Stomatal conductance describes how readily gases pass between the leaf surface and the air spaces inside the leaf. PlantBiophysics calculates conductance to CO₂, Gₛ, in mol CO₂ m⁻² s⁻¹. Stomata also control water loss, which is why this process matters for both photosynthesis and leaf cooling.
| Model | Use it to… | Inputs to supply when run alone |
|---|---|---|
Medlyn | Describe the response to assimilation, CO₂, and air dryness. | A, Cₛ, Dₗ |
Tuzet | Include stomatal closure as leaf water potential decreases. | A, Cₛ, Ψₗ |
ConstantGs | Prescribe a measured conductance or make a controlled comparison. | None |
The examples below run each model alone with prescribed assimilation. In a photosynthesis simulation, Fvcb calculates assimilation and stomatal conductance together, so you do not supply A.
Choose the model parameters, set the weather, and provide the leaf inputs:
using PlantBiophysics, PlantSimEngine, PlantMeteo, Dates
meteo = Atmosphere(
T=20.0, Wind=1.0, P=101.3, Rh=0.65, duration=Hour(1),
)
stomata = Medlyn(g0=0.03, g1=12.0)
scene = CompositeModel(
stomata;
status=Status(A=20.0, Cₛ=400.0, Dₗ=meteo.VPD),
environment=meteo,
)
run!(scene)
leaf = only(model_objects(scene))
leaf.status.GₛThe result is conductance to CO₂. If you need conductance to water vapour in the same molar units, use the conversion function:
(CO₂=leaf.status.Gₛ, H₂O=PlantBiophysics.gsc_to_gsw(leaf.status.Gₛ))Do not directly compare Gₛ to a gas-exchange instrument's conductance without checking which gas and units the instrument reports.
| Parameter | Meaning | Unit |
|---|---|---|
g0 | Intercept of the conductance response | mol CO₂ m⁻² s⁻¹ |
g1 | Sensitivity of conductance to assimilation and vapour pressure difference | kPa¹ᐟ² |
gs_min | Minimum permitted conductance; default 0.001 | mol CO₂ m⁻² s⁻¹ |
g0 and gs_min are separate because a fitted intercept can be negative, while the calculated conductance still needs a lower bound. The example parameter values are illustrative; see Parameter fitting to estimate them from data.
| Input | Meaning | Unit |
|---|---|---|
A | Net CO₂ assimilation | µmol CO₂ m⁻² s⁻¹ |
Cₛ | CO₂ concentration at the leaf surface | µmol mol⁻¹ (ppm) |
Dₗ | Leaf-to-air vapour pressure difference | kPa |
The example uses air VPD for Dₗ, assuming leaf and air temperatures are equal. With an energy-balance model, leaf temperature and Dₗ are calculated together. You can inspect the model's declarations with:
(inputs=inputs(stomata), outputs=outputs(stomata))The Tuzet model uses leaf water potential Ψₗ (MPa) to reduce conductance as the leaf dries. You must provide that potential, either from measurements or from another model; choosing Tuzet does not itself simulate plant hydraulics.
Besides g0, g1, and gs_min, its parameters are:
| Parameter | Meaning | Unit |
|---|---|---|
Ψᵥ | Water-potential parameter setting the location of the closure response | MPa |
sf | Steepness of the response to water potential | MPa⁻¹ |
Γ | CO₂ compensation point used in the conductance response | µmol mol⁻¹ |
g1 is dimensionless in this model; its value is not interchangeable with the Medlyn g1. Supply assimilation and surface CO₂ as before, replacing Dₗ with Ψₗ:
tuzet_scene = CompositeModel(
Tuzet(g0=0.03, g1=12.0, Ψᵥ=-1.5, sf=2.0, Γ=30.0);
status=Status(A=20.0, Cₛ=400.0, Ψₗ=-1.0),
environment=meteo,
)
run!(tuzet_scene)
only(model_objects(tuzet_scene)).status.GₛFor positive assimilation and the same other inputs, a more negative Ψₗ reduces the water-potential response and hence conductance. The Tuzet reference gives the response function.
ConstantGs sets the conductance directly. For example, to use a measured value of 0.1 mol CO₂ m⁻² s⁻¹:
constant_scene = CompositeModel(ConstantGs(Gₛ=0.1); environment=meteo)
run!(constant_scene)
only(model_objects(constant_scene)).status.GₛIts Gₛ parameter is the prescribed conductance; the optional g0 parameter defaults to zero and supports coupling with photosynthesis. The model needs no input variables when run alone. Prescribing measured conductance is useful when evaluating photosynthesis or energy balance independently of a stomatal model, as in the daily evaluation.
Stomatal-conductance models prefer an hourly timestep and accept timesteps from one minute to six hours. See Multi-rate simulation to set the simulation intervals explicitly.
The models follow Medlyn et al. (2011), Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance, and Tuzet, Perrier and Leuning (2003), A coupled model of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration, Plant, Cell & Environment 26(7), 1097–1116.