new power law correlation between root diameter and root water potential established a trait-based understanding of root water uptake.
Conclusion
The aggregation of such root water potential measurements using potentiometer would offer strategies to explore the implications of below-ground plant behaviour in applications such as slope stability and irrigation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Water movement in soil-plant-atmospheric continuum (SPAC) is a major component of hydrologic cycle and main driver of water balance in terrestrial ecosystems (Manzoni et al. 2013). The passive movement of water in SPAC influences the behaviour of many biophysical processes including, for instance, ecosystem productivity (i.e., plant photosynthetic activity (Boyer 1970; Jarvis 1976)), climate regulation (Lee et al. 2005; Novick et al. 2022) and microbial metabolism (Ghezzehei et al. 2019). On account of these essential roles, measuring water transport in SPAC has been a subject of active research in hydrology, plant and agricultural sciences, and meteorology (Deng et al. 2017; Norman and Anderson 2005). From the origin of the cohesion-tension theory, in order to quantify the SPAC hydraulic status, the hydraulic resistances that are encountered in individual domains of soil, plant and atmosphere (Sperry et al. 1998; Tyree and Zimmermann 2002) are required to be understood. Among the other constituents, plant resistance is a dominant component of the total hydraulic resistance in SPAC as it poses a complex mechanism for continuous water transport (Hillel and Hatfield 2005; Cornelis et al. 2010). Since stomata in the plant leaves are also tightly coupled with carbon cycle by simultaneous exchange of H2O and CO2 and their responses are relatively less complex to measure, the leaves are regarded as an effective biotic determinant (Díaz 2013) for interpreting plant hydraulic status. Thus, leaf-centric measurements such as changes in gross leaf or canopy area and canopy conductance are often conducted (Zhang et al. 2021; Tuzet et al. 2003; García-Tejera et al. 2017) to gauge the plant hydraulic status. But hidden behind the visible above-ground plant mechanism, plant roots need to respond adaptively to all biotic and abiotic SPAC resistances (Tyree and Ewers 1991; Johnson et al. 2016; Novick et al. 2022).
Given the significance of roots in a plant hydraulic system, their primary mechanism and functioning are encountered during water uptake from soil. Other than the optimisation of water uptake due to fluctuating demand of transpiration (Javaux et al. 2013; Couvreur et al. 2014), roots also play a critical role in self-regulation of plants under stress. For instance, upon drought, roots either regulate the water loss by stomatal closure in leaves (abscisic acid (ABA) signalling; Aroca et al. 2001; Jackson et al. 2003; Mehra et al. 2022) or experience tissue dehydration/embolism which could lead to plant mortality (Dobra et al. 2010; Choat et al. 2012). Therefore, understanding the hydraulics of roots during water uptake, especially amid its regulation to overcome water stress, is crucial to link the hydraulic statuses between plants and SPAC (Tang et al. 2018). A wealth of research, from the early resistance-based analogues (Cowan 1965; Anderson et al. 2003; Fatichi et al. 2016) to excised root measurements (Zarebanadkouki et al. 2016; Tardieu et al. 2017) and recent tomographic imaging methods (Carminati et al. 2009; Zarebanadkouki et al. 2019; Pascut et al. 2021), are hitherto improving the conceptualisation and parametrisation of such root hydraulic responses. All these studies referred root hydraulics to various parameters (Antmann et al. 2022); in particular, water potential (ψ) and hydraulic conductance (k) are predominantly determined to quantify root water uptake and to find key relations with soil and plant functions (Cai et al. 2022). Whilst undeniably both ψ and k are significant, the root water potential (ψR) could be more informative when root hydraulics are measured at the whole root level without explicitly determining the resistance in root geometry (Maurel et al. 2010). Indeed, it is the changes in ψ gradients that drive water flows through SPAC; thus, the information on ψR (i.e., the energy state of water in roots) is imperative to fundamentally link the ψ of soil (ψS) with that of leaves (ψL), both of which are much more convenient and straightforward to measure experimentally. Notwithstanding the necessity for obtaining this relevant information, the measurement on ψR is, however, discrete and not ascertained properly to aggregate with other ψ variables.
Water potential of roots, ψR, historically was interpreted from the Darcy-Richard’s equation (or referred to as microscopic root water uptake models), which has provided a conceptual framework for theoretical understandings of root water uptake. The foundational water uptake model derived by Gardner (1960) provided a mechanistic relationship of ψ between a single rootlet and the neighbouring soil across the soil-root interface. The models followed expanded the Gardner schema to incorporate detailed root geometry and transpiration functions using a water extraction term (or known as sink term; Whisler et al. 1968; Feddes et al. 1974; Herkelrath et al. 1977). Despite facilitating several outputs in the study of root water uptake, the Gardner’s model and their extended versions of root water uptake models have major shortcomings on determining the ψR. First, the governing model predicts the mere matric water potential (ψm) of individual roots which does not comprise the dominant ψR components, i.e., the osmotic water potential (ψo) and the pressure water potential (ψp) (Papendick and Campbell 1981; Tyree and Jarvis 1982). Second, even when ψR was included in the water extraction term of the coupled models, the values inputted are either simulated or alternated with ψL or stem ψ (Passioura 1980; Cai et al. 2022); thus, the water uptake models are yet to be verified with any actual ψR measurement (Zhuang et al. 2014) and to some extent the models could not be validated against the root measurements because the process of water uptake is more than the general assumption of simple linear flow (Dalton et al. 1975; Yu et al. 2007). Similarly, the measurement techniques like pressure chamber (Scholander et al. 1965) and psychrometer (Wullschleger et al. 1988) determined ψ drop between soil and leaf xylem, which were indispensable for understanding the hydraulic vulnerability of plants to several abiotic stresses. However, because methods like pressure chamber only observe the exudation point at the leaves but not in the roots, the value of ψR cannot be obtained. Moreover, even if the techniques are extended to measure the ψR in excised roots (Adeoye and Rawlins 1981; Oosterhuis 1987; Ball & Oosterhuis 2005; Bauerle et al. 2008; Puértolas et al. 2015), it is limited to short temporal scales that do not contribute a relationship with ψS and ψL. Because of the dearth of knowledge on the actual value of ψR, any observations of coordinated responses with soil and leaves are limited. Notwithstanding, previous studies have already demonstrated a nonlinear correlation between ψS and ψR based on the ψR measurements made by different techniques other than direct root fragment investigation (Dodd et al. 2010; Cai et al. 2022). It is important and necessary to fill the data gap to better inform different relevant applications, for examples, failure protection of engineered soil slopes where soil-root reinforcement changes with varying root hydraulic status (Boldrin et al. 2018; Wu et al. 2021) and plant water use strategies and calibrating root water models (Novick et al. 2022). In this study, we test the following hypotheses: (1) ψR obtained from excised root fragments, which is less commonly measured, has correlation with ψS as the soil dried (i.e., increase water stress); and (2) Morphological leaf traits, such as specific leaf area, readily change at varying soil and root water potential. We addressed these hypotheses by testing the model species Chrysopogon zizanoides L. under induced drought and at different growth stages. We specifically chose this plant species for investigation because they have a taproot system, and the roots would typically grow sub-vertically reaching up to 5 m (Hellin and Haigh 2002); this monocotyledon grass root growth pattern makes it ideal to measure ψ gradients at different soil depths and is also favourable for use of slope stabilisation (National research council 1993). We also experimented the soil-plant pots at three different growth periods to test the same hypotheses at different plant ages.
Methods and data processing
Sample preparation and measurement protocol
The accession used in the experiment to test the hydraulic traits is Chrysopogon zizanoides L. (vetiver bunch grass). We grew the grass in 54 cylindrical pots (1 m tall and 0.1 m diameter) filled with clayey sand soil (ASTM D2487-17 n.d.) at 1.4 Mg/m3 dry density. To avoid cluster of roots impeding the ψ measurements, only single grass was fed in each pot. The 54 soil–plant pots were then equally split into three sets and allowed to propagate for three different growth periods of 3-, 4- and 5-months (i.e., 18 pots per 1 growth period; Fig. 1). All the pots were regularly irrigated to the field capacity and sufficient natural light was provided during the entire propagation period. A control pot was also established with same soil and density without any plants. The soil water availability was continuously monitored at three equally distanced elevations in a single pot using moisture content sensors (SM-150 T, Decagon devices) and the raw data was logged continuously for every 5 min.
After the plants were grown to the targeted growth period, irrigation was ceased and drought was imposed to each pot. Plants were then sampled at different time intervals representing soil water status from the field capacity to near wilting point (Fig. 1). Before experimentation, the pots were kept in a constant environmental chamber (24 °C temperature; 50% humidity and 50 \(\mathrm{\mu mol }{{\text{m}}}^{-2}{{\text{s}}}^{-1}\) light intensity) overnight to normalise the transpiration demand (vapour pressure deficit of 1.3 kPa) for all the plant samples, irrespective of the available soil water. During experimentation, firstly, the leaves were pruned from the pots and the corresponding leaf biomass was measured. The leaves were then scanned to obtain the surface leaf area using an image analysis software, Image J (NIH, USA). The scanned leaves were kept in a 55 °C oven until a constant weight was achieved to obtain dry leaf biomass. The specific leaf area (SLA) was then calculated by dividing the measured leaf area and dry leaf biomass. After measuring the leaf traits, the 1 m tall pot was then cut into three sections for root extraction. The roots in each section were segregated and the soil adhered to the root was cleaned. The weight (biomass) of the cleaned root was measured and subsequently placed the roots into a potentiometer (WP4C dew-point potentiometer, Meter group) for the direct measurements of ψR. Thereafter, the root diameter and dry root biomass were determined. The root diameter was obtained by the average values of five root fragments that were used to measure ψR in the potentiometer. In addition to plant traits, soil parameters such as volumetric water content (VWC) and gravimetric water content, bulk and dry density in all three sections of all pots were measured after obtaining the plant hydraulic properties.
Soil water release curve and soil water potential mapping
The VWCs from each section of the 54 pots were related to the electric permittivity measured in the moisture sensors (Fig. 2a). The electric permittivity was plotted against theoretical VWC (= gravimetric water content × dry density) to derive calibration curves specific to pots of different plant growth periods and soil depths (Fig. 2b). A unique calibration curve was not found, and we applied linear regression to best-fit the individual curve (all showing P < 0.05 and R2 > 0.9). The regression equation was then inputted with the electric permittivity to derive a calibrated VWC (Fig. 2c). The calibrated VWC ensured the experimental water content is close to the theoretical estimates.
Soil water release curve (SWRC) of a control soil was obtained by measuring the ψS and the corresponding calibrated VWC. The value of ψS of the control soil was measured from 0 to -0.1 MPa using tensiometer and for ψS lower than -1 MPa, WP4C dew point potentiometer was used. From the measured datasets of ψS and VWC, nonlinear regression was made by the mathematical model proposed by Van Genuchten (1980) to procure a complete SWRC for the control soil (Fig. 3a). This measurement could be, however, uncertain in experimental setups where ψS approached the value of cavitation for the case of tensiometers. Besides, continuous measurements of a wide range of ψS between -0.1 MPa and 1 MPa, which are essential to understand both water release characteristics and plant water relations, could not be accurately obtained using any existing measurement technology. To address this information gap, the ψS was mapped from the water content measured in the pots and the SWRC of the control soil. Given that only a single grass was transplanted in each pot, we assumed the rather small root volume existed in the soil would not affect the SWRC of the soil from the planted pots. Hence, the values of ψS of the planted pots were estimated by mapping the calibrated VWC and SWRC of the control soil (Fig. 3b).
Measurement of root water potential
The values of ψR for all the root samples was measured using the WP4C dew-point potentiometer. Whilst the thermodynamically principled instrument (similar to psychrometric technique) is commonly used to measure ψS above -1 MPa, its characterisation to measure in plant samples are limited mostly because of the difficulties in maintaining the transient water status and inability to subjectively view the xylem exudation or dew-point formation. This was however, overcome after verifying the sensitivity of ψL measurements and its consensus with existing measurement tools like pressure chamber (Martínez et al. 2013). More so, it is also recently mentioned that the potentiometer could be extended beyond its siloed soil discipline application (Novick et al. 2022), which encourages its exploration in measuring ψ among plant samples. For this reason and other advantages such as direct sample feeding, we attempted to measure the ψR using the dew-point potentiometer. The value measured by the potentiometer is a combination of ψm and ψo components in ψR and is accurate after -1 MPa (because of the nearly linear relationship between ψ and relative humidity before 1 MPa), which is usually the magnitude of ψ in plant cells during soil drying (Donovan et al. 2003).
