Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801.
Plant Physiol. 1987 Mar;83(3):592-5. doi: 10.1104/pp.83.3.592.
Turgor measured with a miniature pressure probe was compared to that measured with an isopiestic thermocouple psychrometer in mature regions of soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) stems. The probe measured turgor directly in cells of intact stems whereas the psychrometer measured the water potential and osmotic potential of excised stem segments and turgor was calculated by difference. When care was taken to prevent dehydration when working with the pressure probe, and diffusive resistance and dilution errors with the psychrometer, both methods gave similar values of turgor whether the plants were dehydrating or rehydrating. This finding, together with the previously demonstrated similarity in turgor measured with the isopiestic psychrometer and a pressure chamber, indicates that the pressure probe provides accurate measurements of turgor despite the need to penetrate the cell. On the other hand, it suggests that as long as precautions are taken to obtain accurate values for the water potential and osmotic potential, turgor can be determined by isopiestic psychrometry in tissues not accessible to the pressure probe for physical reasons.
利用微型压力探针测量膨压与利用等压热电偶湿度计在大豆(Glycine max [L.] Merr.)茎成熟部位测量的膨压进行了比较。探针直接在完整茎的细胞中测量膨压,而湿度计则测量切取的茎段的水势和渗透势,通过差值计算膨压。当使用压力探针时注意防止脱水,而使用湿度计时注意扩散阻力和稀释误差时,无论植物是脱水还是复水,两种方法都给出了相似的膨压值。这一发现,以及先前用等压湿度计和压力室测量的膨压相似性表明,尽管需要穿透细胞,但压力探针可以提供准确的膨压测量。另一方面,这表明只要采取预防措施,准确测量水势和渗透势,就可以通过等压湿度计在由于物理原因无法使用压力探针的组织中确定膨压。