Proceedings: Plant Sciences

, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 167–172 | Cite as

Stomatal response of chlorocholine chloride and indole-3-acetic acid inCommelina communis L.

  • C M Govil


The apertures of stomata on isolated epidermal peels from both the leaf surfaces ofCommelina communis were reduced in response to chlorocholine chloride as the concentrations increased from 0·01–10·0 mol m−3. When chlorocholine chloride was applied in combination with different concentrations of indoleacetic acid, stomatal closure occurred only when a high concentration of chlorocholine chloride was applied with a low concentration of indoleacetic acid, while low concentrations of chlorocholine chloride did not affect the stimulation of aperture caused by indoleacetic acid treatments. Chlorocholine chloride treatments caused depletion of K+ from the guard cells while indoleacetic acid resulted in accumulation of K+.


Stomatal response chlorocholine chloride indoleacetic acid Commelina communis


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blein J P and Scalla R 1983 Action of herbicide lenacil on K+ permeability ofAcer cells: inInternational Symposium_— Membranes and compartmentation in Regulation of Plant Functions Toulouse, France (Abstract)Google Scholar
  2. El Damaty A H, Kuhn A M and Linser M 1964 A Preliminary investigation on increasing salt tolerance of plants by application of (2-chloro-ethyl)-trimethyl ammonium chloride;Agrochemica 8 129–138Google Scholar
  3. Halevy A H and Kessler B 1963 Increased tolerance of bean plants to soil drought by means of growth retarding substances;Nature (London) 197 310–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Larter E N, Sanhh M and Sosulski F W 1965 The morphological and physiological effects ofCcc on barley;Can. J. Plant Sci. 45 419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mansfield T A and Davies W J 1981in the Physiology of Biochemistry of Drought Resistance in Plants (eds L G Paleg and D Aspinall). (San Francisco Academic) 314–346Google Scholar
  6. Pemadasa M A 1979a Movements of abaxial and adaxial stomata;New Phytol. 82 69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pemadasa M A 1979b Stomatal responses to two herbicidal auxins;J. Exp. Bot. 30 267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pemadasa M A 1981 Abaxial and adaxial stomatal behaviour and responses to fusicoccin on isolated epidermis ofCommelina communis;New Phytol. 89 373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Raschke K 1975 Stomatal action;Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 26 309–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Scalla R S and Gauvrit C 1983 Action of Herbicides on Plant Cell Membrane; inInternational Symposium on Membranes and Compartmentation in Regulation of Plant Function. Toulouse, France (Abstract).Google Scholar
  11. Singh T N, Aspinall D and Paleg L G 1973 Stress metabolism IV The influence of proline accumulation of wheat (2-chloroethyl) trimethyl ammonium chloride (Ccc) &Ga 3 on grwoth and plants during water stress;Aust. J. Bot. Sci. 26 77–86Google Scholar
  12. Travis A J and Mansfield T A 1979a Stomatal responses of light and CO2 are dependent on KCl concentration;Plant Cell Environ. 2 319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Travis A T and Mansfield T A 1979a Reversal of CO2 responses of stomata by fusicoccin;New Phytol. 83 607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Willmer C M and Mansfield T A 1970 Further observations on cation stimulated stomatal opening in isolated epidermis;New Phytol. 69 639–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1952

Authors and Affiliations

  • C M Govil
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations