<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Agricultural Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2156-8553</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/as.2014.514161</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-52587</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Photosynthetic Water Use Efficiency of Heritage and Modern Potatoes under Limited and Unlimited Water Environments
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>saac</surname><given-names>R. Fandika</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Peter</surname><given-names>D. Kemp</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>James</surname><given-names>P. Millner</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dave</surname><given-names>Horne</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Agricultural Research Services, Kasinthula Agricultural Research Station, 
Chikwawa, Malawi</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>fandikai@yahoo.co.uk(SRF)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>09</day><month>12</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>14</issue><fpage>1501</fpage><lpage>1512</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>4</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2014</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>23</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2014</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>4</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2014</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Photosynthetic capacity for heritage (Taewa) and modern potato cultivars were compared at different water and nitrogenregimes in the glasshouse and field. The glasshouse was 2*2*4 factorial design with two irrigation: 100% ET and 60% ET; two applied N: 50 kg N ha
  <sup>-1</sup> and 200 kg N ha
  <sup>-1</sup>, two Taewa (Moe Moe, Tutaekuri) and two modern potatoes (Moonlight, Agria). The 2009/2010 field experiment was a split-plot, with irrigation and rain-fed regimes as the main treatments: four potatoes above were sub-treatments. The 2010/2011 field experiment was a split-split-plot, with three water regimes as the main treatments: three cultivars (Moe Moe, Tutaekuri, and Agria) were subplots; two N rates were sub-sub-treatments. Gaseous exchange was measured by CIRAS-2 at different days from emergence. Leaf water potential was measured using pressure chamber method. Taewa achieved high photosynthetic WUE in glasshouse and 2010/2011 experiment by maintaining high A
  <sub>n</sub>, low g
  <sub>s</sub> and low Ci compared to modern cultivars (p &lt; 0.0001). 
  The A<sub>n</sub>, g<sub>s</sub> and T increased with irrigation and N increase while decreasing Ci (p &lt; 0.01). Water stress significantly increased VPD resulting in low A<sub>n</sub> and photosynthetic WUE in Moonlight in the glasshouse. The leaf water potential for Taewa was very tolerant while modern potatoes were weakened by water stress. The study indicated that Taewa can be scheduled at partial irrigation without more detrimental effects on photosynthetic capacity while modern potatoes need full irrigation to avoid detrimental effects on photosynthetic capacity.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Taewa</kwd><kwd> Photosynthesis</kwd><kwd> Stomatal Conductance (gs)</kwd><kwd> Transpiration (T)</kwd><kwd> Irrigation</kwd><kwd> Internal Carbon concentration (Ci)</kwd><kwd> Vapour Pressure Deficit (VPD)</kwd><kwd> Leaf Water Potential</kwd><kwd> and Photosynthetic Water Use Efficiency (Photosynthetic WUE)</kwd><kwd> &lt;i&gt;Solanum tuberosum&lt;/i&gt;</kwd><kwd> &lt;i&gt;Solanum andigena&lt;/i&gt;</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Modern crop cultivars are products of human modification on wild or early crop cultivars through breeding, in order to meet man’s interest [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref1">1</xref>] . Issues of high yields and quality have been great motivation in substituting old cultivars with modern cultivars in Solanum tuberosum [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref2">2</xref>] , Brassica napus ssp. Napobrassica [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref3">3</xref>] , wheat [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref4">4</xref>] , and soybeans [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref5">5</xref>] . However, it was argued that crop improvement has failed to increase the basis for assimilation (relative growth rate and relative leaf area) despite increasing harvestable organs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref6">6</xref>] . Old wheat and oat cultivars were reported to have higher leaf area and growth rate than their modern cultivars [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref7">7</xref>] . Consequently, low gaseous exchange is reported in modern cultivars compared to old or wild cultivars for cereal crops [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref6">6</xref>] . It was not known whether the heritage potatoes collectively known as Taewa in New Zealand outweigh modern potatoes in photosynthetic capacity; unravelling of this controversy under different water and nitrogen situation is vital for Taewa growers to easily manage them in the modern production systems.</p><p>Potato gaseous exchange is strongly influenced by water and nitrogen (N) apart from leaf features and other environmental factors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref8">8</xref>] . Nitrogen is very much prioritised for leaf development before enhancing photosynthetic capacity in potato [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref9">9</xref>] . This is why leaf ageing comparably declines assimilation rates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref10">10</xref>] . A decrease in conductance and assimilation in potato because of low internal carbon concentration (Ci) and high photosynthesis/ stomatal conductance (A<sub>n</sub>/g<sub>s</sub>) ratio was also reported under water deficit [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref11">11</xref>] . This contradicted an argument that an increase in Ci simulates the stomata aperture to reduce g<sub>s</sub> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref12">12</xref>] . Controversies still remains in gaseous exchange between heritage potatoes of New Zealand and modern potato cultivars at different water and N levels. Progressions of photosynthetic capacity in modern potatoes from heritage potatoes, Taewa was investigated to enable grower manage inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation for optimum production. The response of Taewa to water and N is important to bridge the yield gap between Taewa and modern potato [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref2">2</xref>] through optimisation of the interaction between cultivars and crop management. This study compared photosynthetic capacity and leaf water potential of Taewa and modern potatoes grown at different water and N regimes under glasshouse and field conditions.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Location and establishment</title><p>Three experiments were carried out as follows: Trial 1: in the glasshouse at the Plant Growth Unit, Massey University, Palmerston North from 23<sup>rd</sup> June to 11<sup>th</sup> November 2009; Trial 2: as from 10<sup>th</sup> November, 2009 to May, 2010; Trial 3: as from 27<sup>th</sup> October 2010 to April 2011. Seed of Taewa, Moe Moe (Solanum tuberosum L.) and Tutaekuri (Solanum andigena Juz. &amp; Buk.) and modern cultivars, Moonlight and Agria (S. tuberosum L.) were planted in 15 l plastic planting bags in a glasshouse whilst in the field, seed tubers were planted in furrows at 30 cm between plants and 75 cm between rows. Soil type was Manawatu sandy loam, a recent alluvial soil. The soil properties were: pH 5.4, Olsen P 36 mg/l, K 0.22 me/100g, and available nitrogen (N) 106 kg∙ha<sup>−1</sup>. Bulk density was 1.35 g∙cm<sup>−3</sup> and volumetric soil water content at field capacity and wilting point were 0.35 and 0.17 m<sup>3</sup>∙m<sup>−3</sup>, respectively.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Treatment and experimental design</title><p>The glasshouse experiment was laid out as a 2 &#215; 2 &#215; 4 factorial experimental design with four replicates (two water regimes &#215; two N fertilizer rates &#215; four potato cultivars. Irrigation treatments in glasshouse were based on reference crop evapotranspiration (ET) and were implemented by applying 60% ET and 100% ET to plants every four days up to day 77 after planting, and subsequently, every two days. Irrigation to replenish the planting bags to field capacity was determined by weighing the B. napus reference bag before and after irrigation to obtain the mean reference crop evapotranspiration within the irrigation interval. The two N application rates were 0.70 g N (50 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup>) and 2.12 g N (200 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup>) as urea.</p><p>The 2009/2010 field experiment was laid out as a split-plot, with rainfall and irrigation regimes as the main treatments, each being randomised and replicated four times. The potato cultivars were sub-treatments. The potatoes received 12N:5.2P:14K:6S + 2Mg + 5Ca, using 500 kg Nitrophoska Blue TE at planting and this was followed by 100 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> of urea, as a side dressing, on 15<sup>th</sup> December 2009. The 2010/2011 field experiment was laid out as a split-split-plot, with rainfall (P<sub>e</sub>), partial irrigation (PI) and full irrigation regimes (FI) as the main treatments, each being randomised and replicated four times. Three potato cultivars were sub-treatments and two Nlevels were sub-sub-treatments. Potato received 12N:5.2P:14K: 6S + 2Mg + 5Ca, using 500 kg∙ha<sup>−1 </sup>Nitrophoska Blue TE at planting. All plots received the same amount of fertiliser at planting and this was followed by 20 and 180 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> of urea (as a side dressing) on 10<sup>th</sup> December 2010.Irrigation was applied with a Trailco boom traveller irrigator and crop water use for irrigated and rain-fed treatments was determined by the soil water balance approach [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref13">13</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Photosynthetic water use efficiency and gaseous exchange measurements</title><p>Photosynthetic water use efficiency (photosynthetic WUE, μmol CO<sub>2</sub>/m mol H<sub>2</sub>O) was determined as the ratio of net photosynthesis to transpiration rate [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref15">15</xref>] . CIRAS-2: A portable photosynthesis system (V2.01) was used to measure leaf stomata conductance (m mol CO<sub>2</sub> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>), net photosynthesis (μmol CO<sub>2</sub> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>), transpiration rate (m mol H<sub>2</sub>O m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>), internal Co<sub>2</sub> concentration (ppm), leaf vapour pressure deficit (mb) and leaf temperature (˚C) between 1000 - 1200 hr, on a new expanded leaves (3<sup>rd</sup> leaf on main axis). Photosynthetic Active Radiation (&#181;mol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) and reference CO<sub>2</sub> (ppm) were respectively maintained at an average of 1400 and 400, during all the CIRAS measurements. Gaseous exchange for glasshouse during 2009/2010 trial was measured four times between day 20 and 90 after plant emergence (DAE). In 2010/2011, gaseous exchange was measured only once after 90 DAE. In 2010/2011, gaseous exchange was measured only once after 90 DAE.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Leaf water potential measurements</title><p>The status of leaf water potential (Ψ<sub>w</sub>) was measured using pressure chamber method (Soil Moisture Equipment Corp., Santa Barbara, CA, USA) in both irrigated and non-irrigated plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref16">16</xref>] . During the first field experiment in 2009/2010, leaf water potential was measured at 2:00 pm, two days after irrigation application. The measurements for second field experiment in 2010/2011 were done in the morning (6:00 - 8:00 am) at the development crop stage. During the first field experiment in 2009/2010, leaf water potential was measured at 2:00 pm, two days after irrigation application whilst in second field experiment in 2010/2011; measurements were done in the morning (6:00 - 8:00 am) at the development crop stage. A leaf to be measured was being cut out using scalpel, each at a time and partly sealed in the pressure chamber. The chamber was pressurised with compressed gas until the distribution of water by the living cell and the xylem appeared on the open end of the xylem conduits [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref16">16</xref>] . The readings were measured on how much pressure was used to release those droplets.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Statistical analyses</title><p>The data on leaf water potential, photosynthetic WUE and gaseous exchange characteristics were analysed by the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of the Statistical Analysis System [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref17">17</xref>] , and differences among treatment means were compared by the Least Significant Difference test (LSD) at 5% probability [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref18">18</xref>] . Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine gaseous exchange relationships with photosynthetic WUE.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Photosynthetic water use efficiency (&#181;mol CO<sub>2</sub>/m mol H<sub>2</sub>O)</title><p>Photosynthetic WUE for the glasshouse was significantly influenced by potato cultivar (p &lt; 0.0001) and DAE (p &lt; 0.01, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Irrigation and N affected photosynthetic WUE, on days 50 to 85 only (p &lt; 0.0001), but there was no interaction (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>(a)). On average, Moe Moe and Tutaekuri had the highest photosynthetic WUE. Mean photosynthetic WUE was lowest on day 50 and highest on day 85, although there was no difference between days 20, 65 and 85 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>(a)).</p><p>In 2009/2010, photosynthetic WUE significantly varied between water regimes (p &lt; 0.0001) and cultivars (p &lt; 0.001) and between measured days (p &lt; 0.0001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). On average, Agria had the highest photosynthetic WUE, similar to Moe Moe. Photosynthetic WUE was significantly high under irrigation. It was lowest at Day 21 and it then increased to Day 48, followed by a decrease (p &lt; 0.0001). Moe Moe had the highest photosynthetic WUE under rain-fed, at Day 48 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>(b)). In 2010/2011, photosynthetic WUE significantly differed between potato cultivars with highest observed Moe Moe as also observed in the glasshouse (p &lt; 0.01). Water and N regimes did not influence photosynthetic WUE in 2010/2011 (p &gt; 0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Photosynthetic WUE and gaseous exchange in four potato cultivars under different irrigation and nitrogen regimes in the glasshouse during Year 2009</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water Regime</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Photosynthetic WUE (&#181;mol/m mol)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Net Photosynthesis (&#181;mol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Stomatal Conductance (mmol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Transpiration (mmol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Internal Carbon (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Vapour Pressure Deficit (bars)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Cultivars (n = 16)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Moonlight</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7<sup> b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >116.3<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.61<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >223.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Agria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.9<sup> b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >142.9<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.81<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >206.7<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Moe Moe</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.6<sup> a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.4<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >122.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.67<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >160.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Tutaekuri</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.4<sup> a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >115.6<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.51<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >188.6<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Significant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Irrigation (n = 32)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >60% ET</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >123.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >170.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.1<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100% ET</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >134.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >153.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.8<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Significant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Nitrogen (32)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >50 kg N ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >118.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >153.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >200 kg N ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >138.9<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >170.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Significant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Days after emergence (n = 64)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.7<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >130.1<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.84<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >144.0<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.08<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >145.1<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.52<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >168.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.15<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >140.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Significant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Interaction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Var.<sup>*</sup>DAE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Var.<sup>*</sup>N<sup>*</sup>IRR</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of irrigation on PWUE (m mol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) of four potato cultivars in the glasshouse (a) and in the field during year 2009/2010 (b). Error bar represents LSD at 5%</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/16-3000783x5.png"/></fig></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Net photosynthesis (&#181;mol CO<sub>2</sub> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</title><p>Net photosynthesis (A<sub>n</sub>) significantly differed between cultivars (p &lt; 0.0001), irrigation (p &lt; 0.0001), N regimes (p &lt; 0.0001) and DAE in the glasshouse, (p &lt; 0.0001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Taewa (particularly Moe Moe) had the highest average A<sub>n</sub> rate throughout the growing period, except for Day 20, when Agria had the highest average A<sub>n</sub>. Net</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Photosynthetic WUE and gaseous exchange in Taewaand modern potato cultivars under irrigation and rain fed regimes in the field during Year 2010</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water Regime</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Photosynthetic WUE (&#181;mol/m mol)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Net Photosynthesis (&#181;mol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Stomatal Conductance (mmol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Transpiration (mmol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Internal Carbon (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Vapour Pressure Deficit (bars)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Cultivars (n = 8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Agria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >620.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >307.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Moonlight</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >663.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >307.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Moe Moe</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >660.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >317.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Tutaekuri</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >658.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >299.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Significant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Water regime (n = 16)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Irrigation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.9<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >687.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >294.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.56</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Rain-fed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >616.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >321.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Significant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Days after emergence (n = 32)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.6<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.2<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >637.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >350.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4<sup>ba</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >753.4<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >286.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.3<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.5<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >584.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >298.2<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.1<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >632.