As placing the entire root length into the potentiometer chamber will overload the capacity of the sampling cup and might not consider the root xylem into account, we conducted a trial experiment (1) to find the number of root fragments required to measure ψR from the potentiometer; and (2) to verify whether the transient water status was maintained during the measurement interval. The roots were cut into smaller fragments that could fit into the sampling cup and could excise the xylem vessels along the root length. In the trial, 12 small-scale soil-plant pots of same accession and soil type were prepared and grown for a month. Thereafter, the roots were excavated from the pots at three different soil water statuses at ψS = -0.5, -0.75 and -1 MPa (four replicates per one ψS value). From the first replicate of each soil water status, the excavated roots were cleaned from the adhered soil and three 1 cm fragments were cut. The biomass of these fragments was measured and were placed into the potentiometer chamber for ψR measurement. After the completion of the measurement, the biomass was measured again to calculate any root water loss during testing. The experimental sequence was similarly followed for other pots, except the number of fragments placed inside the chamber was five, seven and 10 from the second, third and fourth replicates, respectively. No significant difference in the value of ψR was observed when the fragment number was more than five, and the water loss during the measurement interval was as low as 5% from its initial weight. This ensured that there is no water loss during the measurement interval inside the potentiometer chamber and only five root fragments were found enough for each measurement of ψR in the experimental pots.
For the measurements made in the experimental pots, each individual root in the soil section were sampled and cut into fragments for ψR measurement (i.e., the roots were not grouped together to avoid the variability). We also followed several precautions prior and during the measurement to maintain the transient water status: (1) as the root samples were excavated from three cut sections of a single pot, the cut sections were immediately wrapped and kept in a dry ice chamber to avoid any moisture loss from the external environment; (2) the potentiometer was calibrated before each ψR measurement using a standard KCl solution (-2.2 MPa at 24 °C); (3) the roots were not excavated from the soil until it was ready to place inside the potentiometer chamber and was handled only using forceps to avoid any natural contact; and (4) the whole root excavation and cutting into small fragments were carried out within 60 s to minimise its exposure to the environment.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analysis was conducted using the SPSS 25.0 statistical software. The correlations were tested using nonlinear regression (except SLA vs ψR: tested using linear regression) and determined the corresponding goodness of fit, R2. The significance of test results were analysed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by a Bonferroni post-hoc analysis for parameters with same sample numbers and Tukey post-hoc analysis for different sample numbers.
Results
Responses of soil and root water potential under drought stress
To demonstrate the feasibility of direct measurements of ψR in a pressure chamber, the ψR response of Chrysopogon zizanoides L. (vetiver grass, the model species in this study) was obtained using a dew point potentiometer (a thermodynamic principled instrument similar to psychrometer; WP4C dew-point potentiometer, Meter devices). An apparent decline in ψR was observed as the available soil water depleted and correspondingly ψS decreased (Fig. 4a). As the plants progressed towards the permanent wilting point (i.e., -1.5 MPa of ψS), the value of ψR approached an asymptote of -4 MPa. Our results acquired ψR measurements in excised roots from field capacity to near wilting moisture status, and marked a nonlinear (logarithmic) ψS–ψR correlations, regardless of the plant growth periods (three to five months). The non-linearity of ψS–ψR response was observed to originate at the ψS ranged between -0.3 and -0.5 MPa. Further adding to the general response in drought, the coordinated ψS – ψR measurements was compared at different soil depths and plant growth periods. The roots in shallower soil depth consistently exhibited less negative ψR than those found in deeper depths, which essentially should drive water along the root system. The ψR variation at these two soil depths, however showed no significant difference from the one-way ANOVA results (p-value > 0.05). The ψR turned nonlinear faster at greater plant growth period (Fig. 4b), causing earlier wilting.
Leaf responses to varying root water potential
The significance of direct measurements of ψR was verified against SLA to substantiate the hydraulic continuum between roots and leaves. SLA showed an apparent decline with ψS (Fig. 5b) and displayed a similarly significant nonlinear (logarithmic) correlation depicted in Fig. 4a. The onset of the nonlinearity of SLA was also observed at the values of ψS ranged between -0.3 and -0.5 MPa, consistent with the range obtained for the onset of the nonlinearity of ψR. This consistency confirms the continuity between the root and leaf hydraulics during soil drying. Besides the general drought response, SLA did not show any significant difference among different plant growth periods (p-value > 0.05). To examine the linkage between root and leaf hydraulics, we observed SLA reducing with reducing ψR, meaning that the dry matter in the leaves was increasing as ψR progressed to drop. The linearity was found between SLA and ψR was well perceived within the 90% confidence interval (p-value < 0.05) from the onset of the nonlinearity of ψR.
Root water potential at varying root diameter
To identify a trait-based relationship with the measured ψR, a correlation between root diameter and ψR was obtained. It should be emphasized again that the trait and hydraulics of the roots were measured individually, and the roots were not grouped together. The root diameter was obtained by the average values of root fragments that were measured for ψR in the potentiometer. The diameter measured in all our pots ranged between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm (Fig. 6a) and showed no significant difference among the plant growth periods (p-value > 0.05). In general, the ψR was observed to be less negative for larger root diameters and more negative for smaller roots (Fig. 6b). Upon fitting, the dataset displayed a negative power correlation.
Discussion
Water potential response interprets soil-root hydraulic pathway
From a physical point of view, our results allow to visualise the gradient between ψS and ψR, which are known to be linear in wet soils and gradually becomes nonlinear as the soil dries (Javaux and Carminati 2021; Koch et al. 2018). Although any complementary results of the direct ψR measurements could not be juxtaposed because of the data limitations, our results may be used to interpret the existing findings of root hydraulic conductance (kroot; determined from the relationship between transpiration and xylem ψL) and ψ at the soil-root interface (ψS-R). Cai et al. (2022) reported that kroot markedly declined with decreasing ψS for six different crop species, attributable to several reasons including the downregulation of aquaporin (Caldeira et al. 2014), ABA signalling (Maurel and Nacry 2020), formation of lacunae in the root cortex (Cuneo et al. 2016) and/or a root shrinkage (Rodriguez-Dominguez and Brodribb 2020). We similarly conceptualise that all or one of these underlying mechanisms could have also resulted in our observed steady decline in ψR. In fact, the drop in ψ was captured in the immediate vicinity of the soil-root interface (Cai et al. 2022), that closely resembles with the drop of ψR in our results. The continuous decline in ψR later approached to an asymptote of -4 MPa after prolonged soil drying (Fig. 4a). This near flattening of ψR responses could be ascertained to the ceasing of transpiration leading to gradual stoppage of root water uptake (Sperry et al. 2002; Garg et al. 2020). While the actual mechanics or physiological changes in roots behind this transpiration limiting root water uptake is still unclear, studies indicate this response might be the influences of structural modification in roots (Drew 1987), root xylem embolism (Steudle 2001) and development of vapour gaps (Faiz and Weatherley 1982).
The nonlinearity of ψS–ψR correlation demonstrates the regulation of water uptake as the plants experienced water stress. The nonlinear correlation of the total ψ difference between soil and roots under the influence of applied root pressure is well known since the theoretical and experimental conclusions drawn from Fiscus (1975). Steudle (2000) furnished the integration of root anatomical views from the observations of kroot that have definitively demonstrated nonlinear flow relations in water transport pathways of apoplast or symplast. More recently, Cai et al. (2022) found similar nonlinear response for their findings of both kroot and ψS-R during soil drying. Apart from the encompassing of transpiration and stomatal regulation in different plant species (Abdalla et al. 2021; Hayat et al. 2020), the investigation conducted by Cai et al. (2022) incorporated the observations from different soil textures to identify the effects of ψS on the nonlinearity in root hydraulics. The study also defined a critical value of ψS that corresponds to the onset of the nonlinearity of kroot, where the soil water fluxes start to limit in the soil-plant continuum and triggers stomatal closure (Carminati and Javaux 2020). On this basis, we integrated the critical ψS concept with our results for the onset of the nonlinearity of ψR and found the value of critical ψS ranged between -0.3 to -0.5 MPa (Fig. 4a). The critical range of ψS observed was found to be similar to the findings of Cai et al. (2022), for the crops that were grown in sandy loam soil (same soil type used in our study) and was consistent with where the values of kroot started to decline.
When interpreting the ψR observations along the root length, the root in deeper soil depths exhibited less negative ψR (Fig. 4a), which is possible because of the differentiation of xylem vessels during the developmental stages of plant growth (Varney and Canny 1993; Bramley et al. 2009). The ψR variation at two different soil depths, however, deemed no significance (p-value > 0.05), indicating a smaller gradient along the root xylem. This observation again concurs with root anatomical findings of applied root pressure and drought induced difference in axial kroot (i.e., water movement in the xylem), where a significantly greater difference was observed only at root tip (apical meristem) and not along the entire root length (Frensch and Steudle 1989; Huang et al. 1995). Steudle and Peterson (1998) inferred this difference in axial kroot by showing the maturity of both late and early metaxylem vessels at root tip and the maturity of only the early metaxylem vessels beneath the root tip. Huang and Nobel (1992) reported similar results for the rootstocks of Agave deserti L., a monocotyledonous plant species resembling the accession experimented in this study. All this anatomical evidence implies that the difference in measured ψR might be because of the xylem vessel maturity at different soil depths, which were possibly close enough to be read from the direct measurements of potentiometer. Whilst this root anatomical changes and its influence in ψR might not be often intrusively determined in transpiring plants, existing high-resolution neutron radiography showed similar observation of non-uniform root water uptake along the root system (Dara et al. 2015; Zarebanadkouki et al. 2016). Having connoted that, it should be emphasised that such uniformity or non-uniformity of water uptake along root length may vary with different plant functional groups (such as dicots) and its root anatomical development (Roumet et al. 2016). We also deem that the insignificant difference in ψR at the two soil depths could be potentially affected by the cease of plant transpiration due to the cut-off of root segments, which is always inevitable for any kind of direct, intrusive ψR measurements. The other observation of faster progression to non-linearity in higher plant growth period signifies the influence of root age in measured ψR (Fig. 4b). This is probably because of the significant increase in leaf area (Fig. 5a) over the plant growth period, which might have demanded more water uptake in the plants grown for 5-months. The results were consistent with the findings of Lopez and Nobel (1991), where the kroot first increased and later decreased with increase in plant age.
Exiting water at leaf concurs with measured root water potential
Water exiting from plant leaves by means of transpiration completes the soil-plant hydraulic continuum, which over the years, has been thoroughly deciphered by the quantitative features of actual transpiration and stomatal conductance (gS). Using these leaf hydraulic parameters, typical responses of plant functioning and regulation to nearly all abiotic stresses can be captured (Negin and Moshelion 2016; Mittler 2006). Indeed, one of these leaf hydraulic parameters would have been suitable if we sourced the continued response of ψ from one single pot, but because our measurements were obtained destructively from different pots and the leaf area in each pot varied (p-value > 0.05; Fig. 5a), the transient response of gs or actual transpiration to drought would be deficient to correlate with the measured ψR. We addressed this methodological gap by measuring SLA to determine the root-leaf hydraulic continuum. SLA is a normalised leaf parameter that is defined by the ratio of surface area of the leaf and its dry mass (expressed in m2 kg−1). SLA has been found to have strong links with several environmental conditions including drought than other leaf traits (Messier et al. 2010). With respect to leaf water relations, low SLA means more dry matter per leaf area and often correlates with low rates of stomatal water loss (Shipley et al. 2005); high SLA, on the other hand, means less dry matter per leaf area and adopts a more “disposable” stomatal water loss strategy (Dwyer et al. 2014).
