1974Agronomy JournalRequires access

Evaluation of a Thermocouple Hygrometer for Measuring Leaf Water Potential In Situ1

Gaylon S. Campbell, Melvin D. Campbell

Open publisher page 66 citations

Abstract

Abstract Several methods for measuring leaf water potential in situ with thermocouple psychrometers or hygrometers have recently become available. Disadvantages of these methods include difficulty in construction or use, or excessive modification of the leaf environment. Comparisons between in situ and other measurements are generally lacking. We constructed an aluminum hygrometer which is relatively easy to build and use and covers only about 1.5 cm2 of leaf area. This hygrometer was tested in the laboratory and the field and readings were compared with those made with a pressure chamber for several plant species. The leaf hygrometer worked well in both field and laboratory situations. Comparisons between readings with the leaf hygrometer and a pressure chamber gave regression lines with slopes of 1, but the average pressure chamber reading was 0.4 to 1 bar lower than that obtained with the leaf hygrometer. The leaf hygrometer appeared to respond to plant water potential changes in less than 30 minutes. The equivalent error due to temperature gradients within the chamber was found to be less than 0.4 bar. Measurement precision with this technique appears to be about 1 bar or better.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Several methods for measuring leaf water potential in situ with thermocouple psychrometers or hygrometers have recently become available. Disadvantages of these methods include difficulty in construction or use, or excessive modification of the leaf environment. Comparisons between in situ and other measurements are generally lacking. We constructed an aluminum hygrometer which is relatively easy to build and use and covers only about 1.5 cm2 of leaf area. This hygrometer was tested in the laboratory and the field and readings were compared with those made with a pressure chamber for several plant species. The leaf hygrometer worked well in both field and laboratory situations. Comparisons between readings with the leaf hygrometer and a pressure chamber gave regression lines with slopes of 1, but the average pressure chamber reading was 0.4 to 1 bar lower than that obtained with the leaf hygrometer. The leaf hygrometer appeared to respond to plant water potential changes in less than 30 minutes. The equivalent error due to temperature gradients within the chamber was found to be less than 0.4 bar. Measurement precision with this technique appears to be about 1 bar or better.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 66 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract Several methods for measuring leaf water potential in situ with thermocouple psychrometers or hygrometers have recently become available. Disadvantages of these methods include difficulty in construction or use, or excessive modification of the leaf environment. Comparisons between in situ and other measurements are generally lacking. We constructed an aluminum hygrometer which is relatively easy to build and use and covers only about 1.5 cm2 of leaf area. This hygrometer was tested in the laboratory and the field and readings were compared with those made with a pressure chamber for several plant species. The leaf hygrometer worked well in both field and laboratory situations. Comparisons between readings with the leaf hygrometer and a pressure chamber gave regression lines with slopes of 1, but the average pressure chamber reading was 0.4 to 1 bar lower than that obtained with the leaf hygrometer. The leaf hygrometer appeared to respond to plant water potential changes in less than 30 minutes. The equivalent error due to temperature gradients within the chamber was found to be less than 0.4 bar. Measurement precision with this technique appears to be about 1 bar or better.

Key concepts: Hygrometer, Thermocouple, Bar (unit), Environmental science, Remote sensing, Materials science, Humidity, Meteorology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Evaluation of a Thermocouple Hygrometer for Measuring Leaf Water Potential In Situ1 — Research Paper | ScholarLens