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >297.4<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.9<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Significant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Photosynthetic WUE and gaseous exchange in Taewa and modern potato cultivars under different water and nitrogen regimes in the field during Year 2011</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Treatments</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Photosynthetic WUE (&#181;mol/m mol)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Net Photosynthesis (&#181;mol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Stomatal Conductance (m mol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Transpiration (m mol m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Internal Carbon (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Leaf Temperature (˚C)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Cultivars (n = 24)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Agria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >71.0<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >223.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >28.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Moe Moe</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >113.3<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >158.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >29.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Tutaekuri</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >97.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.6<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >29.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >LSD<sub>0.05</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Water regimes (n = 24)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >FI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >109.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2.9<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >29.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >PI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.9<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >115.4<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >3.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >205.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >29.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Rain-Fed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >57.2<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1.7<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >176.8<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >28.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >LSD<sub>0.05</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Nitrogen (kg∙ha<sup>−1</sup>) (n = 36)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.0<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >72.0<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >185.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >29.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >240</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >3.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.1<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >116.0<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >3.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >179.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >29.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LSD<sub>0.05</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >p &lt; 0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: FI and PI refer to full irrigation and partial irrigation respectively.</p><p>photosynthesis tended to decrease from Days 20 to 85 (p &gt; 0.0001, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(a)). On average, A<sub>n</sub> was highest on Day 20, except in Moe Moe, which was highest on both Day 20 and 50 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(a)). There was an interaction between DAE*cultivars (p &lt; 0.001) and potato cultivar*irrigation*N (p &lt; 0.05) for A<sub>n</sub>. High irrigation and high N increased A<sub>n</sub> in modern cultivars, whilst it decreased it in Taewa, with the largest reduction being in Tutaekuri (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(b)).</p><p>In 2009/2010, A<sub>n</sub> significantly varied between potato cultivars, irrigation and DAE (p &lt; 0.0001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Agria and Moe Moe had the highest A<sub>n</sub> under irrigation and rain-fed conditions, respectively. The average seasonal A<sub>n</sub> for the two cultivars did not vary (p &gt; 0.05). There was a consistent pattern of increasing and then de-</p><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Net photosynthesis (μmol CO<sub>2</sub> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) of four potato cultivars in the glasshouse (a); And in the year 2009/2010 field experiment (b); Error bar represents LSD at 5%; (c) Interaction between irrigation, nitrogen and potato cultivars on A<sub>n</sub> in the glasshouse during Year 2009. The Y-axis is A<sub>n</sub> (μmol CO<sub>2</sub> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>). Error bar represents &#177;SEM</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/16-3000783x6.png"/></fig><p>creasing A<sub>n</sub> from early measurements to later days (p &lt; 0.0001). Netphotosynthesis was greatest on Day 48 in both irrigated and rain-fed potato (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(b)). In the 2010/2011, A<sub>n</sub> was significantly influenced by potato cultivars, irrigation and N regimes (p &lt; 0.05). Increase of irrigation and N, increased photosynthesis, with highest observed in Taewa (especially Moe Moe) and lowest in modern cultivar, Agria (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Stomatal conductance (m mol CO<sub>2</sub> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</title><p>Stomatal conductance (g<sub>s</sub>) for glasshouse, significantly differed with cultivars (p &lt; 0.05), N (p &lt; 0.01) and DAE (p &lt; 0.0001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). The g<sub>s</sub> significantly increased up to Day 65 under both irrigation and Day 50 under rain-fed, and then decreased (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>). Nitrogen enhanced g<sub>s</sub> whilst irrigation influence was observed on Day 50 (p &lt; 0.05). In most cases, the modern cultivar, Agria, had the highest g<sub>s</sub>, whilst the Taewa (particularly Moe Moe), had the lowest g<sub>s</sub>. The g<sub>s</sub> only differed between measured days in the glasshouse and in the 2009/2010 study with the highest g<sub>s</sub> on Day 65 and 48 in Moonlight, respectively (p &lt; 0.01, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Cultivars and irrigation had no significant effect on g<sub>s</sub> in 2009/2010 (p &gt; 0.05). In 2010/2011, g<sub>s</sub> was influenced by potato cultivars, irrigation and N regimes (p &lt; 0.05, p &lt; 0.01). Moe Moe had highest g<sub>s</sub>. The rain-fed treatment had restricted g<sub>s</sub> resulting in low A<sub>n</sub>. Increase in irrigation and N level, increased g<sub>s</sub> and A<sub>n</sub> (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Transpiration rate (m mol H<sub>2</sub>O m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>)</title><p>Transpiration rates (T) were influenced by cultivar (p &lt; 0.05) and DAE in the glasshouse (p &lt; 0.0001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Agria had the greatest T, whilst Tutaekuri had the lowest T. The maximum transpiration, for almost all cultivars, was on Day 50, when irrigation had a significant effect on T and the lowest T was on Day 85 (p &lt; 0.05). The</p><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of water regime on stomatal conductance (m mol CO<sub>2</sub> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) of four potato cultivars during the growth period under glasshouse condition during Year 2009. Error bar represents LSD at 5%</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/16-3000783x7.png"/></fig><p>general trend was that the cultivar with the highest g<sub>s</sub> also had the highest T and lower A<sub>n</sub>. In 2009/2010, T only differed between measured days, with the highest g<sub>s</sub> and lowest T on Day 48 in Moonlight (p &lt; 0.01, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Potato cultivars and irrigation had no significant effect on T (p &gt; 0.05). Transpiration was enhanced by irrigation in 2010/2011 (p &lt; 0.05) while water restriction reduced it (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Internal CO<sub>2</sub> concentration, leaf temperature (˚C) and vapour pressure deficits (mb)</title><p>Moonlight and Agria had the greatest internal carbon concentration (Ci) whilst Taewa had the lowest Ci in the glasshouse (p &lt; 0.0001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Vapour pressure deficit (VPD) was not statistically different between cultivars (p &gt; 0.5), but between water regimes (p &lt; 0.0001). Irrigation significantly reduced leaf VPD and Ci (p &lt; 0.0001), whilst N did not affect both VPD and Ci (p &lt; 0.0001, Tables 1-3). In 2009/2010, Ci was highest on Day 21 and lowest at Day 90 (p &lt; 0.0001) with no statistical differences between irrigation and cultivars (p &gt; 0.05). Irrigation significantly reduced Ci while VPD differed between DAE but not between cultivars, N and irrigation (p &gt; 0.05). In the 2010/2011 trial Ci was also found highest in Agria and partially irrigated treatments (p &lt; 0.01, p &lt; 0.5). The Ci was not statistically different in partially irrigated, rain-fed treatments and between Nitrogen treatments (p &gt; 0.05). Leaf temperature was not affected by irrigation, cultivars and N (p &gt; 0.05, Tables 1-3).</p></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. Photosynthetic WUE and gaseous exchange variables relationship</title><p>The relationship between photosynthetic WUE and other gaseous exchange variables was explored, by using simple correlation. With all the data combined, there was a correlation between photosynthetic WUE and T (r = 0.58, p &lt; 0.0001), g<sub>s</sub> (r = −0.45, p &lt; 0.0001), leaf temperature (r = −0.46, p &lt; 0.0001), A<sub>n</sub> (r = 0.35, p &lt; 0.0001), Ci (r = −0.45, p &lt; 0.0001) and VPD (r = −0.012, p &gt; 0.05). When data were stratified by cultivars, a moderately strong negative (p &lt; 0.0001) correlation was identified with T, LT, g<sub>s</sub> and Ci, in all cultivars. The correlation between Ci and T was very strong in the modern cultivars, compared to Moe Moe. When stratified by irrigation, photosynthetic WUE strongly correlated (p &lt; 0.0001) to T, g<sub>s</sub>, LT, A<sub>n</sub>, Ci; 60 ET% (r = −0.52, r = −0.42, r = −0.35, r = 0.31, r = −0.02) and 100% ET (r = −0.68, −0.58, −0.58, 0.039, −0.66), respectively. Data stratified by N analysis revealed a correlation between photosynthetic WUE and T, g<sub>s</sub>, leaf temperature, A<sub>n</sub>, Ci; low N (p &lt; 0.0001) (r = −0.62, −0.53, −0.48, 0.31, −0.28, 0.05) and high N (p &lt; 0.0001), (r = −0.52, −0.41, −0.41, 0.45, −0.72), respectively. There were no correlations between photosynthetic WUE and leaf VPD.</p></sec><sec id="s3_7"><title>3.7. Leaf water potential (Ψ<sub>w</sub>)</title><p>Leaf water potential (Ψ<sub>w</sub>) was significantly influenced by water regime (p &lt; 0.01) and not by cultivars in the 2009/2010 study (p &gt; 0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). The rain-fed plants had highest leaf water potential compared to irrigated plants. The modern potato, Agria, exhibited the greatest leaf water potential among the potato cultivars though not different from each other (p &gt; 0.05). In 2010/2011, leaf water potential (Ψ<sub>w</sub>) was significantly influenced by water regime (p &lt; 0.0001) and cultivars (p &gt; 0.05). The rain-fed plants had highest leaf water potential compared to fully and partially irrigated plants (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). Similarly, Agria had the largest leaf water potential among the three cultivars and it was significantly different from Tutaekuri but not from Moe Moe. Moe Moe and Tutaekuri were not different in leaf water potential (p &gt; 0.05). Nitrogen levels did not affect the leaf water potential (p &gt; 0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Gaseous exchange is reported to greatly differ with leaf age [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref19">19</xref>] , genotypes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref20">20</xref>] , atmospheric water demand or irrigation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref22">22</xref>] , nitrogen [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref23">23</xref>] and climatic factors in potatoes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref24">24</xref>] . Severe water stress is said to accelerate leaf VPD in plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref26">26</xref>] . The implication of a high VPD gradient results in leaf water deficits declining A<sub>n</sub> and T rate [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref25">25</xref>] . However, the extent of these environmental factors effects on gaseous exchange [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref24">24</xref>] , depends on genotypes and leaf age.</p><p>Photosynthetic WUE and A<sub>n</sub> initially increased before declining with time and crop age, in all cultivars, regardless of irrigation and N treatment. This result has also been reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref10">10</xref>] . Figures for photosynthetic WUE and A<sub>n</sub> were remarkably high, from 20 to 50 DAE. Generally, modern potatoes had high A<sub>n</sub> within the first three weeks from emergence, but Taewa had extended high A<sub>n</sub> up to 65DAE. The tendency for photosynthetic WUE and A<sub>n</sub> decrease was greatest in the modern potatoes (Agria and Moonlight), possibly due to early maturity, compared to Taewa. A high A<sub>n</sub> within 20 DAE as observed in the glasshouse was once reported [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref10">10</xref>] . It was then concluded that this period had raised A<sub>n</sub> due to tuberisation. A rise in A<sub>n</sub> with tuberisation in potato has also been reported [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref27">27</xref>] . In these studies, heritage potatoes, Taewa delayed tuberisation, hence their extended high gaseous exchange.</p><p>The highest photosynthetic WUE and A<sub>n</sub> in the field study was on 48DAE, in both Taewa and modern potatoes. Contrary to the findings on glasshouse by Ghosh [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref10">10</xref>] . The photosynthetic capacity trend in both glasshouse and field experiment still reflected tuberisation and it declined with age [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref22">22</xref>] . This suggests that the period of tuberisation, the likely cause of high A<sub>n</sub> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref27">27</xref>] , is not static at 21 DAE, as observed in the glasshouse, but it ranges from three weeks to seven weeks from plant emergence and is longer in unimproved cultivars. The extension of high gaseous exchange in Taewa proves that growth stages and maturity period for Taewa are different and longer compared to modern potato cultivars.</p><p>Taewa, achieved high photosynthetic WUE in the glasshouse and in 2010/2011 by maintaining high A<sub>n</sub> at low Ci, compared to Agria and Moonlight. Taewa and Moonlight had comparable g<sub>s</sub> and T in the glasshouse. In 2009/2010, Moe Moe and Agria had comparable photosynthetic WUE, A<sub>n</sub> and insignificant g<sub>s</sub>, T, Ci and VPD. However, emphasis on glasshouse and the 2009/2010 field study results found that A<sub>n</sub> and photosynthetic WUE in Agria, steadily reduced when both g<sub>s</sub> and T are very high while the 2010/2011 results suggest that Agria does not steadily increase A<sub>n</sub> even if g<sub>s</sub> and T are low or comparable to Taewa cultivars, Moe Moe. The main driver of these differences was Ci, which was high in the modern potatoes and low in Taewa.