Notwithstanding its limited interpretation, firstly, SLA displayed the apparent decline with negative ψS (Fig. 5b) and a similar nonlinear (logarithmic) correlation as depicted in ψS–ψR response (Fig. 4a). Secondly, the onset of the nonlinearity of SLA was also observed at the values of ψS ranged between -0.3 and -0.5 MPa, consistent with the onset of the nonlinearity of ψR. As grass species (used in this study) are known for their lack of strong stomatal control (Bollig and Feller 2014), the decline in SLA may represent the phenotypic adjustment to the applied drought (Wellstein et al. 2017). The reasoning, however, cannot be interpreted with gS or other transpiration parameter, existing studies showed strong correlation between the reduced SLA and decline of ψL (Pérez-Ramos et al. 2013) and also demonstrated a enhanced water-use efficiency under the water stress conditions (Ackerly 2004; Wright et al. 2001). Despite well capturing the general response, SLA did not show any significant difference among different plant growth periods (p-value > 0.05). The correlation between measured ψR and SLA (Fig. 5c) explained the hydraulic continuum between roots and leaves by displaying a negative linear relationship. The linearity was especially well perceived within the 90% confidence interval (p-value < 0.05) from the onset of the nonlinearity of ψR. Given that the reduction of SLA likely corresponds to the phenotypic adaptation of the grass species (Bollig and Feller 2014), we conceptually presume that the negative linearity identified could be attributable to stomatal regulation after the plants experienced the water stress. Whilst there is no direct experimental proof to test the hypothesis, the findings of kroot have linked to the control of stomatal closure from the onset of its nonlinearity (Abdalla et al. 2021, 2022). These existing findings support the fact that both the decline and nonlinearity of the measured ψR were linked to the leaf hydraulics from our measurements of SLA.
Root water potential driven by root traits
It is well established that root water uptake varies with factors like root architecture (Doussan et al. 2006; Javaux et al. 2008), root hairs (Carminati et al. 2017; Marin et al. 2021), root types (Ahmed et al. 2016, 2018) and other physical traits, and is usually challenging for both modelling and experimental investigations. Existing experimental studies, however, considered the aforementioned factors collectively as a measure of root hydraulics and partially addressed the complexity of root distribution (Cai et al. 2022). Some existing studies have also qualitatively demonstrated the effects of root length and root distribution on the process of root water uptake by imaging such as radiographs (Zarebanadkouki et al. 2016). However, the influence of root diameter which signifies the capacity of root xylem in radial root water uptake and extent in axial root water uptake (Kirfel et al. 2017) is underreported. In our results, no statistically significant difference was observed between the root diameters of different soil depth and among different growth periods (p-value > 0.05; Fig. 6a). The ψR was observed to be less negative for larger root diameters and more negative for smaller roots (Fig. 6b), displaying a negative power correlation. The observed trend of reduction in ψR for roots with smaller diameter could be because of (1) the shrinkage of roots during soil drying (Rodriguez-Dominguez and Brodribb 2020) (2) the exceedance of the water uptake demand at greater plant growth periods due to increased leaf area (Fig. 5a) and underdeveloped root diameter (Fig. 6a) and (3) thicker roots tend to have more xylem vessels and could be the reason larger root diameters measured less ψR (Aloni and Zimmermann 1983; Tyree et al. 1994). Although the first reason could not be illustrated without the information on root growth development over time, the latter coincides with our observation in Fig. 4a where the nonlinearity of ψR and plant wilting reached earlier at greater plant growth periods. A similar observation was reported in Abdalla et al. (2022), where the nonlinearity of transpiration was found at shorter root systems. Overall, our results from the measured root diameter and its significant correlation with ψR explain the decline in ψR (Fig. 6b) and discover a new experimental information on the correlation between root diameter and root water uptake.
Conclusion
Our study on direct ψR measurement encapsulated the ψ gradient between soil and roots during root water uptake to the significant logarithmic correlation between them under the imposed drought stress. Our subsequent exploration on the correlation of leaf hydraulics using SLA observed mirroring patterns of nonlinearity. The strong association with other existing information on root hydraulics and root traits supports the observations and calls for future studies to address the stumbling block of direct ψR measurement using potentiometer. Given all the positive outcomes, it is also important to specify some of the limitations such as the difficulties of obtaining transpiration parameters and the inability to source wider ranged root diameters and lengths for a complete correlation with exiting water flux and trait-based understanding, respectively.
