Title: Do stomata respond to relative humidity?

Introduction: In recent reports it has been concluded that stomata respond to relative humidity. However, Aphalo and Jarvis (1990) suggest that particular notion was made on the wrong basis. For instance, previous authors were equating correlation with causation. On the other hand, they also suggest two questions that would give a better understanding of the process. (1.) Do stomata respond to both humidity and temperature? (2.) Do the responses of stomata to humidity and temperature interact in such a way that hs (relative humidity at the leaf surface) is a more appropriate variable than Xs (mole fraction of water vapor at the leaf surface) and yields a simpler description of the compound response. The objective of the study was to answer the following questions: (1.) Do stomata respond to humidity and temperature. (2.) Do these responses interact in such a way that relative humidity at the leaf surface is a more appropriate variable than water vapor saturation deficit at the leaf surface and yield simpler description of the compound response? Experiments were carried out to test (1.) whether gs (stomatal conductance)responds linearly to Ds and hs at a fixed temperature, and (b) whether gs changes with T1, and whether hs a more appropriate measure of humidity than Ds. Material and methods: Treatment used Two different sets of plants were used in two replicates of the entire experiment. The plants were grown 12-cm-diameter plastic pots filled with a peat-perlite-vermeculite mix. The plants were transferred to a growth chamber, and then fertilized with slow release granules (N = 14%, P = 6.1%, K = 11.6%, weight for weight and mirconutrients at 2.5g per pot). Afterwards, they were fertilized weekly with liquid fertilizer (N = 14%, P = 1.7%, K = 11.6%, weight for weight, and micronutrients at 0.5 cm3 per pot). Procedures Plant material 1. Coutinho plants (Hedera helix subsp. Canarienis (willd.) were grown in a heated greenhouse from cutting. 2. Set A of the plants were moved from a greenhouse to a growth cabinet at 20 C 10 days before the experiment commenced, with no humidity control, and a photoperiod of 12h at 200mol m-2 s-1 at leaf level from fluorescent tubes. 3. Set B were kept for 2.5 months in a growth chamber at 20 C , humidity at 30-60%, and a photoperiod of 12h at 400 mol m-2 s-1 at leaf level from metal halide lamps.

Gas exchange measurements 1. A computer-controlled, open-path gas exchange system were used which made it possible to control and measure the water vapor and CO2 mole fraction at the leaf surface, and within the leaf.

2. Measurements of gs were taken throughout the day to under constant conditions to know when it was safe to assume that time of day was not a variable to which stomata were responding. 3. Measurements of C were taken steadily after a change in humidity that after a change in temperature. Experiments 1. The response of gs were measured to either hs or Ds at constant T1 of 20 C, either a constant hs of 60% or a constant Ds of 10 mmol mol-1. 2. All the experiments were carried out at a Cs (CO2 molar fraction at the leaf surface) of 350 mol m-2 s-1. 3. In addition, the whole set of experiments were replicated at two quantum flux densities-200 and 340 mol m-2 s-1 on the plants grown under the different conditions. Results/finding and implications: Response of gs to humidity In the Hedera helix subsp. responses of gs to humidity was observed that under constant temperature T1 and I was linear function of Ds and hs . Also, the proportional of the variation in gs that was explained by a linear regression model was 90% or more for individual plants. Response of gs to temperature Reponses to temperature under constant Ds was different to that under constant hs. In plants from set A, Aphalo and Jarvis (1990) conclude that there was no response to TI in the range 15-28 C under constant Ds, however, when hs was kept constant, gs decreased with increasing TI and Ds. On the other hand, in plants from set B, there was a different and significant effect of T1 under both humidity treatments, and the effect of T1was such that gs was higher at lower temperatures. Conclusions: Aphalo and Jarvis (1990) concluded that stomata so respond to humidity, and usually respond to temperature as well. Additionally, they established that these responses do not interact in a way that makes hs a more appropriate way of expressing humidity than xs.