</p><p>Photosynthetic WUE is negatively correlated with Ci, particularly in modern cultivars whilst A<sub>n</sub> and g<sub>s</sub> relationship is curvilinear (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). Consequently, Ci increase and too high g<sub>s</sub> in modern potatoes reduced A<sub>n</sub> and photosynthetic WUE. This finding agrees with other studies, which have indicated that increased Ci reduces A<sub>n</sub><sub> </sub>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref12">12</xref>] and A<sub>n</sub> and g<sub>s</sub> relationship is curvilinear [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref28">28</xref>] . For this reason, Taewa differs from modern potatoes in photosynthetic WUE, in the way Ci manipulates stomata apertures. It is very possible that modern potatoes have changed gaseous exchange behaviour through breeding [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref12">12</xref>] , thereby resulting in disparity in photosynthetic WUE with heritage cultivars, Taewa. The heritage cultivars have not undergone several breeding processes to change its gaseous exchange like modern potatoes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref11">11</xref>] . This state may assist Taewa to endure water stress.</p><p>Water deficit increases leaf VPD in potato [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref25">25</xref>] , which consequently reduces g<sub>s</sub> and photosynthetic capacity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref22">22</xref>] . In our studies, the A<sub>n</sub>, g<sub>s</sub> and T increased with irrigation and N, whereas leaf VPD and Ci declined with irrigation and N: Although N had no much significant influence as irrigation. It was also observed that VPD was significantly influenced by water deficit, thus resulting in low A<sub>n</sub> and photosynthetic WUE. This shows that a reduction of irrigation, below optimal levels, affects gaseous exchange in both Taewa and modern potatoes: Although this differs. Nevertheless, Taewa exhibited exceptionally high photosynthetic WUE characteristics under</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of water regimes on leaf water potential (bars) in heritage and modern potato cultivars during Year 2010</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water regime</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Potato cultivars</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Mean (n = 16)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moonlight</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tutaekuri</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moemoe</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Irrigation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rain-fed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.3<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean (n = 8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cultivars</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Water regime</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LSD<sub>0.05</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.114</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: Insignificance is shown by same letters in columns or rows (p &gt; 0.05).</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of water and nitrogen regimes on leaf water potential (bars) in heritage and modern potato cultivars during Year 2011</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water regimes/</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="10"  >Potato cultivars</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="3"  >Mean (n = 24)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Agria</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Moemoe</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Tutaekuri</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen (kg∙ha<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >240</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >240</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >240</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Full irrigation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >6.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >7.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >6.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >7.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >7.2<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Partial irrigation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >10.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >7.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >7.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >7.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >8.2<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rain-fed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >11.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >10.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >10.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >8.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >9.9<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean (n = 24)</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >9.0<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >8.4<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >7.8<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cultivars</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water regimes</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LSD<sub>0.05</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0809</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: Insignificance is shown by same letters in columns or rows (p &gt; 0.05).</p><fig id="fig4"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref></label><caption><title> Relationship between photosynthetic WUE (PWUE) and Ci (a) and between net photosynthesis (A<sub>n</sub>) and g<sub>s</sub>; (b) in potato cultivarsduring Year 2010/2011</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/16-3000783x8.png"/></fig><p>water stress. This ability suggests they are well adapted to low water supply as once reported in old wheat compared to their modern wheat [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref30">30</xref>] and among potato genotypes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref31">31</xref>] .</p><p>There are potato genotypic variation in A<sub>n</sub> under well watered and limited water [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref31">31</xref>] . However, the response to water deficit was primary regulated by stomatal closure followed by mesophyllic activity when water stress was severe, as also observed in this study and in most C<sub>3</sub> plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref32">32</xref>] . The Ci for rain-fed treatment in the 2009/2010 field study increased, thus signifying severe water stress to have fully induced A<sub>n</sub> and photosynthetic WUE reduction in modern potatoes. This is factual, because Ci is greatly affected by mesophyllic activity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref31">31</xref>] and it is inversely related to A<sub>n</sub> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref12">12</xref>] . However, this study results differ from Olensinski study [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref23">23</xref>] , who found that Ci was not affected by water deficit and it also opposes Liu’s findings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref15">15</xref>] that photosynthetic WUE was higher under deficit irrigation than full irrigation.