References
Abdalla M, Carminati A, Cai G, Javaux M, Ahmed MA (2021) Stomatal closure of tomato under drought is driven by an increase in soil–root hydraulic resistance. Plant Cell Environ 44:425–431
Abdalla M, Ahmed MA, Cai G, Wankmüller F, Schwartz N, Litig O, Javaux M, Carminati A (2022) Stomatal closure during water deficit is controlled by below-ground hydraulics. Ann Bot 129:161–170
Ackerly D (2004) Functional strategies of chaparral shrubs in relation to seasonal water deficit and disturbance. Ecol Monogr 74:25–44
Adeoye KB, Rawlins SL (1981) A split-root technique for measuring root water potential. Plant Physiol 68:44–47
Ahmed MA, Zarebanadkouki M, Kaestner A, Carminati A (2016) Measurements of water uptake of maize roots: the key function of lateral roots. Plant Soil 398:59–77
Ahmed MA, Zarebanadkouki M, Meunier F, Javaux M, Kaestner A, Carminati A (2018) Root type matters: measurement of water uptake by seminal, crown, and lateral roots in maize. J Exp Bot 69:1199–1206
Aloni R, Zimmermann MH (1983) The control of vessel size and density along the plant axis: a new hypothesis. Differentiation 24:203–208
Anderson MC, Kustas WP, Norman JM (2003) Upscaling and downscaling—A regional view of the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. Agron J 95:1408–1423
Antmann A, Bennett MJ, Henry A (2022) Root phenotypes for the future. Plant Cell Environ 45:595–601
Aroca R, Tognoni F, Irigoyen JJ, Sánchez-Díaz M, Pardossi A (2001) Different root low temperature response of two maize genotypes differing in chilling sensitivity. Plant Physiol Biochem 39:1067–1073
ASTM D2487-17 (n.d.) Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West Conshohocken
Ball RA, Oosterhuis DM (2005) Measurement of root and leaf osmotic potential using the vapor-pressure osmometer. Environ Exp Bot 53:77–84
Bauerle TL, Richards JH, Smart DR, Eissenstat DM (2008) Importance of internal hydraulic redistribution for prolonging the lifespan of roots in dry soil. Plant Cell Environ 31:177–186
Boldrin D, Leung AK, Bengough AG (2018) Effects of root dehydration on biomechanical properties of woody roots of Ulex europaeus. Plant Soil 431:347–369
Bollig C, Feller U (2014) Impacts of drought stress on water relations and carbon assimilation in grassland species at different altitudes. Agric Ecosys Environ 188:212–220
Boyer JS (1970) Differing sensitivity of photosynthesis to low leaf water potentials in corn and soybean. Plant Physiol 46:236–239
Bramley H, Turner NC, Turner DW, Tyerman SD (2009) Roles of morphology, anatomy, and aquaporins in determining contrasting hydraulic behaviour of roots. Plant Physiol 150:348–364
Cai G, Ahmed MA, Abdalla M, Carminati A (2022) Root hydraulic phenotypes impacting water uptake in drying soils. Plant Cell Environ 45:650–663
Caldeira CF, Jeanguenin L, Chaumont F, Tardieu F (2014) Circadian rhythms of hydraulic conductance and growth are enhanced by drought and improve plant performance. Nat Commun 5:1–9
Carminati A, Javaux M (2020) Soil rather than xylem vulnerability controls stomatal response to drought. Trends Plant Sci 25:868–880
Carminati A, Vetterlein D, Weller U, Vogel HJ, Oswald SE (2009) When roots lose contact. Vadose Zone J 8:805–809
Carminati A, Passioura JB, Zarebanadkouki M, Ahmed MA, Ryan PR, Watt M, Delhaize E (2017) Root hairs enable high transpiration rates in drying soils. New Phytol 216:771–781
Choat B, Jansen S, Brodribb TJ, Cochard H, Delzon S, Bhaskar R, Bucci SJ, Feild TS, Gleason SM, Hacke UG, Jacobsen AL (2012) Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 491:752–755
Cornelis WM, Steppe K, Gabriels D (2010) Soil-plant-atmosphere dynamics. Soils Plant Growth Crop Prod 1:138–157
Couvreur V, Vanderborght J, Draye X, Javaux M (2014) Dynamic aspects of soil water availability for isohydric plants: Focus on root hydraulic resistances. Water Resour Res 50:8891–8906
Cowan IR (1965) Transport of water in the soil-plant-atmosphere system. J Appl Ecol 2(1):221–239
Cuneo IF, Knipfer T, Brodersen CR, McElrone AJ (2016) Mechanical failure of fine root cortical cells initiates plant hydraulic decline during drought. Plant Physiol 172:1669–1678
Dalton FN, Raats PAC, Gardner WR (1975) Simultaneous Uptake of Water and Solutes by Plant Roots 1. Agron J 67:334–339
Dara A, Moradi BA, Vontobel P, Oswald SE (2015) Mapping compensating root water uptake in heterogeneous soil conditions via neutron radiography. Plant Soil 397:273–287
Deng Z, Guan H, Hutson J, Forster MA, Wang Y, Simmons CTA (2017) vegetation-focused soil-plant-atmospheric continuum model to study hydrodynamic soil-plant water relations. Water Resour Res 53:4965–4983
Díaz S (2013) Ecosystem function measurement, terrestrial communities. In: Levin S (ed) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd edn. Elsevier, New Jersey, pp 72–89
Dobra J, Motyka V, Dobrev P, Malbeck J, Prasil IT, Haisel D, Gaudinova A, Havlova M, Gubis J, Vankova R (2010) Comparison of hormonal responses to heat, drought and combined stress in tobacco plants with elevated proline content. J Plant Physiol 167:1360–1370
Dodd IC, Egea G, Watts CW, Whalley WR (2010) Root water potential integrates discrete soil physical properties to influence ABA signalling during partial rootzone drying. J Exp Bot 61(13):3543–3551
Donovan LA, Richards JH, Linton MJ (2003) Magnitude and mechanisms of disequilibrium between predawn plant and soil water potentials. Ecol 84:463–470
Doussan C, Pierret A, Garrigues E (2006) Water uptake by plant roots: II–modelling of water transfer in the soil root-system with explicit account of flow within the root system–comparison with experiments. Plant Soil 283:99–117
Drew MC (1987) Function of root tissues in nutrient and water transport. Root development and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–101
Dwyer JM, Hobbs RJ, Mayfield MM (2014) Specific leaf area responses to environmental gradients through space and time. Ecol 95:399–410
Faiz SMA, Weatherley PE (1982) Root contraction in transpiring plants. New Phytol 92:333–343
Fatichi S, Pappas C, Ivanov VY (2016) Modeling plant–water interactions: an ecohydrological overview from the cell to the global scale. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Water 3:327–368
Feddes RA, Bresler E, Neuman SP (1974) Field test of a modified numerical model for water uptake by root systems. Water Resour Res 10:1199–1206
Fiscus EL (1975) The interaction between osmotic-and pressure-induced water flow in plant roots. Plant Physiol 55:917–922
Frensch J, Steudle E (1989) Axial and radial hydraulic resistance to roots of maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Physiol 91:719–726
García-Tejera O, López-Bernal Á, Testi L, Villalobos FJA (2017) soil-plant-atmosphere continuum (SPAC) model for simulating tree transpiration with a soil multi-compartment solution. Plant Soil 412:215–233
Gardner WR (1960) Dynamic aspects of water availability to plants. Soil Sci 89:63–73
Garg A, Bordoloi S, Ganesan SP, Sekharan S, Sahoo L (2020) A relook into plant wilting: observational evidence based on unsaturated soil–plant-photosynthesis interaction. Sci Rep 10:22064
Ghezzehei TA, Sulman B, Arnold CL, Bogie NA, Berhe AA (2019) On the role of soil water retention characteristic on aerobic microbial respiration. Biogeosciences 16:1187–1209
Hayat F, Ahmed MA, Zarebanadkouki M, Javaux M, Cai G, Carminati A (2020) Transpiration reduction in maize (Zea mays L) in response to soil drying. Front Plant Sci 10:1695
Hellin J, Haigh MJ (2002) Better land husbandry in Honduras: towards the new paradigm in conserving soil, water and productivity. Land Degrad Dev 13:233–250
Herkelrath WN, Miller EE, Gardner WR (1977) Water uptake by plants: II. The root contact model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41:1039–1043
Hillel D, Hatfield JL (2005) Encyclopedia of soils in the environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Huang B, Eissenstat DM, Achor D (1995) Root hydraulic conductivity in relation to its morphological and anatomical characteristics for citrus root stocks. In: Topa MA, Rygiewicz PT, Cumming JR (eds) Dynamics of Physiological Processes in Woody Roots. New York, p 80
Huang B, Nobel PS (1992) Hydraulic conductivity and anatomy for lateral roots of Agave deserti during root growth and drought-induced abscission. J Exp Bot 43:1441–1449
Jackson MB, Saker LR, Crisp CM, Else MA, Janowiak F (2003) Ionic and pH signalling from roots to shoots of flooded tomato plants in relation to stomatal closure. Plant Soil 253:103–113
Jarvis PG (1976) The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 273:593–610
Javaux M, Carminati A (2021) Soil hydraulics affect the degree of isohydricity. Plant Physiol 186:1378–1381
Javaux M, Schröder T, Vanderborght J, Vereecken H (2008) Use of a three-dimensional detailed modeling approach for predicting root water uptake. Vadose Zone J 7:1079–1089
Javaux M, Couvreur V, Vanderborght J, Vereecken H (2013) Root water uptake: From three-dimensional biophysical processes to macroscopic modelling approaches. Vadose Zone J 12(4):1–16
Johnson DM, Wortemann R, McCulloh KA, Jordan-Meille L, Ward E, Warren JM, Palmroth S, Domec JCA (2016) test of the hydraulic vulnerability segmentation hypothesis in angiosperm and conifer tree species. Tree Physiol 36:983–993
Kirfel K, Leuschner C, Hertel D, Schuldt B (2017) Influence of root diameter and soil depth on the xylem anatomy of fine-to medium-sized roots of mature beech trees in the top-and subsoil. Front Plant Sci 8:1194
Koch T, Heck K, Schröder N, Class H, Helmig R (2018) A new simulation framework for soil–root interaction, evaporation, root growth, and solute transport. Vadose Zone J 17:1–21
Lee JE, Oliveira RS, Dawson TE, Fung I (2005) Root functioning modifies seasonal climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:17576–17581
Lopez FB, Nobel PS (1991) Root hydraulic conductivity of two cactus species in relation to root age temperature and soil water status. J Exp Bot 42:143–149
Manzoni S, Vico G, Porporato A, Katul G (2013) Biological constraints on water transport in the soil–plant–atmosphere system. Adv Water Resour 51:292–304
Marin M, Feeney DS, Brown LK, Naveed M, Ruiz S, Koebernick N, Bengough AG, Hallett PD, Roose T, Puértolas J, Dodd IC (2021) Significance of root hairs for plant performance under contrasting field conditions and water deficit. Ann Bot 128:1–16
Martínez EM, Rey BJ, Fandiño M, Cancela JJ (2013) Comparison of two techniques for measuring leaf water potential in Vitis vinifera var Albariño. Ciênc e Tec Vitivinic 28:29–41
Maurel C, Nacry P (2020) Root architecture and hydraulics converge for acclimation to changing water availability. Nat Plants 6:744–749
Maurel C, Simonneau T, Sutka M (2010) The significance of roots as hydraulic rheostats. J Exp Bot 61:3191–3198
Mehra P, Pandey BK, Melebari D, Banda J, Leftley N, Couvreur V, Rowe J, Anfang M, De Gernier H, Morris E, Sturrock CJ (2022) Hydraulic flux–responsive hormone redistribution determines root branching. Science 378:762–768
Messier J, McGill BJ, Lechowicz MJ (2010) How do traits vary across ecological scales? A case for trait-based ecology. Ecol Lett 13:838–848
Mittler R (2006) Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends Plant Sci 11:15–19
National Research Council (1993) Vetiver grass: A thin green line against erosion. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C
Negin B, Moshelion M (2016) The evolution of the role of ABA in the regulation of water-use efficiency: From biochemical mechanisms to stomatal conductance. Plant Sci 251:82–89
Norman JM, Anderson MC (2005) Soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. Elsevier, pp 513–521
Novick KA, Ficklin DL, Baldocchi D, Davis KJ, Ghezzehei TA, Konings AG, MacBean N, Raoult N, Scott RL, Shi Y, Sulman BN (2022) Confronting the water potential information gap. Nat Geosci 15:158–164
Oosterhuis DM (1987) A technique to measure the components of root water potential using screen-caged thermocouple psychrometers. Plant Soil 103:285–288
Papendick RI, Campbell GS (1981) Theory and measurement of water potential. Water Potential Relat Soil Microbiol 9:1–22
Pascut FC, Couvreur V, Dietrich D, Leftley N, Reyt G, Boursiac Y, Calvo-Polanco M, Casimiro I, Maurel C, Salt DE, Draye X (2021) Non-invasive hydrodynamic imaging in plant roots at cellular resolution. Nat Commun 12:1–7
Passioura JB (1980) The transport of water from soil to shoot in wheat seedlings. J Exp Bot 31:333–345
Pérez-Ramos IM, Volaire F, Fattet M, Blanchard A, Roumet C (2013) Tradeoffs between functional strategies for resource-use and drought-survival in Mediterranean rangeland species. Environ Exp Bot 87:126–136
Puértolas J, Conesa MR, Ballester C, Dodd IC (2015) Local root abscisic acid (ABA) accu-mulation depends on the spatial distribution of soil moisture in potato: implications for ABA signalling under heterogeneous soil drying. J Exp Bot 66:2325–2334
Rodriguez-Dominguez CM, Brodribb TJ (2020) Declining root water transport drives stomatal closure in olive under moderate water stress. New Phytol 225:126–134
Roumet C, Birouste M, Picon-Cochard C, Ghestem M, Osman N, Vrignon-Brenas S, Cao KF, Stokes A (2016) Root structure–function relationships in 74 species: evidence of a root economics spectrum related to carbon economy. New Phytol 210:815–826
Scholander PF, Bradstreet ED, Hemmingsen EA, Hammel HT (1965) Sap pressure in vascular plants: negative hydrostatic pressure can be measured in plants. Science 148:339–346
Shipley B, Vile D, Garnier E, Wright IJ, Poorter H (2005) Functional linkages between leaf traits and net photosynthetic rate: reconciling empirical and mechanistic models. Funct Ecol 19:602–615
Sperry JS, Adler FR, Campbell GS, Comstock JP (1998) Limitation of plant water use by rhizosphere and xylem conductance: results from a model. Plant Cell Environ 21:347–359
Sperry JS, Hacke UG, Oren R, Comstock JP (2002) Water deficits and hydraulic limits to leaf water supply. Plant Cell Environ 25:251–263
Steudle E (2000) Water uptake by plant roots: an integration of views. Plant Soil 226:45–56
Steudle E (2001) The cohesion-tension mechanism and the acquisition of water by plant roots. Ann Rev Plant Biol 52:847–875
Steudle E, Peterson CA (1998) How does water get through roots? J Exp Bot 49:775–788
Tang N, Shahzad Z, Lonjon F, Loudet O, Vailleau F, Maurel C (2018) Natural variation at XND1 impacts root hydraulics and trade-off for stress responses in Arabidopsis. Nat Commun 9:1–12
Tardieu F, Draye X, Javaux M (2017) Root water uptake and ideotypes of the root system: Whole-plant controls matter. Vadose Zone J 16:1–10
Tuzet A, Perrier A, Leuning RA (2003) coupled model of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Plant Cell Environ 26:1097–1116
Tyree MT, Ewers FW (1991) The hydraulic architecture of trees and other woody plants. New Phytol 119:345–360
Tyree MT, Jarvis PG (1982) Water in tissues and cells. Physiological plant ecology II. Springer, Berlin, pp 35–77
Tyree MT, Zimmermann M (2002) Xylem structure and the ascent of sap. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 205–214
Tyree MT, Davis SD, Cochard H (1994) Biophysical perspectives of xylem evolution: is there a tradeoff of hydraulic efficiency for vulnerability to dysfunction? IAWA J 15:335–360
Van Genuchten, (1980) A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898
Varney GT, Canny MJ (1993) Rates of water uptake into the mature root system of maize plants. New Phytol 123:775–786
Wellstein C, Poschlod P, Gohlke A, Chelli S, Campetella G, Rosbakh S, Canullo R, Kreyling J, Jentsch A, Beierkuhnlein C (2017) Effects of extreme drought on specific leaf area of grassland species: A meta-analysis of experimental studies in temperate and sub-Mediterranean systems. Glob Change Biol 23:2473–2481
Whisler FD, Klute A, Millington RJ (1968) Analysis of steady-state evapotranspiration from a soil column. Soil Sci Soc Am J 32:167–174
Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M (2001) Strategy shifts in leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content between species of high-and low-rainfall and high-and low-nutrient habitats. Funct Ecol 15:423–434
Wu Z, Leung AK, Boldrin D, Ganesan SP (2021) Variability in root biomechanics of Chrysopogon zizanioides for soil eco-engineering solutions. Sci Total Environ 776:145943
Wullschleger SD, Dixon MA, Oosterhuis DM (1988) Field measurement of leaf water potential with a temperature-corrected in situ thermocouple psychrometer. Plant Cell Environ 11:199–203
Yu GR, Zhuang J, Nakayama K, Jin Y (2007) Root water uptake and profile soil water as affected by vertical root distribution. Plant Ecol 189:15–30
Zarebanadkouki M, Meunier F, Couvreur V, Cesar J, Javaux M, Carminati A (2016) Estimation of the hydraulic conductivities of lupine roots by inverse modelling of high-resolution measurements of root water uptake. Ann Bot 118:853–864
Zarebanadkouki M, Trtik P, Hayat F, Carminati A, Kaestner A (2019) Root water uptake and its pathways across the root: quantification at the cellular scale. Sci Rep 9:1–11
Zhang J, Guan K, Peng B, Pan M, Zhou W, Grant RF, Franz TE, Rudnick DR, Heeren DM, Suyker A, Yang Y, Wu G (2021) Assessing different plant-centric water stress metrics for irrigation efficacy using soil-plant-atmosphere-continuum simulation. Water Resour Res 57. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030211
Zhuang J, Yu GR, Nakayama K (2014) A series RCL circuit theory for analysing non-steady-state water uptake of maize plants. Sci Rep 4:1–7
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the grants provided by the Hong Kong Research Grant Council (GRF/16202720, N_HKUST603/22, CRF/C6006-20G). S. P. G. would like to acknowledge Mr. Shivam Raj Singh for assisting in the preparation of the test setup. The second author (David Boldrin) acknowledge the financial support by the EPSRC project (EP/R005834/1) “Climate Adaptation Control Technologies for Urban Spaces (CACTUS)” and the James Hutton Institute, which receives funding from the Rural & Environment Science & Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (RESAS 22-27: “Achieving Multi-Purpose Nature-Based Solutions (JHI-D2-2)”, “Healthy Soils for a Green Recovery (JHI-D3-1)”).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S. P. Ganesan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – Original draft; D. Boldrin: Supervision, Verification, Writing – Review & Editing; A. K. Leung: Project administration, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
Data availability
The raw data are and analysed versions that support the findings of this study are available from the first and corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
Additional information
As instructed by the Journal, the manuscript has already been internally reviewed by Dr Maria Marin at the University of Aberdeen. Dr. Marin can be contacted by maria.marin@abdn.ac.uk.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Hans Lambers.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ganesan, S.P., Boldrin, D. & Leung, A.K. A closer look at root water potential: experimental evidence based on drought stress of Chrysopogon zizanioides. Plant Soil 499, 569–585 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06481-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06481-5