Physiological effects of kaolin applications in well-irrigated and water-stressed walnut and almond trees.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Kaolin applications have been used to mitigate the negative effects of water and heat stress on plant physiology and productivity with variable results, ranging from increased to decreased yields and photosynthetic rates. The mechanisms of action of kaolin applications are not clear: although the increased albedo reduces leaf temperature and the consequent heat stress, it also reduces the light available for photosynthesis, possibly offsetting benefits of lower temperature. The objective of this study was to investigate which of these effects are prevalent and under which conditions. METHODS: A 6% kaolin suspension was applied on well-irrigated and water-stressed walnut (Juglans regia) and almond (Prunus dulcis) trees. Water status (i.e. stem water potential, psi(s)), gas exchange (i.e. light-saturated CO2 assimilation rate, Amax; stomatal conductance, g(s)), leaf temperature (T(l)) and physiological relationships in treated and control trees were then measured and compared. KEY RESULTS: In both species, kaolin did not affect the daily course of psi(s) whereas it reduced Amax by 1-4 micromol CO2 m(-2) s(-1) throughout the day in all combinations of species and irrigation treatments. Kaolin did not reduce g(s) in any situation. Consequently, intercellular CO2 concentration (C(i)) was always greater in treated trees than in controls, suggesting that the reduction of Amax with kaolin was not due to stomatal limitations. Kaolin reduced leaf temperature (T(l)) by about 1-3 degrees C and leaf-to-air vapour pressure difference (VPD(l)) by about 0.1-0.7 kPa. Amax was lower at all values of g(s), T(l) and VPD(l) in kaolin-treated trees. Kaolin affected the photosynthetic response to the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) in almond leaves: kaolin-coated leaves had similar dark respiration rates and light-saturated photosynthesis, but a higher light compensation point and lower apparent quantum yield, while the photosynthetic light-response curve saturated at higher PAR. When these parameters were used to model the photosynthetic response curve to PAR, it was estimated that the kaolin film allowed 63% of the incident PAR to reach the leaf. CONCLUSIONS: The main effect of kaolin application was the reduction, albeit minor, of photosynthesis, which appeared to be related to the shading of the leaves. The reduction in T(l) and VPD(l) with kaolin did not suffice to mitigate the adverse effects of heat and water stress on Amax.

A simple method to estimate photosynthetic radiation use efficiency of canopies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Photosynthetic radiation use efficiency (PhRUE) over the course of a day has been shown to be constant for leaves throughout a general canopy where nitrogen content (and thus photosynthetic properties) of leaves is distributed in relation to the light gradient. It has been suggested that this daily PhRUE can be calculated simply from the photosynthetic properties of a leaf at the top of the canopy and from the PAR incident on the canopy, which can be obtained from weather-station data. The objective of this study was to investigate whether this simple method allows estimation of PhRUE of different crops and with different daily incident PAR, and also during the growing season. METHODS: The PhRUE calculated with this simple method was compared with that calculated with a more detailed model, for different days in May, June and July in California, on almond (Prunus dulcis) and walnut (Juglans regia) trees. Daily net photosynthesis of 50 individual leaves was calculated as the daylight integral of the instantaneous photosynthesis. The latter was estimated for each leaf from its photosynthetic response to PAR and from the PAR incident on the leaf during the day. KEY RESULTS: Daily photosynthesis of individual leaves of both species was linearly related to the daily PAR incident on the leaves (which implies constant PhRUE throughout the canopy), but the slope (i.e. the PhRUE) differed between the species, over the growing season due to changes in photosynthetic properties of the leaves, and with differences in daily incident PAR. When PhRUE was estimated from the photosynthetic light response curve of a leaf at the top of the canopy and from the incident radiation above the canopy, obtained from weather-station data, the values were within 5 % of those calculated with the more detailed model, except in five out of 34 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The simple method of estimating PhRUE is valuable as it simplifies calculation of canopy photosynthesis to a multiplication between the PAR intercepted by the canopy, which can be obtained with remote sensing, and the PhRUE calculated from incident PAR, obtained from standard weather-station data, and from the photosynthetic properties of leaves at the top of the canopy. The latter properties are the sole crop parameters needed. While being simple, this method describes the differences in PhRUE related to crop, season, nutrient status and daily incident PAR.