Abstract
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.