</p><p>Photosynthetic WUE for rain-fed was lower than irrigated crops, possibly because A<sub>n</sub> for rain-fed decreased, while g<sub>s</sub> and T remained in the same range with the irrigated potato in the glasshouse and in the 2009/2010 field experiment, which is contrary to other studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref22">22</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref15">15</xref>] . In 2010/2011, both water and N deficits steadily decreased g<sub>s</sub> as once reported by Schapendonk [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref31">31</xref>] . Consequently, T and A<sub>n</sub> reduced under rain-fed and low N, as reported by Olesinski [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref23">23</xref>] . In contrast to rain-fed, partially irrigated potato achieved the highest Ci, g<sub>s</sub> and T, which consequently increased photosynthetic capacity, whilst reducing photosynthetic WUE due to high T. On the other hand, full irrigation moderately increased T and g<sub>s</sub> with reduced Ci, hence the high photosynthetic WUE and A<sub>n</sub>. This result suggests that high water stress decreased g<sub>s</sub> whilst partial water stress reduced the resistance with great T and Ci fluxes. Full irrigation stabilised g<sub>s</sub>, Ci and T, resulting in high A<sub>n</sub> and photosynthetic WUE. Consequently, photosynthetic WUE was highest with FI and lowest with PI, despite its high A<sub>n</sub>. The high fluxes in Ci and T under PI reduced its photosynthetic WUE. This finding confirms that water and N deficiencies limit photosynthetic capacity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref32">32</xref>] , whereas FI and PI improve photosynthetic capacity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref22">22</xref>] . However, PI failed to use water sparingly on a canopy basis, as reported under a partial root zone drying irrigation strategy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref22">22</xref>] , because of very high T soon after irrigation.</p><p>Water stress increased leaf water potential in both 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 experiments. However, the leaf water potential results for the 2009/2010 study did not demonstrate genotypic variability on leaf water potential possibly due to low drought intensity compared to 2010/2011, when they differed in leaf water potential, as once reported in the Andean region between water regimes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref33">33</xref>] . The 2009/2010 study finding illustrated that potato leaf water potential is not as sensitive as gaseous exchange to water stress and hence it was not a very reliable indicator for cultivar tolerance to water stress, as formerly observed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref23">23</xref>] . Regardless to Olesinskiobersation and 2009/2010 study findings, the 2010/2011 experiment showed that leaf water potential can also be used as an indicator for water stress among potato cultivars and for irrigation guidance. Leaf water potential possibly provided good comparison between Taewa and modern potato cultivars when drought intensity was high in 2010/ 2011 compared to the 2009/2010 growing season. The reason is that a high water vapour gradient results in leaf water deficits declining A<sub>n</sub> and T rate [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref25">25</xref>] because of stomatal closure induced by high leaf water potential approached after maximum leaf transpiration and water deficits [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>Taewa demonstrates high tolerance to drought and low N compared to modern potatoes. An examination of the gaseous exchange behaviour in Taewa, compared to Agria (as presented above) coupled with the leaf water potential results, supports Taewa’s superior photosynthetic capacity under water stress. Furthermore, the leaf water potential for FI and PI is not statistically different in Taewa while different in modern potato, Agria. This indicate that Taewa (specifically Tutaekuri), can be scheduled at PI without more water stress while modern potato, Agria, need FI for same leaf water potential with Taewa at PI. Taewa does not require a high amount of N and water for A<sub>n</sub> maintenance because is not bred for high water and N use efficiency as once reported between wild and modern potatoes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.52587-ref35">35</xref>] . Nevertheless, optimal water is a requirement in Moe Moe and the modern potatoes for maximum gas exchange during the growing season.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>There were significant variations on gaseous exchange and leaf water potential between heritage and modern potatoes under different water and N regimes. It has been proven that photosynthetic WUE and A<sub>n</sub> increased by irrigation and N in all cultivars. Taewa outweighed modern potatoes on photosynthetic capacity and leaf water potential resilience to water stress in glasshouse and during 2010/2011 experiment. The usual drift of seasonal photosynthetic capacity increasing with tuberisation before declining with time was also observed, except that the decline was high in modern potatoes. The fact was that modern potatoes were more controlled by high Ci compared to Taewa under water stress. That resulted on the build-up propositions of great disparity in photosynthetic capacity among these potato cultivars. Nevertheless, Taewa cultivars are exceptionally able to adapt to low water and N supply. An examination of the g<sub>s</sub> and leaf water potential behaviour of Taewa at different soil moisture and N compared to Agria, indicates their competency to decrease T and maintain high photosynthetic capacity under water and N deficit environments. This study indicates that Taewa can be scheduled at PI and N without more water and N stress while modern potatoes need FI and N.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.52587-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Evans, L.T., Ed. (1993) Crop Evolution, Adaptation and Yield. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Harris, G. and Niha, P.P. (1999) Maori Potato. Working Paper. The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gowers, S., Butler, R.C. and Armstrong, S.D. (2006) Yield Comparison of Old and New Cultivars of Swedes (Brassica napus ssp. Napobrassica) in Southland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticulture, 34, 109-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2006.9514394</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddique, K., Tennant, D., Perry, M. and Belford, R. (1990) Water Use and Water Use Efficiency of Old and Modern Wheat Cultivars in a Mediterranean-Type Environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 41, 431-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR9900431</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Frederick, J.R., Woolley, J.T., Hesketh, J.D. and Peters, D.B. (1991) Seed Yield and Agronomic Traits of Old and Modern Soybean Cultivars under Irrigation and Soil Water-Deficit. Field Crops Research, 27, 71-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(91)90023-O</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gifford, R.G. and Evans, L.T. (1981) Photosyntheis, Carbon Partitioning and Yield. