Search for: All records

Abstract Plants differ widely in how soil drying affects stomatal conductance (g_s) and leaf water potential (ψ_leaf), and in the underlying physiological controls. Efforts to breed crops for drought resilience would benefit from a better understanding of these mechanisms and their diversity. We grew 12 diverse genotypes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL.) and four of tepary bean (P. acutifolius;a highly drought resilient species) in the field under irrigation and post‐flowering drought, and quantified responses ofg_sandψ_leaf, and their controls (soil water potential [ψ_soil], evaporative demand [Δw] and plant hydraulic conductance [K]). We hypothesised that (i) common beans would be more “isohydric” (i.e., exhibit strong stomatal closure in drought, minimisingψ_leafdecline) than tepary beans, and that genotypes with largerψ_leafdecline (more “anisohydric”) would exhibit (ii) smaller increases in Δw, due to less suppression of evaporative cooling by stomatal closure and hence less canopy warming, but (iii) largerKdeclines due toψ_leafdecline. Contrary to our hypotheses, we found that half of the common bean genotypes were similarly anisohydric to most tepary beans; canopy temperature was cooler in isohydric genotypes leading to smaller increases in Δwin drought; and that stomatal closure andKdecline were similar in isohydric and anisohydric genotypes.g_sandψ_leafwere virtually insensitive to drought in one tepary genotype (G40068). Our results highlight the potential importance of non‐stomatal mechanisms for leaf cooling, and the variability in drought resilience traits among closely related crop legumes.