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 32, 485-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.32.060181.002413</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddique, K., Tennant, D., Perry, M. and Belford, R. (1990) Water Use and Water Use Efficiency of Old and Modern Wheat Cultivars in a Mediterranean-Type Environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 41, 431-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR9900431</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chapman, H.W. and Loomis, W.E. (1953) Photosynthesis in the Potato under Field Conditions. Plant Physiology, 28, 703-716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.28.4.703</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vos, J. (1997) The Nitrogen Response of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in the Field: Nitrogen Uptake and Yield, Harvest Index and Nitrogen Concentration. Potato Research, 40, 237-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02358249</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghosh, S.C., Asanuma, K., Kusutani, A. and Toyota, M. (2000) Gas Exchange Properties of Potato Plants under Different Nitrogen Regimes. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 3, 1664-1667.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vos, J. and Groenwold, J. (1989) Characteristics of Photosynthesis and Conductance of Potato Canopies and the Effects of Cultivars and Transient Drought. Field Crops Research, 20, 237-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(89)90068-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Morison, J.I.L. (1987) Intercellular CO2 Concentration and Stomatal Response to CO2. In: Zeiger, E., Farquhar, G.D. and Cowan, I.R., Eds., Stomatal Function, Stafford University Press, Stafford, 229-251.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements—FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tanner, C.B. (1981) Transpiration Efficiency of Potato. Agronomy Journal, 73, 59-64.http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1981.00021962007300010014x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liu, F., Shahnazari, A., Andersen, M.N., Jacobsen, S.E. and Jensen, C.R. (2006) Effects of Deficit Irrigation (DI) and Partial Root Drying (PRD) on Gas Exchange, Biomass Partitioning, and Water Use Efficiency in Potato. Scientia Horticulturae, 109, 113-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2006.04.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boyer, J.S. (1995) Measuring the Water Status of Plants and Soils. Academic Press, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">SAS (2008) SAS Procedures Guide—Version 9.2 Edition.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Meier, U. (2006) A Note on the Power of Fisher’s Least Significant Difference Procedure. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 5, 253-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pst.210</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vos, J. and Oyarzún, P.J. (1987) Photosynthesis and Stomatal Conductance of Potato Leaves—Effects of Leaf Age, Irradiance, and Leaf Water Potential. Photosynthesis Research, 11, 253-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00055065</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tekalign, T. and Hammes, P.S. (2005) Growth and Productivity of Potato as Influenced by Cultivar and Reproductive Growth: II. Growth Analysis, Tuber Yield and Quality. Scientia Horticulturae, 105, 29-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2005.01.021</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jefferies, R.A. and Mackerron, D.K.L. (1993) Responses of Potato Genotypes to Drought. II. Leaf Area Index, Growth and Yield. Annals of Applied Biology, 122, 105-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1993.tb04018.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ahmadi, S.H., Andersen, M.N., Plauborg, F., Poulsen, R.T., Jensen, C.R., Sepaskhah, A.R. and Hansen, S. (2010) Effects of Irrigation Strategies and Soils on Field-Grown Potatoes: Gas Exchange and Xylem [ABA]. Agricultural Water Management, 97, 1486-1494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.05.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Olesinski, A.A., Wolf, S., Rudich, J. and Marani, A. (1989) The Effect of Nitrogen Fertilization and Irrigation Frequency on Photosynthesis of Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Annals of Botany, 64, 651-657.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wright, G.C. and Rachaputi, N.C. (2008) Transpiration: Efficiency. J. Encyclopedia of Water Science, 1240-1246.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bunce, J.A. (2003) Effects of Water Vapor Pressure Difference on Leaf Gas Exchange in Potato and Sorghum at Ambient and Elevated Carbon Dioxide under Field Conditions. Field Crops Research, 82, 37-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00004-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bunce, J.A. (2009) Use of the Response of Photosynthesis to Oxygen to Estimate Mesophyll Conductance to Carbon Dioxide in Water-Stressed Soybean Leaves. Plant, Cell &amp; Environment, 32, 875-881. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01966.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Moorby</surname><given-names> J. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1970</year>)<article-title>The Production, Storage, and Transpiration of Carbohydrates in Developing Potato Plants</article-title><source> Annals of Botany</source><volume> 349</volume>,<fpage> 297</fpage>-<lpage>308</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vos, J. and Groenwold, J. (1989b) Genetic Differences in Water-Use Efficiency, Stomatal Conductance and Carbon Isotope Fractionation in Potato. Potato Research, 32, 113-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02358219</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Malti, P.I., Aoki, M. and Ozawa, Y. (2002) Characterisation of Canopy Photosynthesis CO2 Flux and Leaf Stomatal Conductance Responses of Potato Crop to Changing Field Meterorological Conditions in Hokkaido. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 58, 115-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.58.115</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koc, M., Barutcular, C. and Genc, I. (2003) Photosynthesis and Productivity of Old and Modern Durum Wheats in a Mediterranean Environment. Crop Science, 43, 2089-2098. http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.2089</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schapendonk, A., Spitters, C. and Groot, P. (1989) Effects of Water Stress on Photosynthesis and Chlorophyll Fluorescence of Five Potato Cultivars. Potato Research, 32, 17-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02365814</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Flexas, J. and Medrano, H. (2002) Drought-Inhibition of Photosynthesis in C3 Plants: Stomatal and Non-Stomatal Limitations Revisited. Annals of Botany, 89, 183-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf027</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schafleitner, R., Gutierrez, R., Espino, R., Gaudin, A., Pérez, J., Martínez, M. and Bonierbale, M. (2007) Field Screening for Variation of Drought Tolerance in Solanum tuberosum L. by Agronomical, Physiological and Genetic Analysis. Potato Research, 50, 71-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11540-007-9030-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zebarth, B., Tarn, T., de Jong, H. and Murphy, A. (2008) Nitrogen Use Efficiency Characteristics of Andigena and Diploid Potato Selections. American Journal of Potato Research, 85, 210-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12230-008-9014-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.52587-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zebarth, B.J., Tai, G., Tarn, R., de Jong, H. and Milburn, P.H. (2004) Nitrogen Use Efficiency Characteristics of Commercial Potato Cultivars. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 84, 589-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/P03-050</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>